Why the Fossil Strata Theory is a remarkable Hoax
This chapter is based on pp. 497-605 of Origin of Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 472 statements by scientists. You will find them, plus much more, on our website: evolution-facts.org.
This is the largest and one of the most important chapters in this book. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real hope of finding evidence that evolution might have occurred in the past. If the fossils do not witness to evolution in the past, then it could not be occurring now either.
The only substantial evidence that evolution has taken place in past ages, if there is such evidence, is to be found, in the fossils. The only definite evidence from the present, that there is a mechanism by which evolution could occur—past or present—if there is such evidence, is to be found in natural selection and mutations. There is a chapter dealing with each of these three topics in this book (chapters 9, 10, and 12).
The subject may seem to be complicated, but it is not. We will begin this present chapter with an introduction and overview of some of the fossil problems. Then we shall give enough attention to each of those problems—and more besides—to provide you with a clear understanding of principles and conclusions.
And when you obtain it, you will be astounded at the amount of overwhelming evidence supporting the fact that there is absolutely no indication, from the fossil record, that evolution has ever occurred on our planet!
"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’ "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966).
1 - INTRODUCTION
DEFINITIONS—(*#1/9 Introduction*) Most people know very little about any aspect of geology. Here are some of the major areas of geologic study. Of the geologic terms defined below, you will want to give special attention to those in bold italic:
Here are several of the major branches of Physical Geology: (1) Geochemistry is the study of the substances in the earth and the chemical changes they undergo. (2) Petrology is the study of rocks, in general. (3) Minerology is the study of minerals, such as iron ore and uranium. (4) Geophysics is the study of the structure, composition, and development of the earth. (5) Structural geology is the study of positions and shapes of rocks very deep within the earth.
Both physical and historical geology include three areas: (1) Geochronology is the study of geologic time. (2) Earth Processes is the study of the forces that produce changes in the earth. (3) Sedimentology is the study of sediment and the ways it is deposited.
Historical geology has at least four main fields: (1) Paleontology is the study of fossils, and paleontologists are those who study them. (2) Stratigraphy is the study of the rock strata in which the fossils are found. (3) Paleogeography is the study of the past geography of the earth. (4) Paleoecology is the study of the relationships between prehistoric plants and animals and their surroundings.
Fossils are the remains of living creatures, both plants and animals, or their tracks. These are found in sedimentary rock. Sedimentary rock is composed of strata, which are layers of stone piled up like a layer cake. (Strata is the plural of stratum.) Sedimentary rock is fossil-bearing or fossiliferous rock.
Fossil hunters use the word taxa (taxon, singular) to describe the basic, different types of plants and animals found in the fossil record. By this they generally mean species, but sometimes genera or more composite classifications, such as families or even phyla. Taxa is thus something of a loose term; it will be found in some of the quotations in this chapter. Higher taxa would mean the larger creatures, such as vertebrates (animals with backbones).
"The part of geology that deals with the tracing of the geologic record of the past is called historic geology. Historic geology relies chiefly on paleontology, the study of fossil evolution, as preserved in the fossil record, to identify and correlate the lithic records of ancient time."—*O.D. von Engeln and *K.E. Caster, Geology (1952), p. 423.
These fossil remains may be shells, teeth, bones, or entire skeletons. A fossil may also be a footprint, bird track, or tail marks
of a passing lizard. It can even include rain drops. Many fossils no longer contain their original material, but are composed of mineral deposits that have infiltrated them and taken on their shapes.Fossils are extremely important to evolutionary theory, for they provide our only record of plants and animals in ancient times. The fossil record is of the highest importance as a proof for evolution. In these fossils, scientists should be able to find all the evidence needed to prove that one species has evolved out of another.
"Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1949), p. 52.
"Fortunately there is a science which is able to observe the progress of evolution through the history of our earth. Geology traces the rocky strata of our earth, deposited one upon another in the past geological epochs through hundreds of millions of years, and finds out their order and timing and reveals organisms which lived in all these periods. Paleontology, which studies the fossil remains, is thus enabled to present organic evolution as a visible fact."—*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "An Introduction to a Popularized Symposium on Evolution," in Scientific Monthly, Vol. 77, October 1953, p. 184.
PALEONTOLOGISTS KNOW
THE FACTS—(*#3/25
The Experts Speak*) The study of
fossils and mutations ranks as the two
key evidences of evolution: The
fossil evidence proves or disproves
whether evolution has occurred in the
past; mutational facts prove or disprove
whether it can occur at all.
This is probably why,
of all scientists, paleontologists and
geneticists are the most likely to
publicly repudiate evolutionary theory
in disgust
THE FOSSIL HUNTERS—(*#2 The Fossil Hunters"). For over a century, thousands of men have dedicated their lives to finding, cleaning, cataloguing, and storing millions of fossils. The work they do is time-consuming, exhausting; yet it has not provided the evidence they sought.
NO EVOLUTION TODAY—Evolutionists admit that evolution (one type of animal changing into another) never occurs today.
"No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1. [Stebbins is a geneticist.]
EVERYTHING HINGES ON
FOSSILS—Clearly,
then, because no evolution is
occurring now, all that the
evolutionists have to prove their theory
is fossil evidence of life forms
which lived in the past. If evolution is
the cause of life on earth, then
there ought to be thousands of various
partly evolved fossil life forms. For
evolution to occur, this had to occur in
great abundance. The fossils should
reveal large numbers of transmuted
species—creatures which are half-
fish/half-animal, etc.
Throughout these
studies, we shall refer to the basic
types or kinds of plants and animals as
"species." However, as discussed in
chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species,
biologists frequently classify plants
and animals as "species," which are
sub-species. UNIFORMITARIANISM—(*#4/29
Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism*)
A basic postulate of evolution is the
concept of uniformitarianism.
According to this theory, the way
everything is occurring today is the way
it has always occurred on our planet.
This point has strong bearing on the
rock strata. Since no more than an inch
or so of sediment is presently being
laid down each year in most non-alluvial
areas, therefore no more than this
amount could have been deposited yearly
in those places in the past. Since there
are thick sections of rock containing
fossils, therefore those rocks and their
contents must have required millions of
years to be laid down. That is how the
theory goes. The opposite
viewpoint is known as catastrophism, and
teaches that there has been a great
catastrophe in the past—the Flood—which
within a few months laid down all the
sedimentary rock strata, entombing the
animals contained within them, which
became fossils.
THE THEORY THAT
STARTED IT—Naturalists,
working in Paris a few years before
*Charles Lyell was born, discovered
fossil-bearing rock strata. *Lyell used
this information in his important book,
Principles of Geology, and divided the
strata into three divisions. He dated
one as youngest, another as older, and
the third as very ancient. *Lyell and others
worked out those strata dates in the
early 19th century, before very much was
known about the rock strata and their
fossils! Some strata in England,
Scotland, and France were the primary
ones studied. *Lyell based his
age-theory on the number of still-living
species represented by fossils in each
stratum. If a given stratum had few
fossils represented by species alive
today, then *Lyell dated it more
anciently. It has since been
established that *Lyell’s theory does
not agree with reality; the
percentage of still-living species is
very, very high throughout all the
strata, and varies from place to place
for each stratum in different
localities. Nevertheless, after
quarreling over details, Lyell’s
followers extended his scheme; and,
though they changed his initial major
strata names, they held on to his
mistake and elaborated on it. Although
some of the strata names changed later
in the 19th century, scientists in
the 20th century have been stuck with
this relic of early 19th-century error.
It is what they are taught in the
colleges and universities.
THE ERAS—The
fossil-bearing rock strata are said to
fall into three major divisions, called
"eras." At the top are the
Cenozoic Era rocks. Below that comes the
Mesozoic Era levels. Next comes the
Paleozoic Era strata. At the bottom we
find the Cambrian, which contains the
lowest fossil-bearing rocks. Beneath
that is the Precambrian. (Cenozoic means
"recent life," mesozoic means "middle
life," and paleozoic means "ancient
life.") DATES WHEN GEOLOGICAL
TIME SCALES ORIGINATED—This
fossil/strata theory is genuinely
archaic. The basics of the theory were
devised when very little was known about
strata or fossils. But geology and
paleontology have been saddled with it
ever since. Here are the dates when
the various geological time scales were
first developed: THE PERIODS: Quaternary - 1829 Tertiary - 1759 Cretaceous - 1822 Jurassic - 1795 Triassic - 1834 Permian - 1841 Carboniferous - 1822 Devonian - 1837 Silurian - 1835 Ordovician - 1879 Cambrian - 1835
THE ERAS: Cenozoic - 1841 Mesozoic - 1841 Paleozoic - 1838
Perhaps the most
ridiculous part of this is that
radiodating of rocks, which did not
exist when the 19th-century theories
were devised, is forced to fit those
19th-century strata dates! It is done by
using only a few test samples which fit
the 19th century dates. The rest are
discarded. (See chapter 6, Inaccurate
Dating Methods, for more on this.)
EVIDENCE OF
EVOLUTION—If
evolution was a fact, we should find in
present events and past records abundant
evidence of one species changing into
another species. But, throughout all
past history and in present
observations, no one has ever seen this
happen. Prior to written history, we
only have fossil evidence. Scientists
all over the world have been collecting
and studying fossils for over a hundred
years. Literally millions have been
collected! In all their
research, this is what they discovered:
(1) There is no evidence of one
species having changed into another one.
(2) Our modern species are what we
find there, plus some extinct ones.
(3) There are no transitional or
halfway forms between species. Yes, there are
extinct creatures among the fossils.
These are plants and animals which no
longer live on the earth. But even
scientists agree that extinct species
would not be an evidence of evolution. Yet evolutionists
parade dinosaur bones as a grand proof
of evolution—when they are no proof at
all! Extinction is not evolution! Before proceeding
further in this study, we should mention
two points that will help clarify the
problem: WHY SO VERY COMPLEX
AT THE BOTTOM?—As
we already mentioned, the lowest
strata level is called the Cambrian.
Below this lowest of the fossil-bearing
strata lies the Precambrian. The Cambrian has
invertebrate (non-backbone) animals,
such as trilobites and brachiopods.
These are both very complex little
animals. In addition, many of our modern
animals and plants are in that lowest
level, just above the Precambrian. How
could such complex, multicelled
creatures be there in the bottom of the
Cambrian strata? But there they are.
Suddenly, in the very lowest fossil
stratum, we find complex plants and
animals—and lots of them, with no
evidence that they evolved from anything
lower.
"It remains true,
as every paleontologist knows, that
most new species, genera and
families, and that nearly all
categories above the level of
families, appear in the [fossil]
record suddenly and are not led up
to by known, gradual, completely
continuous transitional
sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The
Major Features of Evolution, p. 360.
Paleontologists (the
fossil hunters) call this immense
problem "the Cambrian Explosion,"
because vast numbers of complex
creatures suddenly appear in the fossil
strata—with no evidence that they
evolved from any less complicated
creatures!
We will discuss the
Precambrian/Cambrian problem later in
this chapter. What caused this
sudden, massive appearance of life
forms? What caused the strata? Why are
all those fossils in the strata? What is
the solution to all this? THE GENESIS FLOOD—The
answer is that a great Flood,—the one
described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to
9—rapidly covered the earth with water.
When it did, sediments of pebbles,
gravel, clay, and sand were laid down in
successive strata, covering animal and
plant life. Under great pressure,
these sediments turned into what we
today call "sedimentary rock." (Clay
became shale; sand turned into
sandstone; mixtures of gravel, clay and
sand formed conglomerate rock.) All that
mass of water-laid material successively
covered millions of living creatures.
The result is fossils, which today are
only found in the sedimentary rock
strata. When the Flood
overwhelmed the world, the first to
be covered were slow-moving animals, the
next to be covered were somewhat larger,
somewhat faster-moving animals, and so
it went. Today we can dig into these
rock strata and find that the lowest
stratum tends to have the slowest-moving
creatures; above them are faster ones.
Evolutionist scientists declare these
lowest strata are many millions of years
old (570 million for the oldest, the
Cambrian), and the topmost to be the
most recent (the Pliocene at 10 million,
and the Pleistocene at 2 million years). But, in actuality, we
will discover that the evidence
indicates that all the sedimentary
strata with their hoards of fossils were
laid down within a very short time. IS ENOUGH EVIDENCE
AVAILABLE?—Before
we proceed further, it is vital that we
know whether there is enough evidence
available to decide the fossil problem?
Can we at the present time really
know for sure whether or not, according
to the fossil record, evolution has or
has not occurred?
"The adequacy of
the fossil record for conclusive
evidence is supported by the
observation that 79.1 percent of the
living families of terrestrial
vertebrates have been found as
fossils (87.7 percent if birds are
included)."—R.H. Brown, "The Great
Twentieth-Century Myth," in Origins,
January 1986, p. 40.
"Geology and
paleontology held great expectations
for Charles Darwin, although in 1859
[when he published his book, Origin
of the Species] he admitted that
they [already] presented the
strongest single evidence against
his theory. Fossils were a
perplexing puzzlement to him because
they did not reveal any evidence of
a gradual and continuous evolution
of life from a common ancestor,
proof which he needed to support his
theory. Although fossils were an
enigma to Darwin, he ignored the
problem and found comfort in the
faith that future explorations would
reverse the situation and ultimately
prove his theory correct.
"He stated in his
book, The Origin of the Species,
‘The geological record is extremely
imperfect and this fact will to a
large extent explain why we do not
find intermediate varieties,
connecting together all the extinct
and existing forms of life by the
finest graduated steps. He who
rejects these views, on the nature
of the geological record, will
rightly reject my whole theory’
[quoting from the sixth (1901)
edition of Darwin’s book, pages
341-342].
"Now, after over
120 years of the most extensive and
painstaking geological exploration
of every continent and ocean bottom,
the picture is infinitely more vivid
and complete than it was in 1859.
Formations have been discovered
containing hundreds of billions of
fossils and our museums now are
filled with over 100 million fossils
of 250,000 different species. The
availability of this profusion of
hard scientific data should permit
objective investigators to determine
if Darwin was on the right
track."—Luther D. Sunderland,
Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 9
[italics ours].
"There are a
hundred million fossils, all
catalogued and identified, in
museums around the world."—*Porter
Kier, quoted in New Scientist,
January 15, 1981, p. 129.
There are one hundred
million fossils housed in museums and
other collections Yes, enough
information is now available that we can
have certainty, from the fossil record,
whether evolution ever did occur in our
world! The present chapter will provide
you with a brief summary of those facts.
"The reason for
abrupt appearances and gaps can no
longer be attributed to the
imperfection of the fossil record as
it was by Darwin when paleontology
was a young science. With over
200,000,000 catalogued specimens of
about 250,000 fossil species, many
evolutionary paleontologists such as
Stanley argue that the fossil record
is sufficient."—W.R. Bird, The
Origin of Species Revisited (1954),
p. 48 [italics ours].
"In part, the
role of paleontology in evolutionary
research has been defined narrowly
because of a false belief, tracing
back to Darwin and his early
followers, that the fossil record is
woefully incomplete. Actually, the
record is of sufficiently high
quality to allow us to undertake
certain kinds of analysis
meaningfully at the level of the
species."—*S. Stanley,
"Macroevolution," p. 1 (1979).
"Over ten
thousand fossil species of insects
have been identified, over thirty
thousand species of spiders, and
similar numbers for many sea-living
creatures. Yet so far the evidence
for step-by-step changes leading to
major evolutionary transitions looks
extremely thin. The supposed
transition from wingless to winged
insects still has to found, as has
the transition between the two main
types of winged insects, the
paleoptera (mayflies, dragonflies)
and the neoptera (ordinary flies,
beetles, ants, bees)."—*Fred Hoyle,
"The Intelligent Universe: A New
View of Creation and Evolution,"
1983, p. 43.
150 YEARS OF
COLLECTED EVIDENCE—In
spite of such an immense amount of
fossil evidence, *Heribert-Nilsson of
Lund University in Sweden, after 40
years of study in paleontology and
botany, said the deficiencies—the
missing links—will never be found.
"It is not even
possible to make a caricature [hazy
sketch] of an evolution out of
paleobiological facts. The fossil
material is now so complete that . .
the lack of transitional series
cannot be explained as due to the
scarcity of the material. The
deficiencies are real; they will
never be filled."—*N.
Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische
Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of
Species), 1953, p. 1212.
More than a century
ago, enough evidence had been gathered
from the study of fossils that it was
already clear that the fossil gaps
between Genesis kinds was unfillable.
Even *Charles Darwin admitted the
problem in his book.
". . intermediate
links? Geology assuredly does not
reveal any such finely graduated
organic change, and this is perhaps
the most obvious and serious
objection which can be urged against
the theory [of evolution]."—*Charles
Darwin, Origin of the Species,
quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts
Between Darwin and Paleontology," in
Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979.
For over a century,
hundreds of men have dedicated their
lives, in an attempt to find those
missing links! If the transitional
forms, connecting one species with
another, are really there—they should
have been found by now!
Sunderland, quoted
above, said "Our museums now
are filled with over 100 million fossils
of 250,000 different species." Here,
in two brief paragraphs, is a clear
description of the enormity of this
missing link problem:
"The time
required for one of these
invertebrates to evolve into the
vertebrates, or fishes, has been
estimated at about 100 million
years, and it is believed that the
evolution of the fish into an
amphibian required about 30 million
years. The essence of the new
Darwinian view is the slow gradual
evolution of one plant or animal
into another by the gradual
accumulation of micro-mutations
through natural selection of favored
variants.
"If this view of
evolution is true, the fossil record
should produce an enormous number of
transitional forms. Natural history
museums should be overflowing with
undoubted intermediate forms. About
250,000 fossil species have been
collected and classified. These
fossils have been collected at
random from rocks that are supposed
to represent all of the geological
periods of earth’s history. Applying
evolution theory and the laws of
probability, most of these 250,000
species should represent
transitional forms. Thus, if
evolution is true, there should be
no doubt, question, or debate as to
the fact of evolution."—Duane T.
Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in
Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982),
p. 76.
The above quotation
provides an excellent summary of the
fossil gap problem. The fossil record
purportedly contains a record of all the
billions of years of life on earth.
If it takes "100 million years" for an
invertebrate to evolve through
transitional forms into a fish, the
fossil strata should show vast numbers
of the in-between forms. But it
never does! Scientists discuss these
facts among themselves; they have a
responsibility to tell them to the
public.
The evidence supports
the information given in the oldest
extant book in the world: the book of
Genesis. HOW ARE ROCKS DATED?—There
are vast quantities of fossils,
scattered in various sedimentary strata
throughout the world. Yet how are the
rocks and the fossils dated? In this
section we are going to learn that the
rocks are dated from theories about the
fossils, and the fossils are dated from
theories about the rocks!
"We can hardly
pick up a copy of a newspaper or
magazine nowadays without being
informed exactly how many million
years ago some remarkable event in
the history of the earth
occurred."—*Adolph Knopf, quoted in
Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and
Nature Quotations, p. 62. [Knopf was
an American geologist.]
Let us examine this
dating process more closely: REAL HISTORY—Real
history only goes back about 4,500 years.
The First Dynasty in Egypt has left us
records that date back to about 2200
B.C. (That is the corrected date as
determined by scholars; Manetho’s
account reaches to 3500 B.C. See chapter
21, Archaeological Dating. [Due to a
lack of space, we had to omit nearly all
of the chapter from this book, but it is
on our website.]). Moses began writing
part of the Bible about 1480 B.C. He
wrote of events going back to about 4000
B.C. Yet evolutionists
claim that they can date this rock or
that rock—going back into the millions
of years! The entire geologic
column—from bottom to top—is supposed to
have taken 2 billion years, with
millions of years being assigned to each
level of strata. On what basis do they
presume to think they can assign such
ancient dates to the origin of various
rocks? With the exception of some
recently erupted volcanic lava, no one
was present when any rocks were laid
down. A man picks up a piece of rock
from the distant past and, although he
himself may be only half a century old,
he claims to be able to date that rock
as being 110 billion years old! NOT DATED BY
APPEARANCE—Rocks
are not dated by their appearance,
for rocks of all types (limestones,
shales, gabbro, etc.) may be found in
all evolutionary "ages." Rocks are
not dated by their mineral, metallic, or
petroleum content; for any type of
mineral may be found in practically any
"age."
NOT DATED BY
LOCATION—Rocks
are not dated by the rocks they are near.
The rocks above them in one sedimentary
sequence may be the rocks below them in
the next. The "oldest rocks" may lie
above so-called "younger rocks."
Rocks are not dated by their structure,
breaks, faults, or folds. None of
this has any bearing on the dating that
evolutionists apply to rocks. Textbooks,
magazines, and museum displays give the
impression that it is the location of
the strata that decides the dating, but
this is not true.
"It is, indeed, a
well-established fact that the
(physical-stratigraphical) rock
units and their boundaries often
transgress geologic time planes in
most irregular fashion even within
the shortest distances."—*J.A.
Jeletzsky, "Paleontology, Basis of
Practical Geochronology," in
Bulletin of the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, April 1956,
p. 685.
NOT DATED BY VERTICAL
LOCATION—Rocks
are not dated by their height or depth
in the strata, or which rocks are
"at the top," which are "at the bottom,"
or which are "in the middle." Their
vertical placement and sequence has
little bearing on the matter. This would
have to be so, since the arrangement of
the strata shows little hint of
uniformity anywhere in the world. (Much
more on this later in this chapter.)
NOT DATED BY
RADIOACTIVITY—The
rock strata are not dated by the
radioactive minerals within them. The
dating was all worked out decades before
anyone heard or thought of radioactive
dating. In addition, we learned in
the chapter on Dating Methods, that
there are so many ways in which
radiometric dating can be incorrect,
that we dare not rely on uranium and
similar minerals as reliable dating
methods.
The fact is that
rocks are not dated by any physical
characteristic at all. What then
DATED BY FOSSILS?—The
strata are said to be dated by FOSSILS!
Well, now we have arrived at something
concrete. The strata are all mixed up,
piled on top, under where they should
go, or totally missing. But at least we
can date by all the fossils in them.
But wait a minute!
We cannot even use 99 percent of the
fossils to date them by, since we
can find the same type of fossils in one
stratum as in many others! And in each
stratum are millions of fossils,
representing hundreds and even thousands
of different species of plant and/or
animal life. The result is a bewildering
maze of mixed-up or missing strata, each
with fossil prints from a wide variety
of ancient plants and animals that we
can find in still other rock strata. Yet, amid all this
confusion, evolutionists tell us that
fossil dating is of extreme importance.
That is very true, for without it the
evolutionist scientist would have no way
to try to theorize "earlier ages" on the
earth. Fossil dating is crucial to their
entire theoretical house of cards.
But if rocks
cannot be dated by most of the fossils
they contain,—how are the rocks dated?
ROCKS ARE DATED BY
INDEX FOSSILS—(*#5/6
Index Fossils*) The strata are dated
by what the evolutionists call "index
fossils." In each stratum there are
a few fossils which are not observed
quite as often in the other strata. As a
pretext, these are the fossils which are
used to "date" that stratum and all the
other fossils within it! It may sound
ridiculous, but that is the way it is
done. What are these magical fossils
that have the power to tell men finding
them the But then, just as
oddly, the magic disappears when the
index fossil is found alive:
"Most of the
species of maidenhair are extinct;
indeed they served as index fossils
for their strata until one was found
alive." "The youngest fossil
coelacanth is about sixty million
years old. Since one was
rediscovered off Madagascar, they
are no longer claimed as ‘index
fossils’—fossils which tell you that
all other fossils in that layer are
the same ripe old age."—Michael
Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984),
pp. 186, 198.
In reality, within
each stratum is to be found an utter
confusion of thousands of different
types of plants and/or animals. The
evolutionists maintain that if just one
of a certain type of creature (an "index
fossil") is found anywhere in that
stratum, it must automatically be given
a certain name,—and more: a certain date
millions of years ago when all the
creatures in that stratum are supposed
to have lived. Yet, just by examining
that particular index fossil, there is
no way to tell that it lived just so
many millions of years ago! It is all
part of a marvelous theory, which is
actually nothing more than a grand
evolutionary hoax. Experienced
scientists denounce it as untrue. Any rock containing
fossils of one type of trilobite
(Paradoxides) is called a "Cambrian"
rock, thus supposedly dating all the
creatures in that rock to a time period
600 million years in the past. But rocks
containing another type of trilobite
(Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified
as "Ordovician," which is claimed to
have spanned 45 million years and begun
480 million years ago. —But how can
anyone come up with such ancient dates
simply by examining two different
varieties of trilobite? The truth is
that it cannot be done. It is
science fiction to even pretend to do
so. Add to this the
problem of mixed-up index fossils—when
"index fossils" from different levels
are found together! That is a
problem which paleontologists do not
publicly discuss. As we analyze one
aspect after another of evolution
(stellar, geologic, biologic, genetic,
etc.), we find it all to be little more
than a carefully contrived science
fiction storybook.
FOSSILS ARE DATED BY
A THEORY—But now
comes the catch: How can evolutionist
geologists know what dates to apply to
those index fossils? The answer to this
question is a theory! Here is how
they do it: Darwinists theorize
which animals came first—and when
they appeared on the scene. And then
they date the rocks according to their
theory—not according to the wide
mixture of fossil creatures in it—but
by assigning dates—based on their
theory—to certain "index" fossils.
—That is a gigantic,
circular-reasoning hoax!
"Fossils provide
the only historical, documentary
evidence that life has evolved from
simpler to more and more complex
forms."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical
Geology, 2nd edition (1960), p. 47.
The conclusions about
which fossils came first are based on
the assumptions of evolution. Rock
strata are studied, a few index fossils
are located (when they can be found at
all), and each stratum is then given a
name. Since the strata are above,
below, and in-between one another, with
most of the strata missing in any one
location,—just how can the theorists
possibly "date" each stratum? They do it
by applying evolutionary speculation to
what they imagine those dates should be.
This type of activity
classifies as interesting fiction, but
it surely should not be regarded as
science. The truth is this: It was
the evolutionary theory that was used to
date the fossils; it was not the strata
and it was not "index fossils."
"Vertebrate
paleontologists have relied upon
‘stage of evolution’ as the
criterion for determining the
chronologic relationships of faunas.
Before establishment of physical
dates, evolutionary progression was
the best method for dating
fossiliferous strata."—*J.F.
Evernden, *O.E. Savage, *G.H.
Curtis, and *G.T. James, "K/A Dates
and the Cenozoic Mammalian
Chronology of North America," in
American Journal of Science,
February 1964, p. 166. "Fossiliferous
strata" means fossil-bearing strata.
Keep in mind that only the
sedimentary rocks have fossils, for they
were the sediments laid down at the time
of the Flood, which hardened under
pressure and dried into rock. You
will find no fossils in granite, basalt,
etc.
"The dating of
each stratum—and all the fossils in
it—is supposedly based on index
fossils, when it is actually based
on evolutionary speculations, and
nothing more.
"The more one
studies paleontology, the more
certain one becomes that evolution
is based on faith alone."—Randy
Wysong, The Creation-Evolution
Controversy (1976), p. 31.
The "index fossils"
are dated by the theory. Amid all the
confusion of mixed up and missing
strata, there would be no possible way
to "date" rocks—or fossils—by the
catastrophic conditions found in
sedimentary strata. It is all utter
confusion. So the evolutionists apply a
theory to the strata.
They decided that
certain water worms in one stratum are
80,000 years older than certain water
worms in another stratum,—and then they
date all the other fossils in those same
strata accordingly! (That is a little
foolish, is it not? How can you date
a water worm as being so many hundred
million years ago?)
"Because of the
sterility of its concepts,
historical geology, which includes
paleontology [the study of fossils]
and stratigraphy [the study of rock
strata], has become static and
unreproductive. Current methods of
delimiting intervals of time, which
are the fundamental units of
historical geology, and of
establishing chronology are of
dubious validity. Worse than that,
the criteria of correlation—the
attempt to equate in time, or
synchronize, the geological history
of one area with that of another—are
logically vulnerable. The findings
of historical geology are suspect
because the principles upon which
they are based are either
inadequate, in which case they
should be reformulated, or false, in
which case they should be discarded.
Most of us [geologists] refuse to
discard or reformulate, and the
result is the present deplorable
state of our discipline."—*Robin S.
Allen, "Geological Correlation and
Paleoecology," Bulletin of the
Geological Society of America,
January 1984, p. 2.
Big names and big
numbers have been assigned to various
strata, thus imparting an air of
scientific authority to them. Common
people, lacking expertise in the
nomenclature of paleontology, when faced
with these lists of big words tend to
give up. It all looks too awesome to be
understood, much less challenged. But
the big words and big numbers just cover
over an empty theory which lacks
substantial evidence to support it.
CIRCULAR REASONING—(*#6/10
Circular Reasoning*) When we examine it,
we find that the strata-dating theory
is based on circular reasoning. "Circular reasoning"
is a method of false logic, by which
"this is used to prove that, and that is
used to prove this." It is also called
"reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred
years ago, it was described by the
phrase, circulus in probando, which is
Latin for "a circle in a proof." There are several
types of circular reasoning found in
support of evolutionary theory. One of
these is the geological dating position
that "fossils are dated by the type of
stratum they are in while at the same
time the stratum is dated by the fossils
found in it." An alternative
evolutionary statement is that "the
fossils and rocks are interpreted by the
theory of evolution, and the theory is
proven by the interpretation given to
the fossils and rocks." Evolutionists (1) use
their theory of rock strata to
date the fossils, (2) and then use their
theory of fossils to date the rock
strata!
A number of
scientists have commented on this
problem of circularity.
"The charge that
the construction of the geologic
scale involves circularity has a
certain amount of validity."—*David
M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism,"
Field Museum of Natural History
Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21.
"The intelligent
layman has long suspected circular
reasoning in the use of rocks to
date fossils and fossils to date
rocks. The geologist has never
bothered to think of a good reply,
feeling the explanations are not
worth the trouble as long as the
work brings results. This is
supposed to be hard-headed
pragmatism."—*J.E.
O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus
Materialism and Stratigraphy,"
American Journal of Science, January
1976, p. 48.
"Are the
authorities maintaining, on the one
hand, that evolution is documented
by geology and on the other hand,
that geology is documented by
evolution? Isn’t this a circular
argument?"—*Larry Azar, "Biologists,
Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p.
714. The professor of
paleobiology at Kansas State University
wrote this:
"Contrary to what
most scientists write, the fossil
record does not support the
Darwinian theory of evolution,
because it is this theory (there are
several) which we use to interpret
the fossil record. By doing so, we
are guilty of circular reasoning if
we then say the fossil record
supports this theory."—*Ronald R.
West, "Paleontology and
Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May
1968, p. 216. *Niles Eldredge, head
of the Paleontology Department at the
American Museum of Natural History, in
Chicago, made this comment:
"And this poses
something of a problem. If we date
the rocks by their fossils, how can
we then turn around and talk about
patterns of evolutionary change
through time in the fossil
record?"—*Niles Eldredge, Time
Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian
Evolution, 1985, p. 52.
The curator of
zoological collections at Oxford
University wrote this:
"A circular
argument arises: Interpret the
fossil record in the terms of a
particular theory of evolution,
inspect the interpretation, and note
that it confirms the theory. Well,
it would, wouldn’t it?"—*Tom Kemp,
"A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record,"
New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985,
p. 66.
A DOUBLE CIRCLE—Circular
reasoning is the basis, not only of the
fossil theory,—but of the whole theory
of evolution!
First, reasoning in a
circle is the basis of the "evidence"
that evolution has occurred in the past.
(The fossils are dated by the theory
of strata dating; the strata are then
dated by the fossils). Second, reasoning in
a circle is the basis of the "mechanism"
by which evolution is supposed to have
occurred any time. (The survivors
survive. The fittest survive because
they are fittest,—yet, according to
that, all they do is survive! not evolve
into something better!) (See chapter 9,
Natural Selection). Throughout this book,
we shall find many other examples of
strange logic on the part of the
evolutionists: (1) Matter had to come
from something; therefore it somehow
came from nothing (chapter 2, The
Big Bang and Stellar Evolution). (2)
Living creatures had to come from
something, therefore they somehow came
from dirt that is not alive (chapter
7, The Primitive Environment). By the use of
circular reasoning, evolutionary theory
attempts to separate itself from the
laws of nature! Limiting factors of
chemical, biological, and physical law
forbid matter or living creatures from
originating or evolving.
"But the danger
of circularity is still present. For
most biologists the strongest reason
for accepting the evolutionary
hypothesis is their acceptance of
some theory that entails it. There
is another difficulty. The temporal
ordering of biological events beyond
the local section may critically
involve paleontological correlation,
which necessarily presupposes the
nonrepeatability of organic events
in geologic history. There are
various justifications for this
assumption but for almost all
contemporary paleontologists it
rests upon the acceptance of the
evolutionary hypothesis."—*David G.
Kitts, "Paleontology and
Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution,
September 1974, p. 466.
FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS—As
we study the fossil record, we come upon
a variety of very serious problems which
undermine the strata/fossil theory.
Three of the most important are these:
(1) At the very bottom of all the strata
(the geologic column) is the Cambrian
strata, which is filled with complex,
multi-celled life. This is termed the
"Cambrian explosion" of sudden life
forms all at once. (2) There are no
transitional species throughout the
column. This problem is also called
fossil gaps or missing links. (3)
Mixed-up and out-of-order strata are
regularly found. Singly or together,
they destroy the evolutionary argument
from the rock strata. But there are many
more problems.
SIMPLEST JUST AS
COMPLEX—Because
the waters of the Flood first covered
the creatures which were not able to
rapidly escape to higher ground, some of
the "simplest animals" are found in the
lowest of the sedimentary strata. Yet
those creatures have complicated
internal structures. One of the most
common creatures found in the lowest—the
Cambrian—strata, are the trilobites.
These were small swimming creatures
belonging to the same group as the
insects (the arthropods). Yet careful
study reveals that they had extremely
complex eyes. The mathematics needed
to work out the lens structure of these
little creatures is so complicated, that
it was not developed until the middle of
the last century! Here is how an expert
describes it. *Norman Macbeth, in a
speech at Harvard University in 1983,
said this:
"I have dealt
with biologists over the last twenty
years now. I have found that, in a
way, they are hampered by having too
much education. They have been
steeped from their childhood in the
Darwinian views, and, as a result,
it has taken possession of their
minds to such an extent that they
are almost unable to see many facts
that are not in harmony with
Darwinism. These facts simply aren’t
there for them often, and other ones
are sort of suppressed or distorted.
I’ll give you some examples.
"First, and
perhaps most important, is the first
appearance of fossils. This occurs
at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600
million years ago by the fossil
reckoning. The fossils appear at
that time [in the Cambrian] in a
pretty highly developed form. They
don’t start very low and evolve bit
by bit over long periods of time. In
the lowest fossil-bearing strata of
all [the Cambrian, they are already
there, and are pretty complicated in
more-or-less modern form.
"One example of
this is the little animal called the
trilobite. There are a great many
fossils of the trilobite right there
at the beginning with no buildup to
it [no evolution of life forms
leading to it]. And, if you examine
them closely, you will find that
they are not simple animals. They
are small, but they have an eye that
has been discussed a great deal in
recent years—an eye that is simply
incredible.
"It is made up of
dozens of little tubes which are all
at slightly different angles so that
it covers the entire field of
vision, with a different tube
pointing at each spot on the
horizon. But these tubes are all
more complicated than that, by far.
They have a lens on them that is
optically arranged in a very
complicated way, and it is bound
into another layer that has to be
just exactly right for them to see
anything . . But the more
complicated it is, the less likely
it is simply to have grown up out of
nothing.
"And this
situation has troubled everybody
from the beginning—to have
everything at the very opening of
the drama. The curtain goes up [life
forms first appear in the Cambrian
strata] and you have the players on
the stage already, entirely in
modern costumes."—*Norman Macbeth,
Speech at Harvard University,
September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D.
Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988),
p. 150. Remember, we are here
discussing one of the most common
creatures at the very bottom of the
fossil strata. Science News declared
that the trilobite had "the most
sophisticated eye lenses ever produced
by nature." (*Science News 105,
February 2, 1974, p. 72). Each eye of
the trilobite had two lenses! Here is
what one of the world’s leading
trilobite researchers wrote:
"In fact, this
optical doublet is a device so
typically associated with human
invention that its discovery in
trilobites comes as something of a
shock. The realization that
trilobites developed and used such
devices half a billion years ago
makes the shock even greater. And a
final discovery—that the refracting
interface between the two lense
elements in a trilobite’s eye was
designed ["designed"] in accordance
with optical constructions worked
out by Descartes and Huygens in the
mid-seventeenth century—borders on
sheer science fiction . . The design
of the trilobite’s eye lens could
well qualify for a patent
disclosure."—*Riccardo Levi-Setti,
Trilobites, 2nd ed., University of
Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 54, 57.
Extremely complicated
creatures at the very beginning, with
nothing leading up to them; that is the
testimony of the strata THOSE MARVELOUS
TRILOBITES—There
are enormous numbers of complex
trilobites in the Cambrian strata, yet
below the Cambrian there is hardly
anything that resembles a fossil. As
mentioned above, these little creatures
had marvelously complicated eyes. But
they also had other very advanced
features: (1) Jointed legs and
appendages, which indicate that they had
a complex system of muscles. (2)
Chitinous exoskeleton (horny substance
as their outer covering), which
indicates that they grew by periodic
ecdysis, a very complicated process of
molting. (3) Compound eyes and antennae,
which indicate a complex nervous system.
(4) Special respiratory organs, which
indicate a blood circulation system. (5)
Complex mouth parts, which indicate
specialized food requirements. (Another of the many
types of creatures, found in great
numbers in the Cambrian strata, are
segmented marine worms. As with
trilobites, we find that they also had a
complex musculature, specialized food
habits and requirements, blood
circulatory system, and advanced nervous
system.) NOT SIMPLE TO
COMPLEX—The
evolutionists maintain that the fossil
record goes from the simple to the
complex. But researchers have discovered
that the simple creatures were also
complex. In fact, there are actually
few examples in the fossil record of
anything like "from simple to complex"
progression. This is partly due to the
fact that the fossils suddenly appear in
great numbers and variety,—too much so
for much simple-to-complex progression
to be sorted out. Included here are
complex organs, such as intestines,
stomachs, bristles and spines. Eyes and
feelers show the presence of nervous
systems. For example, consider the
specialized sting cells (nematocysts) in
the bodies of jellyfish, with their
coiled, thread-like harpoons which are
explosively triggered. How could this
evolve?
Let no one say that
the Cambrian level only has "simple,
primitive," or "half-formed" creatures.
CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION—(*#7/52
The Cambrian and Precambrian Problem*)
The lowest strata that has fossils is
the Cambrian. Below that is the
Precambrian which has no fossils, other
than an occasional algae on its surface.
Paleontologists call that amazing
situation the "Cambrian explosion." Beginning with the
very lowest of the fossil strata—the
Cambrian,—we find a wealth of fossil
types. But each type—each species—of
fossil in the Cambrian is different from
the others. There is no blending
between them! It requires
evolving—blending across species—to
produce evolution; but this never occurs
today, and it never occurred earlier.
Look at the fossils: In the ancient
world there were only distinct species.
Look at the world around you: In the
modern world there are only distinct
species. There are vast
numbers—billions—of fossils of thousands
of different species of complex
creatures in the Cambrian,—and below it
is next to nothing. The vast host of
transitional species leading up to the
complex Cambrian species are totally
missing! EVERY MAJOR LIFE
GROUP HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE CAMBRIAN—In
the Cambrian we find sponges,
corals, jellyfish, mollusks, trilobites,
crustaceans, and, in fact, every one
of the major invertebrate forms of life.
In 1961, *Kai Peterson wrote:
"The invertebrate
animal phyla are all represented in
Cambrian deposits."—*Kai Peterson,
Prehistoric Life on Earth, p. 56.
That means there, in
the Cambrian fossil strata, is to be
found at least one species from every
phyla of backboneless animal. Only one
phylum had been missing: the
vertebrates.
At the time when
Peterson wrote, it was believed that no
vertebrates (animals with backbones)
appeared until the Lower Ordovician
(just above the Cambrian). But in 1977
that belief was shattered, when fully
developed fish (heterostracan vertebrate
fish fossils) were discovered in the
Upper Cambrian strata of Wyoming.
Reported in Science magazine for May 5,
1978,—this discovery placed every
major animal phylum group in the
Cambrian rocks! Although never
discussed in school textbooks, this
news came as a distinct shock to the
professional world. For
evolutionists, the situation continues
to get worse.
With the "Cambrian
Explosion" suddenly appears every major
type of living thing. This fact totally
devastates the basis of evolutionary
theory. Plants and every type of
animal have been found in the Cambrian
strata. Although evolutionists
prefer not to discuss it, the truth is
that at least one representative of
EVERY PHYLUM has
been found in the Cambrian!
"Until recently,
the oldest fish fossils known were
from the Middle Ordovician Harding
Sandstone of Colorado. These were of
‘primitive’ heterostracan fishes
(Class Agnatha) which are jawless.
The Vertebrates were the only major
animal group not found as fossils in
Cambrian rocks.
"[The 1976
discovery of heterostracan fish
fossils in Cambrian is discussed in
detail] . . This discovery of fishes
(vertebrates) in the Cambrian is
without question the most
significant fossil discovery in the
period 1958-1979. The evidence is
now complete that all of the major
categories of animal and plant life
are found in the Cambrian."—Marvin
L. Lubenow, "Significant Fossil
Discoveries Since 1958," in Creation
Research Society Quarterly, December
1980, p. 157. Not only complex
animal life, but complex plant life is
represented in the Cambrian!
Flowering plants are generally
considered to be one of the most
advanced forms of life in the plant
kingdom. Spores from flowering plants
have also been found in Cambrian strata.
"Spores
attributed to terrestrial plants
have been found in Precambrian and
Cambrian rocks in the Baltic.
Whether some of these are from
bryophytes is uncertain."—*Robert F.
Scagel, et al., Plant Diversity: an
Evolutionary Approach (1969), p. 25.
During the Genesis
Flood, plants would tend to have washed
into higher strata, but their pollen
could easily have been carried into the
earliest alluvial layers: the Cambrian
and even the Precambrian.
"Just as fossils
of most of the other land plants
have been discovered in Cambrian
deposits, so it is with the
flowering plants. In 1947, Ghosh and
Bose reported discovering angiosperm
vessels with alternate pitting and
libriform fibres of higher
dicotyledons from the Salt
Pseudomorph Beds and the Dandot
overfold, Salt Range, Punjab, India.
These are Cambrian deposits. They
later confirmed that further
investigation confirmed their
original report, and the same
results were obtained from the
Cambrian Vindbyan System, and the
Cambrian of Kashmir—these Kashmir
beds also contained several types of
trilobites. The review articles of
Axelrod and Leclercq acknowledge
these findings."—Marvin L. Lubenow,
"Significant Fossil Discoveries
Since 1958," in Creation Research
Society Quarterly, December 1980, p.
154
The Evolution Handbook contains over 3,000
scientific facts which annihilate the theory of
evolution. Available in boxes of 16 for
$1.00 each at
http://www.evolution-facts.org/Handbook TOC.htm
CLICK HERE for link
to the Evolution Handbook online:
http://www.evolution-facts.org/Downloads.htm
CLICK HERE to
return to the BIBLE STUDY INDEX
Aol users must request information by using the following email:
OTHER
INDEX FILES:
"Why the Fossil Strata Theory is a remarkable
hoax." Fossil remains provide
evolutionists with their only real hope
of finding evidence that evolution might
have occurred in the past. If the
fossils do not witness to evolution in
the past, then it could not be occurring
now either.
2 - DATING THE STRATA
AND FOSSILS
Index Fossils
3 - COMPLEXITY AT THE
BEGINNING
4 - SUDDEN APPEARANCE
OF LIFE
Chapter 12: Fossils & Strata
