Evolution Cruncher Chapter 12
Fossils and Strata Part 3
14 - COAL WHY IS IT NOT BEING MADE NOW?—(*#20-21/13 Considering Coal / Making Petroleum and Coal*)A related puzzle is the great amount of petroleum and coal in our world. It is generally acknowledged by experts that petroleum comes from ancient animals, and coal from ancient plants. Rapidly buried plant and animal life at some earlier time in earth’s history produced both petroleum and coal. But neither of them is being formed today. This is a great mystery to the scientists.
Coal forms less than one percent of the sedimentary rock strata, yet it is of special significance to those seeking to understand the geologic record.
The rock strata known as Carboniferous contains the most coal, but it is also found in other strata. Coal results when plant remains are compressed and heated by the weight of overlying sediments. Around the edges of coal seams is frequently seen the identifiable plants it came from. Enormous forests must have been rapidly buried in order to produce coal.
The uniformitarian theory (called the autochthonous theory), held by evolutionists, teaches that coal has been regularly made for millions of years (even though it is admitted that it is not being made now). According to this theory, peat bogs were the source of the immense coal beds we now have. It is said that plants which compose the coal accumulated in large freshwater swamps or peat bogs during many thousands of years.
But this theory does not square with the facts: (1) Much of the coal is obviously from types of plants and trees (such as the pine) which do not grow in swampy areas. (2) No coal is being made today in swamps. (3) No locality is known, anywhere in the world, where the bottoms of peat beds are forming typical coal beds. (4) Some coal seams are up to 30 or 40 feet [91-122 dm] in thickness, representing 300 to 400 feet [122 m] of plant remains for one seam, therefore some astounding conditions were required to produce all that coal!
"Though a peat-bog may serve to demonstrate how vegetal matter accumulates in considerable quantities, it is in no way comparable in extent to the great bodies of vegetation which must have given rise to our important coal seams . . No single bog or marsh [today] would supply sufficient peat to make a large coal seam."—*E.S. Moore, Coal: Its Properties, Analysis, Classification, Geology, Extraction, Uses and Distribution (1940), p. 146.
The second theory is called the allochthonous theory, and suggests that coal strata accumulated from plants which had been rapidly transported and laid down during a massive flood that inundated entire continents and suddenly stripped them of their trees.
Here is some evidence favoring this second view: (1) The immense quantity of vegetation that was buried to produce this coal. (2) The way that vegetation was so suddenly laid down and buried. (3) The fact that marine fossils such as fish, mollusks, and brachiopods are commonly found in coal.
"The small marine tubeworm Spirobis is commonly attached to plants in Carboniferous coals of Europe and North America. Since there is little anatomical evidence suggesting that coal plants were adapted to marine swamps, the occurrence of marine animals with nonmarine plants suggests mixing during transport, thus favoring the allochthonous model."—Stuart E. Nevins, "The Origin of Coal," in Up With Creation (1978), p. 241.
One doctoral thesis detailed how coal could have been rapidly formed as, under conditions imposed by a worldwide flood, floating mats of trees and vegetation sank, producing our present coal beds (S.A. Austin, "Depositional Environment of the Kentucky No. 12 Coal Bed, et. al.," Geology Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1979).
(4) Upright tree trunks (polystrate trees), 10 to 30 feet [30.5-91.4 dm] or more in height, are often found in the strata associated with coal, or in the coal itself. The sediments forming the coal had to form rapidly in order to solidify before the tree trunks could rot and fall over.
"Figure 24 shows a tree that was buried to a depth of 4.6 m [15 ft]. Because the tree is in growth position and shows no root regeneration, it probably was buried very quickly, cetainly before it could decay."—*R.C. Milici, et. al, "The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian [Carboniferous] Systems in the United States: Tennessee," United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 111O-G32-4.
(5) Sometimes these upright trees are upside down, and sometimes so much vegetation was poured in by the flood waters, that tree trunks will be found interspersed at different levels in relation to one another. (Just after the big volcanic explosion of Mount St. Helens occurred in May 1980, analysis of nearby Spirit Lake revealed large amounts of vegetation with many vertical floating trees among them. The weight of their roots and girth of their lower trunks caused some of them to float in a vertical or near-vertical position. Yet, even then, conditions in Spirit Lake still did not match those of the worldwide Flood, for rapid burial did not take place—so fossils and coal were not formed.)
(6) The hollow trunks of trees in coal seams will be filled with material not native to the coal—showing that the trees or the coal were carried there from somewhere else.
(7) Stigmaria is the name given to the roots of these trees. Studies by *Rupke in 1969 revealed that these tree roots were carried in from elsewhere (* N.A. Rupke, "Sedimentary Evidence for the Allochthonous Origin of Stigmaria," in Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 80, 1969, pp. 2109-2114.)
(8) Coal is found in layers, called cyclothem. Between each layer of coal will be some washed-in material: sandstone, shale, limestone, clay, etc.
Each of these layers of coal may be thin,—but it can be amazingly wide in area. Modern stratigraphic research has shown that just one of these coal seams reaches from Oklahoma, Missouri, and Iowa, eastward through Indiana to Ohio to Pennsylvania, and southward through Kentucky. This one coal seam alone comprises 100,000 square miles [258,990 km2] in central and eastern United States. There are no modern conditions that could duplicate such coal production, yet evolutionary geologists routinely tell us that "the present is the key to the past"; i.e., the way things are happening now is the way they happened in past ages.(9) Under and over the coal seams is frequently found underclays which are not natural soil for swamps or forests. In addition, there is an absence of the necessary soil for the luxuriant vegetation which turned to coal. It is clear that the clay was washed in, then the vegetation, and then more clay.
(10) Large rocks, not native to the area, have frequently been found in coal beds all over the world for over a hundred years. Their average weight is 12 pounds [5 kg], with the largest 161 pounds [73 kg]. (See *P.H. Price, "Erratic Boulders in Sewell Coal of West Virginia," in Journal of Geology, Vol. 40, 1932, pp. 62-73.)
(11) Lastly, analysis of the structure of coal itself reveals particle orientation, sorted texture, and microlamination,—all of which indicate transportation to the site rather than growth-in-place.
Coal and petroleum are only found in sedimentary strata. Fossils are only found in sedimentary strata. All the evidence for a careful study of coal points to a worldwide Flood as the event that laid down those strata!
(12) Both petroleum and coal can be made in a comparatively short period of time. Research scientists find that it is not difficult to make, and could be made by nature just as quickly. The key is immense pressure.
15 - PROBLEMS WITH THE PHYSICAL STRATA The sedimentary rock strata are frequently not arranged as they ought to be—if they had been quietly laid down over millions of years.Five primary problems are (1) fossils in wrong places, (2) missing strata, (3) geosynclines, (4) megabreccias, and (5) over-thrusts. We will discuss all five in this concluding section.
ONGOING STRATA CONTROVERSIES—The strata charts in the textbooks and popular magazines look so very complete and organized. Yet, in truth, it is not so. The problems are so serious that running controversies were carried on for years between feuding strata experts. Because the evidence was so confused, no one knew who was right. Finally, they arbitrarily settled on patterns which are on the strata charts as we see them today. For example, there is the Sedgwick-Murchison-la Beche controversy, which was fought over the Cambrian, Silurian and Devonian strata systems:"Sedgwick was the first to describe the fossils of the lower Graywacke Strata, which he named the Cambrian system, after an ancient name for Wales. Eventually their studies led them to different levels of the Graywacke, where the mercurial and territorial Murchison claimed much of Sedgwick’s domain for his newly founded Silurian system.
"Inevitably, almost all of the members of the Geological Society were drawn into the fray, and, when another geologist of the time, Sir Henry Thomas de la Boche, claimed part of the Graywacke for his Devonian period, the battle lines were drawn. For nearly a decade the Great Devonian Controversy, as it was called, raged on in the scientific journals. The political maneuvering behind the scenes was almost as convoluted as the Graywacke itself."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 401.
Elsewhere, *Milner explains how Murchison solved the controversy.
"The men were completely unable to agree on where the natural boundaries occurred. Murchison, however, found a way to resolve the dispute. He got himself appointed director of the National Geological Survey and simply ordered that the name "Cambrian" be deleted from all government books and geological maps."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69.
Later, after both men were dead, part of Murchison’s Silurian was renamed "Cambrian."
MIXED-UP FOSSILS—(*#14/27*) Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. In reality, fossils are frequently found in the wrong place,—especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.There are three ways that the experts deal with to this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When large numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. (3) When they are found above their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into a higher strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell through up solid rock into higher levels.
REWORKING AND DOWNWASH—As noted in the above paragraph, "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils which, by their location, disprove the theory. ("Overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.)"Fossils frequently occur where they are not ‘supposed’ to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked.
"In ‘reworking,’ it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age.
"The reciprocal situation is ‘downwash,’ where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized."—John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.
POLLEN AND SPORES IN THE CAMBRIAN—(*#15/4*) A related problem concerns the fact that pollen from flowering plants has been found in Cambrian and even on top of Precambrian rock! This, of course, is in total disagreement with evolutionary theory, which maintains that flowering plants did not exist until many millions of years later. This would mean that the "Cambrian explosion" included flowering plants!
(For a listing of over 200 out-of-place fossils, see John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, pp. 210-214.)
SKIPPING—(*#16/7 Problems with Skipping*) Still another problem in the fossil record has been given the name "skipping". A species will be in a stratum, and totally disappear from the next stratum or two above that, and then reappear again. As mentioned earlier, in some cases a species disappears, never again to be seen until our own time when—there it is—alive and well on planet earth!
MIXED-UP STRATA—(*#19/34 Mixed Strata and Overthrusts*) The problems with the "geologic column" of strata and fossils keep getting worse! We have been discussing problems with the fossils,—but now we will turn our attention to the strata itself, and we learn that the situation becomes totally unmanageable! Evolutionary theory falls helpless in the process of trying to reconcile these insoluble hurdles to its success.
MISSING STRATA—Surprising as it may seem, the only evidence for the geologic succession of life is found in the strata charts of the geologists and in their imagination.
Nowhere in geological formations can we find
(1) all the strata in order, (2) all the strata—even out of order, (3) most of the strata, in order or out of it. Instead we only find little bits here and there, and frequently they are mixed up (out of their theoretical sequence).Never are all the strata in the theoretical "geologic column" to be found in one complete sandwich—anywhere in the world!
Most of the time only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found. Even that classic example of rock strata, Grand Canyon, only has about half of them. But the missing strata should be there!How can strata be missing? Yet this is the way it is everywhere on earth. In the Southwest United States, in order to find Paleozoic strata, we would need to go to the Grand Canyon. To find Mesozoic requires a trip to eastern Arizona. To find Tertiary, off we would have to go to New Mexico. Nowhere—anywhere—is the entire geologic column of the evolutionists to be found, for it is an imaginary column.
"Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called ‘geologic column.’ In fact, at most places on the continents, over half the ‘geologic periods’ are missing! Only 15-20 percent of the earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even within the Grand Canyon, over 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 15.
"Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten [strata] systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth’s surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata system missing beneath; 94% of the earth’s surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland) . . The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!"—S.A. Austin, Impact 137, November 1984, p. 2 [emphasis his].
The next few quotations contain startling admissions. We do well to carefully consider what they tell us:
"If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles [161 km] high . . It is of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this at any one place."—*O. Von Englen and *K. Caster, Geology (1952), pp. 417-418.
"Whatever his method of approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts: There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present . . To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record.
"If the complete story of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of thirty volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattered bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words or letters."—*H. Brown, *V. Monnett, and *J. Stovall, Introduction to Geology (1958), p. 11.
"We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place."—*Derek V. Ager, Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1981), p. 32.
Evolutionists explain that the proper word for them are "unconformities"; it would not do for scientists to use the phrase "missing strata,"—for if they are missing, then where did they go? Did billions of years of life on earth suddenly vanish?
"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on."—*Wílliam R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (1980), p. 219.
How can it be that the geologic column is so incomplete, when evolutionary theory teaches that it was quietly, slowly laid down uniformly over millions of years? The truth is that the rock strata point us back to a terrible worldwide catastrophe—a Flood,—not to millions of years of gradual soil deposits from dead plants and windblown soil.
THE GRAND CANYON—A visitor to the Grand Canyon gazes down upon a major fissure in the earth’s surface that is a mile [1.609 km] deep. The Colorado River winds its way for 200 miles [231.8 km] at the bottom of this canyon. By the time the visitor departs, his head spins with U.S. Park Service lectures, diagrams, and films about names such as Kaibab, Toroweap, Devonian, Permian, and Cambrian, and numbers ranging through millions of years.But what the tourists are not told is that the Grand Canyon—which has more strata than most areas—only has FIVE of the TWELVE major strata systems (the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh, with small portions here and there of the fourth). Totally missing are the second, third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth!
Listed below are the 12 major strata systems—from top to bottom—as they are given in the schoolbook charts of the so-called "geologic column." Those strata which are found in the Grand Canyon are shown in larger type. The Devonian, which is only found in part here and there in Grand Canyon strata, is in smaller italic:
12 — QUATERNARY11 — TERTIARY
10 — CRETACEOUS
9 — JURASSIC
8 — TRISSSIC
7 — PERMIAN 6 — PENNSYLVANIAN 5 — MISSISSIPPIAN 4 — DEVONIAN 3 — SILURIAN2 — ORDOVICIAN
1 — CAMBRIAN The Grand Canyon was formed rapidly:"The plain fact of the great number of para-conformities found in the Canyon is strong evidence in favor of short-term deposition. If many millions of years separated these various strata, how do evolutionists explain the anomaly of a river [the Colorado] taking ‘only a few million’ years to cut through some 8,000 feet [2,438 m] of sediments which supposedly took up to 500 million years to be laid down, when those same strata exhibit no sign of erosion themselves.
"The obvious and simplest explanation is that these sediments were laid down in too brief a time span to allow erosion, and then scoured out by a large body of moving water much bigger than the present-day Colorado, and not very long ago."—A.W. Mehlert, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1987, p. 28.
All in all, the Grand Canyon is an outstanding evidence of the Genesis Flood.
"One of the most spectacular evidences of what a year-long, worldwide Flood would accomplish may be seen in Grand Canyon of Arizona. This gigantic formation is in some places more than 5,000 feet [1,524 m] deep, 25,000 feet [7,620 m] across, and extends for more than 100 miles [160.9 km] to the east and west."—John C. Whitcomb, World that Perished (1988), pp. 74-75.
The Colorado River lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, yet it is a typical winding river—the type found in fairly flat terrain. Winding rivers do not cut deeply! It is the straighter, steeper rivers with swiftly rushing water, which deeply erode soil and hurl loose rocks along its side downstream.
The Colorado is a serpentine river in flatter country. It could not possibly have carved out the Grand Canyon, unless: (1) a colossal amount of water was flowing; (2) the sediments comprising the canyon walls through which it was cutting were soft; that is, they had only recently been laid down by flood waters and had not yet solidified into solid rock, and (3) a rather sudden event caused that flowage of water!
These are exactly the conditions which the Flood would have provided. The Colorado River drained an immense area in Utah and eastern Nevada. A lake covered that entire area, and an uplift caused the water to rather suddenly drain out. See chapter 14, Effects of the Flood, for more on events during and just after the Flood.
Shortly after the Flood, while volcanism was at its height and the strata was still soft, the ground heaved upward over a vast area, which emptied Lake Bonneville. That flowing water drained toward the southwest, forming Grand Canyon. Great Salt Lake is all that remains of the ancient lake. If you ever visit the area, you will see the former shoreline of the lake, high on the surrounding mountains.
Notice that the Colorado did little in the way of hurling rocks downstream. This is because the Grand Canyon had not yet hardened into rock when it was cut through. If the Colorado had carved the Grand Canyon out of solid rock, we would find huge tumbled boulders in and alongside of the stream bed. But such is not seen. In contrast, later glacial action, after the rocks had hardened, did move large boulders in other areas; for example, they are to be seen in the Merced River below Yosemite.
STRATA GAPS—We are learning that there are not only fossil gaps, there are strata gaps as well! We are learning that there are not only fossil gaps, there are strata gaps as well! Together, they spell the doom of the evolutionary theory, as it is applied to sedimentary strata and the fossil evidence.The earth is supposed to have gradually been covered by one after another of the 12 major strata systems, listed above, over a period of millions of years. If that is true, why are a majority of those 12 strata systems missing from any given locality in the world? Why then are less than half present in that great classic of them all: the Grand Canyon? Why then are less than half present in that great classic of them all: the Grand Canyon? Why then are less than half present in that great classic of them all: the Grand Canyon?
If the sedimentary rock strata was slowly formed over millions of years in a uniformitarian manner, then all the strata should be found throughout the world. Keep in mind that evolution teaches that "each strata represents the accumulated sediment from a span of millions of years at a certain earlier epoch in earth’s history." If this theory were true, then ALL the strata would have to be found evenly, everywhere on the globe.
Here is a statement in scientific jargon:
"Many unconformity bounded units are considered to be chronostratigraphic units in spite of the fact that unconformity surfaces inevitably cut across isochronous horizons and hence cannot be true chronostratigraphic boundaries."—*C. Hong Chang, "Unconformity-Bounded Stratigraphic Units," in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, November 1975, p. 1544.
Here, in everyday English, is the meaning of that statement: Many of the tilted, folded, and mixed-up fossil strata are theoretically supposed to measure long ages of time, but in reality there is such confusion that it is impossible for such strata to measure anything!
THE EVIDENCE IN THE ROCKS—If it was the Genesis Flood which suddenly formed the rock strata, then we would expect to find the strata just as it now isIf it was the Genesis Flood which suddenly formed the rock strata, then we would expect to find the strata just as it now is.This is what we would expect to find:
(1)
Pockets of inundated, covered animals here, and others there. (2) Mixed-up and missing strata everywhere we look. (3) Geosynclines (twisted and folded strata) frequently found. (4) Megabreccias (giant boulders) as a regular occurrence in the strata. (5) Upside-down strata. (6) Overthrusts, in which "more recent" strata lie buried deep beneath "older" strata. (7) Vertical tree trunks (polystrate trees) in place, from bottom to top spanning through various "ages" of strata. (8) The slowest marine creatures in the lowest strata, slowest land animals higher up. (9) Birds less frequently found since they could fly to the higher points. (10) Apes very difficult to find, and man almost impossible to find—since both would know how to reach the highest points and cling there. Their bodies would then float and decay without being covered by sediment. (11) Complex life-forms would be found in rich profusion at the very bottom of the fossil-bearing rock strata (the Cambrian "explosion"), with next to nothing beneath it. (12) And, amid all the fossil strata,—only the same separate, distinct species we now see on earth and in the sea, plus some which have become extinct—with no transitional forms to be found anywhere in the rock strata. GEOSYNCLINES—In many places, layers of sedimentary rocks have been buckled into folds. Some of these folded rock strata are small, others are massive and cover miles in area (folded mountains). In some places the strata angles itself downward into the earth, or upward, breaking off as the sharp edge of high mountains (fault block mountains)."It is cause for some wonder that strong brittle rocks can be bent into sharp fo1ds."—*C.R. Longwell, *A. Kropf, and *R.F. Flint, Outlines of Physical Geology
(1950), 2nd ed., p. 246.THE MATTERHORN—The evolutionists tell us this mountain climbed 30 to 60 miles over other mountains, to its present location (see p. 510).
GEOSYNCLINES—Here is a description of the different types and parts of folded mountains (p. 499).
Matterhorn and Folded Mountains
The general name for all of this is geosynclines. In an anticline, the bent, outside layers of rock are in tension but are generally unfractured and in many places not even cracked. Two facts are obvious: (1) Immense forces caused this buckling! (2) The buckling occurred while the rock was still fairly soft.
(What actually happened was that still-soft layers, laid down by the Flood, were then bent by convulsive movements of the earth. Afterward, in their twisted shape, they dried into hard rock.)
"The rocks were bent in the early stages when the sediments were pliable and before metamorphosis took place. This would easily satisfy all the facts, but would require the process to have taken place over a short period of time, say a few months; but, of course, it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that a major catastrophe was involved."—Ian Taylor, in the Minds of Men (1987), p. 105.
MEGABRECCIAS—These are gigantic boulders, which were moved into place by the waters of an immense flood. On all sides will be found rock strata, with some of these boulders impacted into its midstThese are gigantic boulders, which were moved into place by the waters of an immense flood. On all sides will be found rock strata, with some of these boulders impacted into its midst.
A rock equivalent to one cubic meter may weigh three metric tons [6,614 lb], and most megabreccia clasts are larger than this. Yet such gigantic boulders were obviously transported to their present site in the rock strata.
In Peru, blocks weighing up to 5,000 metric tons [11 million lbs] occur in Eocene strata far from the place where they originated. Each boulder is 10-15 meters [32.8-49.2 ft] across. In Texas, rock slabs 30 meters [98.4 ft] in diameter are found in Paleozoic mudstones. No rocks of similar composition are to be found nearby. Other examples could be given.
The strata are caving in on evolutionary theory. But, as they say in the vernacular: "You haven’t seen anything yet!"—Now look at overthrusts!
Overthrusts constitute part of the problem of physical strata, yet it is such a major issue that it deserves a section all to itself. When we consider the implications of this astonishing obstacle to evolutionary theory, we wonder why anyone can claim that rock strata can be dating tools, and that each stratum is millions of years "younger" or "older" than another one.
OVERTHRUSTS—(*#19/34 Mixed-up Strata and Overthrusts*) This is the most shocking of the evidences disproving one of the most basic of evolutionary theories, the strata theory.William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839), of England, was one of the very first people in the world to begin analyzing sedimentary rock strata. He was also one of the first to assume that most basic of evolutionary strata theories: "the older strata must be under the younger strata." He called that theory the "doctrine of superposition."
Evolution teaches that some plants and animals are long ages "older" than others and were here on earth millions of years before the "younger" ones evolved into existence. Applying this theory to the rock strata is the means of dating the strata, but it requires that each stratum have an age that is millions of years older than the next stratum above it.
"The basic chronology of Earth history was established by identifying different strata or layers in geologic formations and relating them to other layers. It is based on the assumption that lower beds were laid down first and are therefore older, while higher (later) beds are younger."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 421.
If the theory is correct, then the OLDER strata should always be BELOW the MORE RECENT strata.
If the theory is incorrect, then the two will often be confused—and that is what we find out in the field. We go to the mountains to study the strata, for there we find them most clearly exposed. Yet in every mountainous region on every continent on the globe, there are numerous examples of supposedly "old" strata superimposed ON TOP OF "younger" strata! (An extensive listing of such areas is to be found in *Bulletin of Geological Society of America, February 1959, pp. 115-116.)This contradiction to the evolutionary theory of rock strata and fossils is so common that it has been given a variety of names: overthrust, thrust-fault, low-angle fault, nappe, detachment thrust, etc. We will here refer to them by their most common name, overthrusts.
Rather than admit the truth, evolutionists have worked out a fantastic explanation for overthrusts. . .
At some time in past ages,—the lower strata (which are supposedly "older") are supposed to have slid sideways for many miles—and then journeyed up and over (were thrust over) the "younger" strata on top!
"The only explanation for the [younger] buried strata is that the [older] overlying crystalline rocks were emplaced along a major subhorizontal thrust fault."—*F.A. Cook, *L.D. Brown, and *J.E. Olwer, "The Southern Appalachians and the Growth of the Continent," in Scientific American, October 1980, p. 161.
Such an explanation is incredible!
Many of the great overthrust areas occupy hundreds and even thousands of square miles! In desperation at the problems, men are trying to move mountains in order to support a crumbling theory!
"We may even demonstrate that strata have turned completely upside down if we can show that fossils in what are the uppermost layers ought properly to lie underneath those in the beds below them."—*A. Geikie, Textbook of Geology (1963), p. 387.
"Since their earliest recognition, the existence of large overthrusts has presented a mechanical paradox that has never been satisfactorily resolved."—*M.K. Hubbert and *W.W. Riley, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Over-thrusting Faulting," in Bulletin of Geological Society of America, February 1959, pp. 115-117.
If evolutionary geologists cannot maintain the truth of their overthrust theory, they will lose the foundation proof for evolution: the fossils as datable evidence for long ages of time. Fossils constitute a proof of evolution only because more recent strata are supposed be lying on top of older strata.
(1950), 2nd ed., p. 246."Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely separated regions and from continent to continent."—*H.D. Hedberg, in Bioscience, September 1979.
HEART MOUNTAIN—Here is a sketch of part of this massive 30 x 60 mile formation which, the evolutionists explain, traveled hundreds of miles—and climbed up onto "younger" strata.
HEART MOUNTAIN—Here is one of many examples of an overthrust: The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming is a triangular area, 30 miles [48.2 km] wide by 60 miles [96.5 km] long. One apex presses against the northeast corner of Yellowstone Park. Within this gigantic overthrust are 50 separate blocks of Paleozoic strata (Ordovician, Devonian, and Mississippian). They are resting horizontally and as though they belonged there—but ON TOP OF Eocene beds which are supposed to be 250 million years younger! Photographs of the fault line, separating the Paleozoic strata from the Eocene, reveal it to be perfectly snug and normal. No evidence of massive crushing of rock beneath the fault line is to be seen (as would be seen if the upper "younger" strata slid up and over the lower "older" strata).
Searching for the area from which this gigantic overthrust horizontally slid—the scientists could not locate it. They could not find any place where the top layer slid from!
"The Heart Mountain thrust has long been structurally perplexing because there are no known structural roots or source from which it could have been derived. Furthermore, there is no known surface fault or fault zone within or adjoining from which the thrust sheet could have been derived."—*Op. cit, p. 592.
One expert, *Pierce said the solution was "gravity" (op. cit., p. 598). But, as with many others, this particular overthrust is an entire mountain! Heart Mountain is a high mountain, not a plain nor a low valley. It is a horizontal bed of hundreds of feet of rock resting high above the Wyoming plains, overlooking them. It would require some special type of gravity to put those billions upon billions of pounds of rock up there—and do it all so carefully that it rests there, fitted perfectly together. This 30 x 60 mile [48.8-96.6 km] triangle of very thick rock is supposed to have wandered there ("gravitated there" is how some experts describe it) in some miraculous way from somewhere else—and then climbed up on top of all the other rocks in the plains beneath it!
LEWIS OVERTHRUST—The Lewis overthrust in Montana, first discovered in 1901, is massive in size. It is another example of the overthrust problem."The Lewis overthrust of Montana has a length of approximately 135 miles [217.25 km] and a horizontal displacement of about 15 miles (24 km). Its fault plane dips to the southwest at an angle of about 3 degrees."—*William D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (1954), p. 268.
Since *Thornbury wrote the above lines, additional research has disclosed that the Lewis overthrust is 3 miles [4.8279 km] deep, 135 miles [217 km] long, and 35 to 40 miles [56.3-64.4 km] wide! (See *C.P. Ross and *Richard Rezak, "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier National Park," in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 294-K, 1959, pp. 422, 424.)
That is a lot of rock! In order to protect their fossil strata theory, the evolutionists soberly tell us that ALL THAT ROCK moved sideways many miles from somewhere else.This massive overthrust is truly vast in size. Here is how to locate it: On a map of North America, (1) place a penciled "X" on a point a little north of Crowsnest Mountain on Highway 3 on the border of British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. (2) Place a second "X" a little below Cut Bank, Montana. (3) Then go west from that second "X" to the southern border of Glacier National Park, and include all of it to its southwestern border; place a third "X." (4) Now go north and include all of Glacier National Park to its northwest border; place a fourth "X." Now draw lines connecting all the "Xs." All that territory in the Pacific Northwest—with a thickness up to 3 miles [4.8 km] deep—is supposed to have traveled there from somewhere else!
Not only does the Lewis Overthrust include all of Glacier National Park and Chief Mountain, but what do you think is beneath it?—undisturbed shale, which is hardened clay that has never been disturbed. Shale crumbles easily when shattered or placed under grinding sideways pressure. That immense area of nearly horizontal rock is supposed to have slid sideways for a great distance over fragile shale, without ever having disturbed it!
"The fault plane [as viewed from the Bow Valley] is nearly horizontal and the two formations, viewed from the valley, appear to succeed one another conformably. The cretaceous shales [hardened clay beneath the Lewis overthrust] are bent sharply toward the east in a number of places, but with this exception have suffered little by the sliding of the limestone over them, and their comparatively undisturbed condition seems hardly compatible with the extreme faulting [horizontal sliding] which was necessary to bring them into their present position."—*J.L. Kuip, "Flood Geology," in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, January 1950, pp. 1-15, quoting *R.G. McConnell, a Canadian geologist.
The Lewis overthrust should have pushed a great mass of broken rock (rubble or breccia) along in front of it and on its sides as it traveled sideways overland. But it did not do this; there is none there. That in itself is a proof that the Lewis overthrust did not move sideways!
Commenting on the fact that there is an "absence of rubble or breccia" pushed up by the Lewis fault when it supposedly slid sideways for miles, *Ross and *Rezak, two experienced geologists, then express their own doubts:
"Such a slab moving over ground, as is now believed to have existed, should have scarred and broken the hills and have itself been broken to a greater or less extent, depending on local conditions. No evidence of either of these things has been found."—*C.P. Ross and *Richard Rezak, Op. cit., p. 424.
A University of California scientist personally examined the point of contact where the Lewis fault rests on the rock beneath it, and made the following statement.
"At the actual contact line, very thin layers of shale were always present . . A thin band of soft shale sticks to the upper block of Altyn limestone. This seems to clearly indicate that, just before the Altyn limestone was deposited . . a thin water-like one-eighth to one-sixteenth inch layer of shale was deposited . . Careful study of the various locations showed no evidence of any grinding or sliding action or slicken-sides such as one would expect to find on the hypothesis of a vast overthrust.
"Another amazing fact was the occurrence of two four-inch layers of Altyn limestone intercalated with [inserted between] Cretaceous shale . . Furthermore these were cemented both to the upper Altyn limestone and shale. Likewise careful study of these intercalations showed not the slightest evidence of abrasive action such as one would expect to find if these were shoved forward in between layers of shale as the overthrust theory demands."—Walter E. Lammerts, personal letter dated November 27, 1957 to H.M. Morris, quoted in J.C. Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (1961), pp. 189-191.
Fantastically large frictional forces would have to be overcome in sliding these mountainous masses of rock horizontally. No one has figured out how it could have been done. It is far beyond the laws of physics. But, undaunted, some evolutionists said it could happen if its undersurface was wet! One scientist (*Terzaghi) did some testing and found that water would actually increase frictional drag, not lessen it.
The Lewis Overthrust consists of six layers of rock which are supposed to have slid sideways over "younger" strata. Those overthrust layers are three miles thick!
"This strata mix-up was first identified by Willis in 1901, who named it the Lewis Overthrust. Let us now consider the overriding rock strata which forms the supposed thrust sheet. Starting at the bottom of the belt strata, the Altyn Limestone has an average thickness of 2300 feet [701 m]. The Appekunny above it is 3000 feet [914 m] thick. This continues on up until the rock column reaches a minimum height of three miles. These overriding rocks form what is called the ‘Belt Series.’ "—John W. Read, Fossils, Strata, and Evolution (1979), p. 30.
The Lewis Overthrust is 135 miles [217 km] long, and its maximum thickness is 3 miles [4.8 km]!
This is what we find in the "belt strata" of the Lewis Overthrust, as viewed in Glacier National Park. The following list is from top to bottom of the Lewis Overthrust:
Kintla Argillite. This is found on some mountaintops.
Shepard Limestone. This limestone is 600 feet [183 m] in thickness.
Siyeh Limestone. This second layer of limestone is nearly a mile [1.6 km] thick, and generally over 4,000 feet [1,219 m] from top to bottom!
Grinnell Argillíte. Argil is a type of clay; argillite is a fragile shale. This stratum is over half a mile [1.609 km] in thickness: 3,000 feet [914 m].
Appekunny Argillite. This second layer of shale is over 3,000 feet [914 m] in thickness.
Altyn Limestone. Limestone is composed primarily of calcium carbonate which is not as strong as many other rocks. This layer averages nearly half-a-mile [8045 km] in thickness: 2,300 feet [701 m].
We have provided you with a detailed description of the Lewis Overthrust, in order to demonstrate the impossibility of the overthrust theory. But there are many other overthrusts elsewhere in the world. If the overthrust theory is incorrect—then the entire concept of the "geological column" is wrong,—and the rock strata, with their enclosed fossils, were NOT laid down over a period of long ages!
THE MATTERHORN—Everyone has seen photographs of the triangular shaped Matterhorn. It lies in the Pennine Alps, on the border between Valais, Switzerland, and the Piedmont region of Italy. Located 40 miles [64.4 km] east of Mount Blanc, the Matterhorn is one of most spectacular mountains in the world. It looks like a gigantic, steeply pointed pyramid, and is 14,685 feet (4,476 m] in height. THE MYTHEN—Another massive mountain in the Swiss Alps is the Mythen Peak. This one is really a marathon runner. The Mythen ran all the way from Africa into Switzerland! (It probably got wet as it went through the Mediterranean Sea.) In this mountain, you will find the Eocene strata (55 million years old) lying under Triassic (225 million), Jurassic (180 million), and Cretaceous (130 million). According to the theory, the Eocene is supposed to be on top of the Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic,—but instead it is under all three! THE APPALACHIANS—As with many mountain ranges, geologists always thought that the Appalachians (which include most of the mountains in Eastern America) were up thrust mountains—pushed up from below. But then they made a shocking discovery: underneath the entire Appalachians is some supposedly "younger" strata. The experts say that the entire Appalachian range ran sideways under the Atlantic Ocean, climbed out onto shore, and journeyed on over to its present location. If you will look on a physical map of the United States, you will find that the Appalachians extend from above Maine to Birmingham, Alabama."The Appalachians, which run from Newfoundland to Alabama, were probably formed not by upward thrusting, as previously believed, but by a thick conglomerate of oceanic and continental rock that was shoved horizontally at least 250 kilometers [155.3 mi] over existing sediments
"Beneath that jumble [of the Appalachians], lies a younger, flat, thin 1-5 km [.62-3.1 mi] thick layer of sediments that ‘no one thought existed.’ The unbroken, wide extent of the layer . . and its similarity to sediments found on the East Coast indicate that the mountains ‘could not have been pushed up.’ "—*Science News, 1979.
A small but excellent 64-page booklet, that is filled with pictures and diagrams that focus on the "mixed-up strata" problem, is Fossils, Strata, and Evolution (1979), by John G. Read.
Walter Lammerts spent years collecting geological articles dealing with the problem of overthrusts. He has published eight lists documenting 198 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. (W.E. Lammerts, "Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations of Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Part 1-8," Creation Research Society Quarterly, eight issues between September 1984 and June 1987.)
OVERTHRUSTS DISPROVED—Common sense disproves the evolutionary theory of overthrusts (sideways movement of immense rock masses from miles away), but three researchers decided in 1980 to check it out scientifically. They disproved the entire overthrust theory, as they showed that the terrific lateral pressures involved in moving these great masses of rock sideways—would produce so many fractures in the overthrust rock as to entirely crumble it!"If we assume that rocks have no tensile strength . . then when the pore fluid pressure exceeds the least compressive stress, fractures will form normal to that stress direction. These fractures limit pore pressure . . We suggest that pore pressure may never get high enough to allow gravity gliding . . the rocks might fail in vertical hydrofracture first."—*J.H. Willemin, *P.L. Guth, and *K.V. Hodges, "High Fluid Pressure, Isothermal Surfaces, and the Initiation of Nappe Movement," in Geology, September 1980, p. 406.
"It seems mechanically implausible that great sheets of rock could have moved across nearly flat surfaces for appreciable distances."— *Philip B. King, "The Anatomy and Habitat of Low-Angle Thrust Faults," in American Journal of Science, Vol. 258-A, 1960, p. 115.
As noted earlier, "thrust faults" is another name for overthrusts.
17 - CONCLUSION WHY DO THEY DO IT?—ln view of such facts, why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes to defend their beloved strata age theory?"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."—*C.O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1960), p. 47.
CLINGING TO A CRUMBLING ERROR—(*#22/4 The Geological Clock*) Reporting on a major evolutionary conference in late 1980, Newsweek magazine described some of the discussion as men argued among themselves to find some reason for holding on to the foolishness they inherited from Darwin:
"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."—*Newsweek, November 3, 1980.
Is evolution beginning to look hopeless? It not only is hopeless, it is useless
. When . When . When *Charles Darwin published his book, Origin of the Species, back in 1859, no one knew what discoveries would be made later. But in our day a vast wealth of knowledge has been amassed, and evolution stands condemned as meaningless and worthless. SCIENTISTS ARE WAKING UP—Many scientists are becoming aware of the facts and are beginning to speak out more boldly,—but only among themselves or in their scientific journals. The general public continues to hear only the usual "the fossils prove evolution" claim.Here is how a professor of zoology at Oxford University, puts it:
"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.
*Colin Patterson spent a lifetime, first searching for fossils and later managing the fossil (paleontology) department of one of the largest fossil museums in the world, the British Museum of Natural History. Eventually, he admitted to himself that he had been self-deceived all his life. During a 1981 keynote address at a convention of fossil experts at the American Museum of Natural History, in New York City, he said this:
"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I knew there was nothing wrong with me, so for the last few years I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.
"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History [in Chicago], and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time; and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—that it ought not to be taught in high school.’ "—*Colin Patterson, address at American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981.
Philip Johnson, a Berkeley professor, later wrote:
"I discussed evolution with Patterson for several hours in London in 1988. He did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made."—Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991, p. 157.
THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES—Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a proud king who was fooled by some fly-by-night tailors. They told him they could provide him with the finest of clothing, extremely delicate and sheer. He commissioned them to begin the task of preparing him a new outfit. Upon seeing it, he found it to be so sheer—he could not even see it! But since the king is never supposed to be second to any man in understanding of a matter, he dared say nothing.
Finally, the great day came and he paraded through town in his new clothes. Everyone stood silently as he passed in pride and great majesty on his noble steed, clad (according to two variations of the story) only in his long underwear, or less.
No one dared say anything, for surely the king ought to be able to see this delicate clothing better than they. Finally a child spoke up, and said to his mother, "But he has no clothes on!" At this the crowd awakened as from sleep, and word passed from mouth to mouth amid roars of understanding laughter.
We in the 20th century bow low before the theories of "science," little realizing that a small group maintains a strict control over what will be researched and concluded while the majority of scientists stand silently aside, fearful to speak lest they lose their jobs.
The emperor was told, "Anyone who is unfit for his position, will not be able to see this sheer clothing." Science students are today told in school that anyone who does not believe in evolution is unfit for a position as a scientist.
We are waiting for a loud voice to cry out: "The emperor has no clothes; evolution is a myth and not science."
To a great degree, that loud voice will have to come from the common people; for far too many scientists fear to say much
..."If we insist on maintaining and supporting the theory of evolution, we are then forced to eliminate and disavow mathematical probability concepts. If we are convinced that mathematics is correct, then we have to discard the present concepts of evolution. The two teachings do not seem to be compatible with each other.
"As objective scientists, which shall we support?
"Remember the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes? Not a single vassal dared point out the obvious fact that the emperor was naked; instead they competed with each other to vociferously praise the wonderful tailoring of the new suit. They even described in detail the fine and exquisite stitching to be found in the lower left corner of the imaginary coat. They were all gratified—to their own satisfaction—to hear themselves describe the virtue and beauty of the coat.
"It was left to the simplistic mind of a naive child to exclaim: ‘but this is not so—the Emperor is naked!’ "
"Does this sound familiar? History has a way of repeating itself."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong—A Study in Probabilities (1984), pp. 217-218.
"It is indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. I view stasis and the trumpeting of stasis to the whole world that the fossil record shows slow, steady, continuous change (as opposed to jerky patterns of change) as akin to the ‘Emperor’s new clothes.’ Paleontologists have known this for over a hundred years."—*Norman Eldredge, "Did Darwin Get it Wrong?" November 1, 1981, p. 6. [Head paleontologist, American Museum of Natural History, New York City].
"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes!’ "—*Kenneth Hsu, "Darwin’s Three Mistakes," in Geology 14 (1986), p. 534.
SPECIAL NOTE—This chapter did not fully explain how the facts relating to strata and fossils apply to the Flood. That information will be given in chapter 13
You have just completed
Chapter 12 Fossils and Strata Part 3
NEXT—
Go to the next file in this series,
Chapter 13 Ancient Man
EVOLUTION FACTS, INC.
- BOX 300 - ALTAMONT, TN. 37301
