Hence, the creationist doo-doo at the end of his message.
>From now on, I am not going to forward any attached documents
from Briggs unless anyone explicitly wants to see them.
--Krishna
-----------------------------------------------------------------
: From rbriggs@jax.jaxnet.com Sun Sep 10 00:44:23 1995
: Delivery-Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 00:44:28 -0500
: Date: Sun, 10 Sep 1995 01:47:38 -0400
: Message-Id: <199509100547.BAA22223@jax.jaxnet.com>
: X-Sender: rbriggs@jax.jaxnet.com
: Mime-Version: 1.0
: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=====================_810722621==_"
: To: krisna@lucy.cs.wisc.edu (Krishna Kunchithapadam)
: From: rbriggs@jax.jaxnet.com (Richard Briggs)
: Subject: Re: A Response to Yours
: X-Mailer: <Windows Eudora Version 2.0.2>
: X-Attachments: C:\INTERNET\NETSCAPE\EVOL.TXT;C:\INTERNET\NETSCAPE\EVOL2.TXT;C:\INTERNET\NETSCAPE\EVOL3.TXT;C:\INTERNET\NETSCAPE\EVOL4.TXT;C:\INTERNET\NETSCAPE\MUTATION.TXT;C:\INTERNET\NETSCAPE\QNAEVOL.TXT;
:
:
: --=====================_810722621==_
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
:
: >Richard Briggs writes:
: >:
: >: >
: >: >(*) Will you accept sources external to the bible as valid. For
: >: > example, will you accept peer-reviewed scientific journals in
: >: > biology, physics, or chemistry, as valid sources of
: >: > scientific fact.
: >: >
: >: > More important, would you say that if a statement in these
: >: > journals or science texts contradicts the bible, then they
: >: > (the journals and texts) are not admissible as proof (in
: >: > fact, this is essentially what I am agreeing to show you).
: >: >
: >: > If indeed you were to say that the bible is, for you, the
: >: > first and final authority on all matters, scientific or
: >: > otherwise, then I *cannot* ever provide you with proof that
: >: > the bible has a scientific error. Once again, this is not
: >: > because I am incapable of debate or badly qualified---
: >: > axiomatic differences places our world-views so far apart
: >: > from each other that we cannot have a productive discussion.
: >: >
: >: > I am hoping that you will say that you are willing to accept
: >: > peer-reviewed scientific journals and scientific texts as
: >: > containing valid statements of scientific fact.
: >: >
: >:
: >: Yes, under the condition that you allow for divine intervention in the
: >: course of Nature [miracles]. And that the journals and texts speak to FACT
: >: [as opposed to theory, such as big bang, evolution etc, and questionable
: >: methods such as carbon-14 (accurate at best to a maximum of 10,000
: >: years)etc. that is not widely [in the world science community] controversial
: >: or biased.
: >:
: >
: >What do you mean by "divine intervention in the course of Nature
: >[miracles]". When is it okay, according to you, to appeal to
: >miracle to resolve a contradiction between the bible and
: >scientific fact.
:
: If the Bible flatly states that God did something (i.e., raised someone from
: the dead etc.) you will have to allow that. What I am talking about here is
: the fact that the Bible never states any principle, law or property that is
: contrary to proven scientific FACT.
:
:
: >
: >If you simply say "that was a miracle wrought by god" to explain
: >each and every scientific error in the bible, then I am not
: >prepared to spend any time providing you with examples. Once
: >again, this is because your position is not amenable to debate.
: >Please provide me with the specific conditions when you will
: >invoke this "miracle" argument.
: >
: >Secondly, I am rather amused that you consider evolution to be a
: >theory, as opposed to FACT.
:
: I am rather amused that you still believe it! Especially when well known
: professors (who aren't Christians) are abandoning straight evolution. If
: you'd like further information regarding the refutation of Evolution, visit
: my home page and follow the link by that name. I will also attach some
: documents for you.
:
: It is also amusing to see that you
: >consider carbon-14 dating to be a widely controversial and biased
: >method of dating in the world scientific community. While I
: >accept that radiocarbon dating works best for age ranges of
: >thousands to tens of thousands of years, I am not aware that
: >there is any controversy about such legitimate uses in the
: >scientific community.
:
: The fact that it works "best" within 10,000 years means that it does not
: work best past 10,000 years. This is controversial.
:
: Perhaps you can cite references to
: >articles in current peer-reviewed reputable, scientific journals
: >that question the validity of radiocarbon dating.
:
: See current attached documents.
:
: >
: >
: >
: >:
: >: >(*) Do you agree to interpret one or more biblical verses that I
: >: > shall quote in the literal sense---i.e. they mean what they
: >: > say. There is a good reason for my asking this question,
: >: > because I have in the past provided examples of
: >: > contradictions (logical ones) to inerrantists and have them
: >: > claim that I have not understood the "authorial intent" of
: >: > the relevant passages i.e. the author of the passage really
: >: > meant something else (even if that is the exact antithesis of
: >: > the literal statement) and that two or more statements that
: >: > "seem" to be in contradiction are really not in
: >: > contradiction.
: >: >
: >: > While it is quite true that people may not interpret
: >: > statements in any text (including the bible) correctly, there
: >: > is something deeply illogical about claiming that two
: >: > statements that are in direct contradiction with each other
: >: > are in fact not in contradiction.
: >: >
: >: > Either the bible is not to be read literally, or the bible
: >: > has errors in it if interpreted literally. Insisting on both
: >: > literalism and inerrancy is an extreme position that is not
: >: > defensible.
: >: >
: >:
: >: VERY IMPORTANT...
: >: I only translate the Bible (all 66 books) in one way. The
: >: "Historical-Grammatical" method. This is classical translation of the
: >: Bible. In a nutshell, the HG method allows for hyperbole, metaphor, and
: >: other literary nuances within the Literal translation of the Bible text,
: >: based solely on the original language and culture in context. For
: >: instance, If we read something like " ...And on the 8th day, it was raining
: >: cats and dogs..." I would expect you to allow for metaphor in the writing
: >: and not hold literally that felines and canines were materializing in the
: >: atmosphere (around dust particles) and falling when the temperature and
: >: atmosphere could no longer support them. QUESTION: I notice in the 5th line
: >: of the first paragraph in this (*) above you state " contradictions." Let us
: >: be clear...are you focusing on Scientific Error of the Bible or supposed
: >: Contradictions of the Bible? Is the argument in the original text or the
: >: current english translations? I am unclear.
: >:
: >
: >I am willing to accept literary nuances, but only upto a certain
: >extent. Since it is difficult to talk abstractly about literary
: >nuances without specific examples, let me then ask you this:
: >
: >Do you accept the King James version of the bible to represent a
: >valid literal "Historical-Grammatical" translation of the bible?
: >Specifically, are the English words in the KJV accurate literal
: >translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words?
: >
:
: Tough question. I consider the KJV to be the best *English* version. But
: it's language and structure is from 1611. Some of the words used do not
: mean (in English) the same things they mean today (i.e., charity (love),
: conversation (walk of life), blessed (happy) etc.). So, when I have a
: question I consult the orginal language (either Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek
: (koine)) I see from your homepage that you have experience in other
: languages. You then should know that there is always something lost in the
: translation. Be it the poetry, the flow, the gender, the tense etc. It is
: extremely difficult to pass *everything* into another language. So, the HG
: method is applied to Greek/Hebrew texts, not to English translations. You
: should *ALWAYS* consult the original language if a question arises about a
: word. I have had some intermediate training on the Greek language, and
: beginning training on Hebrew (much harder!) But a good lexicon or
: Hebrew/Greek dictionary is generally enough. So I accept the "Byzantine"
: text (Textus Receptus) based on the Majority Text Notes renderings and the
: KJV as a good translation of it for reading purposes.
:
:
: >
: >As to my use of the word "contradictions", it was in the context
: >of an example of the kinds of "explanations" given by
: >inerrantists to explain biblical contradictions. I will give you
: >an example of a scientific error in the bible---which then
: >becomes a contradiction between science and the bible.
: >
:
: Ok.
:
: >
: >
: >:
: >: >(*) Assuming that you have agreed to both the above statements,
: >: > will you, once I show you _one_ error in the bible with
: >: > respect to scientific fact, honestly acknowledge this and say
: >: > so in `apologia-l'. In addition, do you agree to consider
: >: > with an open mind, other examples of errors and internal
: >: > contradictions in the bible that Farrell Till might send your
: >: > way.
: >: >
: >:
: >: Are you asking me NOT to offer you explanation or defense, but simply accept
: >: anything you mail to me as irrefutable?? NO. I do not agree with this (*)
: >: as currently written. I would however agree that if I could not find any
: >: defense within the bounds of what I have defined above then I will "honestly
: >: acknowledge in 'apologia-l'."
: >:
: >
: >I am certainly not asking you to accept whatever I say without
: >defense. And thank you for agreeing to acknowledge this debate
: >on apologia-l. I will also request you to send a copy of all
: >your messages to `errancy@freethought.tamu.edu' (and/or subscribe
: >to the list and send all your responses to the subscribers of the
: >list).
: >
:
: I cannot send to the list unless I subscribe and I do not wish to subscribe.
: I deal in purely individual contacts. What you choose to do with my
: messages is entirely up to you.
:
:
: >
: >
: >I am looking forward to your responses on:
: >
: >* the scope of "miracles".
: >* the accuracy of the KJV.
: >
:
: I don't know if we can get past the Miracles thing. Miracles really should
: not even come into play in a Scientific fact debate. Miracles are only the
: suspension of the natural order. They do not deal with what the laws state,
: only that they were suspended. Does that make sense? What I mean is, we are
: not debating whether or not the natural laws can be suspended...we are
: debating whether or not the Bible states principally,methodically,or
: factually something contrary to proven laws. For instance...The Bible could
: (but doesn't) state that the pull of gravity is 16ft per second per second,
: and then separately speak to something floating in mid air. The floating
: does not contradict the FACT of the pull of gravity, but simply states a
: time when that law was suspended. It would be a contradiction if the Bible
: said that an object falls at 100ft/second/second for we know that is not
: correct. It is not like the Big Bang and Evolution which contain
: Contradiction/Denial of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. (see attachments)
: So if this is acceptable let me know. If its complexity is too fine of a
: line to walk for debate purposes...I understand.
:
:
: The KJV is an "accurate" *translation* of the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic
: Scripture. But further original language study is needed to uncover the
: unavoidable effects of the English filter.
:
:
: >and optionally on:
: >
: >* scientific reasons why carbon-14 dating is controversial.
: >
: >--Krishna
: >
: I believe this is covered in the attachments.
:
:
:
:
: --=====================_810722621==_
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="EVOL.TXT"
:
: -----------------------------------------------------------
: Copyright 1995 by the CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY (CRS), Inc.
: -----------------------------------------------------------
:
: A DECADE OF CREATIONIST RESEARCH
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: (Part I)
:
: by DUANE T. GISH, Ph.D.
: Creation Research Society Quarterly 12(1):34-46
: June, 1975
:
: *Abstract*
:
:
: The primary purpose of the Creation Research Society is to carry
: out, or to encourage, Creationist research in the natural
: sciences, and to publish the results of such research. By
: Creationist research is meant research which proceeds from a
: belief in, and attempts to correlate with, special Creation. It
: is shown that, in about the last ten years, a significant amount
: of research has been accomplished. It has been done, moreover,
: at very little expense, and, as far as is known, with no
: expenditure whatever of public money. While reference is made
: especially to the Creation Research Society, it is known that
: good work has been done outside the Society. No claim is made
: that this list of research is complete. It is probably
: impossible to list everything which has been done; and some work
: is not included mainly because it was difficult to fit it under
: any particular heading. It is clear, from what is reported here,
: that Creationist research is a worthwhile activity. There is, of
: course, much more to be done; and it is hoped that many more
: people who are able to do research will come forward.
:
:
: *Introduction*
:
:
: Evolution is the dogma of the scientific and educational
: establishments. Many millions of dollars from government sources
: are spent each year on research that is oriented and correlated
: within the framework of evolution theory. On the other hand, as
: far as I know, not a single tax dollar has been available, or is
: available, for research by scientists who openly attempt to
: correlate their results within the concept of special creation.
: Perhaps this virtual "shut-out" is due in part to lack of
: ingenuity and aggressiveness on the part of creationists, but
: there is little doubt that the most ingenious and sustained
: action of creationists would do little to weaken the
: stranglehold evolutionists have on public funds.
:
: In spite of this fact, a significant and growing research effort
: by creationists has been sustained during the past decade.
: Although a limited amount of research had been conducted prior
: to, and since its founding, independently of, the Creation
: Research Society, the establishment in 1963 of this creationist
: organization of Christian men and women of science, has provided
: the inspiration for, and, to a considerable degree, the funds
: necessary for this research.
:
: This Society was established primarily for research in all
: fields of science designed to demonstrate that the scientific
: evidence related to origins can be correlated and explained much
: more satisfactorily by the concepts of special creation and a
: universal catastrophic flood than the concepts of evolution and
: uniformitarian geology. Beginning in the Fall of 1964, the
: results of this research have been published in the _Creation
: Research Society Quarterly_. (1) This paper is a review of the
: articles published in the _Quarterly_ during the first decade of
: publication, which constitute the results of original research.
:
: These papers can be arranged in approximately six scientific
: categories: geology, genetics, natural selection, taxonomy,
: general biology (genetics, natural selection and taxonomy are
: specializations within biology, of course), and thermodynamics.
:
:
: GEOLOGY
:
:
: Geological papers constitute the largest category of papers
: published in the _Quarterly_. This is not surprising. The
: research needed to demonstrate the fact that evolution could not
: occur and, in fact, has not occurred, has already been performed.
: These research results provide strong support, on the other hand,
: for a special, supernatural, direct creation.
:
: Yet, considerable research needs to be done to support the
: specific Biblical creation model and to re-establish Flood
: geology as an alternative to evolutionary geology. Thus, most of
: the research performed by creationist geologists has been
: directed at the goal of interpretation of geological data within
: the concept of catastrophism in contrast to the actualism of
: evolutionary geologists.
:
:
: *Overthrust*
:
:
: Evolutionary geologists assume that sedimentary strata have been
: laid down over vast stretches of time, and have arranged these
: strata in a supposed time-sequence, particularly the
: fossil-bearing strata, based on assumed evolutionary
: transformations. The strata are identified by fossils that are
: characteristic of each strata, usually marine invertebrates.
:
: It is believed, for example, that the Cambrian strata,
: identified by the particular types of trilobites found within
: them, were laid down over a period of about 80 million years
: beginning approximately 600 million years ago. Evolutionary
: geologists thus believe that these sedimentary deposits were
: laid down during what is called the Cambrian Period.
:
: In addition to trilobites, these rocks contain fossils of every
: one of the major invertebrate types, including jellyfish,
: sponges, brachiopods, worms, crustaceans, and corals
: (evolutionary ancestors for which have never been found, the
: so-called Precambrian rocks being devoid of multicellular
: fossils). The Cambrian Period was supposedly followed by
: geological periods of successively younger age, such as the
: Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Mississippian, Pennsylvanian,
: etc. Fishes are not found in Cambrian rocks, but appear in the
: Ordovician. Amphibians are not found in Cambrian, Ordovician or
: Silurian rocks, but are found in Devonian and "younger" strata.
: Reptiles appear in yet "later" strata, then birds, mammals, etc.
:
: The various strata have thus been arranged in an assumed
: time-sequence according to a supposed evolutionary development
: of invertebrate to fish to amphibia to reptiles to mammals to
: primates to man. The arrangement of the various strata in this
: assumed time-sequence is known as the geological column.
:
: If this assumed time-sequence is correct, and was actually
: created by the slow deposition of one set of strata on top of
: another through vast stretches of time, then "younger" strata
: should always rest on top of " older" strata. On the other hand,
: if, as Flood geologists maintain, most of these sedimentary
: deposits were laid down at the time of the Flood, and the
: particular sequence usually observed was determined by a
: combination of factors, including ecological zones, hydrodynamic
: sorting, attempts to reach safety at higher altitudes, etc.,
: then breaks in the sequence and even occasional revearsals of
: the usual sequence of fossils would be expected under the
: catastrophic conditions of the Flood.
:
: Many inversions of the strata scattered throughout the world
: actually exist, "older" strata lying on top of "younger." In
: places this upside-down arrangement of the strata is hundreds
: and even thousands of square miles in extent. To explain the
: manner in which older strata became superimposed upon younger
: strata, evolutionary geologists are forced to postulate vast
: "thrust-faults."
:
: Supposedly huge blocks of the crust were uplifted and then
: somehow thrust over the adjoining area. The upper layers of the
: "thrust block" were then eroded away, leaving the lower, or
: older, strata of the thrust block lying on the younger strata
: underneath. This sequence of events thus supposedly accounts for
: the many cases where the older fossils of more "primitive"
: creatures lie on top of younger fossils of more "advanced"
: evolutionary development.
:
: Creationist geologists have attacked this postulate on the basis
: of both the physics involved and the lack of field evidence
: required to substantiate these supposed overthrusts. While
: pointing out that there is evidence of local folding and
: overthrusting on a small scale, creationists maintain that
: physical evidence along the contact line, such as brecciation,
: gouge, and slickensides, does not exist for the supposed large
: thrust-faults. A number of field expeditions have been
: undertaken to search for evidence, or lack of it, for
: overthrusting.
:
: Harold Slusher, then assistant professor of physics at the
: University of Texas, El Paso, examined a supposed overthrust in
: the Franklin Mountains near El Paso. (2) In that area a massive
: structure of Upper Ordovician limestone (supposedly about 450
: million years old) lies on top of strata identified as Lower
: Cretaceous (supposedly about 130 million years old). Neither
: Professor Slusher nor the geologist accompanying him could find
: any physical evidence of overthrusting.
:
: In 1956 and 1957, Walter Lammerts visited the site of the
: so-called Lewis "overthrust" in Glacier National Park. Dr.
: Lammerts' doctorate is in genetics, but be has had university
: courses in geology and has maintained a keen interest in this
: field. The Lewis "overthrust" extends laterally from 15-30
: miles. It is postulated that a huge block of Precambrian
: limestone, thousands of feet thick and almost 10,000 square
: miles in area, was thrust eastward over soft Cretaceous shale,
: resulting in a formation supposedly older than 600 million years
: resting on top of a formation about 100 million years old.
:
: Dr. Lammerts studied the contact line exposed at Chief Mountain,
: one of the most imposing sights in the Park. He reported that
: all the evidence lie could discover indicated that the contact
: was sedimentary rather than a thrust-fault. (3)
:
: Clifford L. Burdick, a professional geologist, carried out an
: extensive survey of the contact line of the Lewis " overthrust"
: at several places in the U.S. and Canada. The report of this
: research (4) includes an excellent review of the overthrust
: concept and of the standard interpretation of the so-called
: Lewis overthrust.
:
: The contact line at Wynn Mountain, Chief Mountain, and Roes
: Creek in the U.S., and at Crowsnest Pass, and near Mt.
: Eisenhower in Canada was studied. Evidence for thrust-faulting
: along the contact line, Burdick reported, such as gouge (rock
: powder), mylonite (coarsely ground rock), tectonic breccia
: (conglomerate including rock fragments set in a matrix), and
: slickensides (striations on rock surfaces) was absent.
:
: At Mt. Ishbel, near Mt. Eisenhower, Burdick reported that the
: strata were sharply upturned, and he found great piles of rock
: rubble along the pass between the two mountains. He concluded
: that if there had been local lateral pressure in the area, the
: rock was so incompetent it would have broken up rather than
: moving laterally, and that the upturned strata of Mt. Ishbel had
: been caused by a granitoid intrusion from underneath.
:
: If, as Burdick and Lammerts have concluded, the Lewis contact
: line is sedimentary and not a thrustfault contact line, then the
: entire concept of the geological column as an evolutionary
: succession of geological ages is highly questionable, to say the
: least.
:
: Burdick and Slusher studied an alleged overthrust in the Empire
: Mountains in Pine County, Arizona. (5) They first examined known
: thrust-faults in other areas to confirm the type of evidence to
: be found where actual thrust-faulting has occurred. In one case,
: for example, a block of limestone about one-half mile long bad
: been thrust about one-half mile. A gouge layer about three feet
: thick composed of ground-up rock powder gave evidence that
: thrust-faulting had occurred. At another site of a small
: thrust-fault, a 15-20 foot thick layer of tectonic breccia
: (crushed and ground pieces of rock fragments) and slickensides
: gave evidence that overthrusting had occurred.
:
: Examination of the alleged contact line of the Empire Mountain
: "overthrust" gave no such evidence. The overlying Permian rock
: (greater than 200 million years in age, allegedly) fit into deep
: grooves eroded in the underlying Cretaceous (about 100 million
: years old, supposedly) like a glove on a band, or like material
: poured into a mold. If the Permian cap rock had been thrust over
: the Cretaceous (as evolutionary geologists contend), why,
: Burdick and Slusher ask, were not all of these sharp projections
: planed off? Why is there no evidence, such as brecciation,
: gouge, and slickensides, for thrust-faulting? They concluded
: that the evidence indicates that the contact is depositional and
: not a thrust-fault contact.
:
: Lammerts studied the classical Lochseite of the Glarus
: "overthrust" near Schwanden, Switzerland. (6) Here a huge block
: of Jurassic limestone (about 180 million years) rests on top of
: a Eocene formation (about 60 million years) . The overlying rock
: of over a mile in thickness supposedly was thrust almost 21
: miles over the underlying Eocene. Lammerts' analysis of the
: evidence failed to support the latest evolutionary
: uniformitarian concepts on the Glarus overthrust (reviewed in
: his paper). Lammerts presented an alternative proposal, based on
: Flood geology, which explained how these deposits may have been
: laid down in the present order.
:
:
: *Fossil Anomalies*
:
:
: When fossils are found in strata which would be impossible
: according to standard evolutionary interpretations, these are
: labeled fossil anomalies. Usually such reports are ignored by
: evolutionary geologists, since they assume that an error has
: been made or an obvious explanation must exist. Several such
: fossil anomalies have been reported in the _CRS Quarterly_.
:
: Professor Wilbert Rusch has studied the subject of fossil human
: footprints, personally examining some found in Kentucky. (7)
: This study has become even more interesting in the light of the
: reported finds of human footprints along with dinosaur
: footprints in Cretaceous limestone of the Paluxy River area near
: Glen Rose, Texas. This latter report has been extensively
: documented by Stanley Taylor in the film, "Footprints in Stone
: ." (8) Rusch indicates that some of the footprints he researched
: (not in the Glen Rose area) were carvings, but others appeared
: to be genuine. He also recounted the report of an iron pot found
: in coal. [Note added in 1995: Continued study of the alleged
: human footprints near Glen Rose has not confirmed their source
: and has led to withdrawal of the documentary film.]
:
: William Meister, while searching in the trilobite beds of
: Antelope Springs near Delta, Utah, split open a slab of rock to
: expose what appeared to be a human sandal print in which was
: imbedded three fossil trilobites. (9) If true, this means that
: this footprint was made when trilobites were still in existence,
: but trilobites supposedly became extinct many scores of millions
: of years before man bad evolved! Evolutionary paleontologists
: and anthropologists merely shrugged off this find as not
: genuine, but an anomaly due to some natural cause.
:
: Clifford Burdick has reported on his investigation of the find
: of two modern human skeletons in the Dakota Formation of the
: Cretaceous (supposedly about 100 million years old) near Moab,
: Utah. (10) During a mining operation for hydrothermally
: deposited copper, a hillside bad been bulldozed away. The hill
: was composed of Dakota sandstone. On the floor of the excavated
: site, Lin Ottinger, a rockshop owner and guide of Moab,
: discovered two human skeletons. The blade of the bulldozer had
: sliced through the skeletons, leaving most of the remains
: exposed at the surface.
:
: Burdick concluded that the bones were definitely in place, with
: no evidence that the surrounding rock had been disturbed. He
: believes that the location of the find deep within the hillside
: indicates that these individuals were buried at the time the
: Dakota sandstone was deposited.
:
: Prof. Wilbert Rusch and I carried out an investigation of this
: find shortly after Burdick's visit. We also visited the
: University of Utah to examine the bones, which were in custody
: of the Anthropology Department. There was no doubt that these
: skeletons were buried deep within the hillside, and as Burdick
: reported, there was no evidence the surrounding rock was
: disturbed.
:
: We felt, however, that since all of the overlying material had
: been removed, the evidence required to positively eliminate the
: possibility that these individuals had reached the site via a
: fissure or cave was not available. Thus, while all the evidence
: that did exist indicated that these individuals were part of the
: original deposit, the possibility that they had entered the site
: at a later date could not be excluded with all certainty. Other
: reports of the finds of modern human remains in sediments
: supposedly many millions of years old have been summarized by
: Cousins. (11)
:
:
: *Palynology*
:
:
: Palynology is the study of fossil pollen and spores. Burdick has
: reported on his palynological studies of formations in the Grand
: Canyon. (12,13) The striking fact about his results was the
: presence of fossil pollen grains of plants in sedimentary
: deposits that were allegedly laid down several hundred million
: years before the plants are believed to have evolved. He
: reported, for example, the discovery of fossil pollen of
: gymnosperms, many of them conifers (pine trees), and of
: angiosperms (flowering plants) in Cambrian and Precambrian
: formations.
:
: The gymnosperms, or seed-bearing plants, supposedly did not
: evolve until long after the Cambrian rocks had been laid down,
: and the angiosperms are supposed to have evolved even later. The
: Cambrian Period is believed by evolutionists to be a time when
: no land plants or animals were in existence, in fact, a time
: when only marine and fresh water invertebrates existed.
:
: A report by Rusch in the _Quarterly_ (l4) related the fact that
: there have been numerous reports in recent years of the finds of
: fossil pollen of woody plants, including conifers, in Cambrian
: rocks by evolutionary geologists. Even fragments of woody plants
: have been found in Cambrian rocks.
:
: These finds decisively contradict the supposed time and order of
: so-called plant evolution given in almost all books on geology,
: paleobotany, and evolution. These facts are not even known to
: the vast majority of geologists and biologists. For example,
: when I brought these facts to the attention of the audience
: during a debate with the world-famous botanist and evolutionist,
: Dr. G. Ledyard Stebbins, he was astounded, and demanded
: documentation. His astonishment was compounded when the
: documentation I readily provided included a report by one of his
: colleagues at the University of California at Davis and a close
: friend, geologist Dr. Daniel Axelrod!
:
:
: GENERAL GEOLOGICAL REPORTS
:
:
: *Geology of Mount Ararat*
:
:
: Burdick has reported on the expedition that visited Mount Ararat
: in 1966. Mount Ararat lies in the northeast corner of Turkey near
: the Russian and Iranian borders. It is believed to be the
: Biblical Ararat where the Ark came to rest. The expedition, one
: of several in recent years, including the 1972 Institute for
: Creation Research expedition led by John Morris, was undertaken
: primarily to search for the remains of the Ark. Numerous alleged
: sightings of the Ark have been reported in ancient times and in
: relatively recent times.
:
: While in the Ararat area, Burdick undertook a study of the
: geology of this area. (15) He postulated that the Paleozoic and
: Mesozoic limestone that covers eastern Turkey was laid down at
: the time of the Flood. During the Flood, Burdick reports,
: basaltic and andesitic lava burst up through the limestone beds
: to form a peak nearly 20,000 feet high. Much of the basalt and
: andesite composing upper Ararat is often found in rounded blocks
: called pillow lava, which is the hard, micro-crystalline
: form-taken by lava when it is extruded under water. Erosion has
: reduced the mountain to its present 17,000-foot height.
:
:
: *Research on the Joggins Petrified Trees*
:
:
: Harold Coffin has re-investigated the Carboniferous section of
: Joggins, Nova Scotia, (16) (the Carboniferous includes the
: Mississippian and Pennsylvanian Periods, which are believed by
: evolutionists to have been laid down over a period of about 50
: million years beginning about 300 million years ago). The
: prevailing idea of evolutionary geologists is that the petrified
: trees and numerous coal seams in the Joggins area are _in situ_,
: that is, in their original position of growth. It is postulated
: that there were numerous long periods of growth of bogs which
: slowly formed coal at lower depths. Repeated transgressions of
: the sea, it is believed, buried these coal seams and engulfed
: the trees.
:
: Dr. Coffin's study did not support this concept. His research,
: on the other hand, produced numerous lines of evidence that the
: trees, along with masses of plant material, bad been transported
: by water to the site where they are now found, and were then
: buried under conditions of rapid sedimentation. Petrification
: and carbonization followed. The evidence for this hypothesis
: included absence of soil zones, unusual plant fossils within
: hollow stumps, remarkable preservation of delicate fossils,
: diagonal trees, abundant presence of the marine tubeworm
: _Spirobis_ (the attachment of this marine, or salt water,
: organism, to vegetal matter in the coal contradicts the bog
: environment hypothesis), and polystrate trees (trees extending
: through two or more strata, each of which, according to
: evolutionary interpretations, was deposited slowly over a long
: period of time).
:
: The evidence developed by Coffin supports the hypothesis that
: the coal was formed by the tremendous quantities of trees and
: vegetal matter that was uprooted, transported and buried by
: alternating tidal waves and other catastrophic effects of the
: Flood. I have briefly reviewed laboratory experiments that
: produced petroleum in 20 minutes and coal in a few hours from
: cellulosic material (garbage and manure, for example,
: demonstrating that the formation of coal and oil would not
: require vast stretches of time). (17)
:
: Coffin has recently given an excellent report of his studies of
: the petrified forests in the Yellowstone Park area. (18) These
: studies have led him to believe that these trees also had been
: transported and buried at their present site by water action.
:
:
: *The Sisquoc Diatomite Fossil Beds*
:
:
: Bernard Northrop researched the diatomaceous earth beds near
: Lompoc in Santa Barbara County, California. (19) Evolutionary
: geologists have maintained that these beds formed gradually over
: vast periods of time, but Northrup's studies provided striking
: evidence of the rapid and catastrophic deposition of these beds.
:
: In the Sicquoc area, countless billions of the delicately
: sculptured siliceous cell walls of diatoms (microscopic
: organisms) have been deposited in such a way that fish were
: entombed with bones and even body organs intact. Some fossil
: fish were trapped so that they lie parallel to the bedding plane
: of the diatom matrix, but many other fish fossils extend across
: the bedding plane. ;the latter fossils (standing partly on end)
: must have been buried quickly, or else the part not buried at
: first would have been devoured by scavengers, or would have
: decayed long before it could have been buried by a diatom
: "rain." Fossils of various fish, sea birds, and whales also
: indicate that the diatom material was deposited rapidly and
: catastrophically rather than by gradual and uniform activity.
:
: Northrup postulated that the original diatom supply was first
: formed in cool waters after the Flood and was redeposited at the
: Lompoc site during a post-Flood catastrophe.
:
:
: *Cyclical Black Shales of West Central Illinois.*
:
:
: Walter Peters has applied photomicroradiographic techniques to
: the study of black shales of the Pennsylvania system of west
: central Illinois. (20) The evolutionary uniformitarian
: interpretation of a slow, undisturbed sedimentation and
: mineralization of these shales over vast periods of time could
: not be true, according to Peters.
:
: Study methods included gross and macrophotography, microscopic
: examination of thin shale chips, and photomicrographic
: inspection of x-rays of shale samples. Cyclical deposition was
: indicated by the structural details of the shale as well as by
: the virtually mutually exclusive occurrence of foraminifers and
: conodonts in successively alternating bedding planes and black
: shale matrix. Rapid transport and burial was implied from
: several observations including Orbiculoidea shells packed into
: lenses up to one inch thick; microlaminations apparently
: interrupted by small coal balls; and the distorted bedding,
: cloth at the bottom and the top of the shale member.
:
: Peters concluded that all of his observations can be used to
: support strongly the Biblical tidal interpretation of fossil
: deposition and burial.
:
:
: *The Capitan Fossil "Reef"*
:
:
: The occurrence of alleged fossil "reefs" in various portions of
: the geologic column has been recognized by many observers to be
: a very difficult problem to reconcile with Biblical chronology.
: If accumulated at approximately the same rate as modern reefs
: allegedly form, a single fossil "reef" would take many
: thousands of years to form, and therefore would jeopardize the
: implication from Genesis of a young earth and would also
: question the role of the Flood in earth history.
:
: The famous Capitan Limestone in the Guadalupe Mountains of
: southeastern New Mexico and western Texas is alleged by many
: geologists to be a classic example of a fossilized "barrier
: reef." Stuart Nevins conducted a study of this alleged fossil
: reef to see if the actual field evidence supports this concept.
: (21)
:
: Nevins reported that his study cast doubt on the various
: depositional and ecologic environments alleged to be associated
: with the "Capitan Reef." The so-called "backreef lagoon" and
: "forereef talus" deposits were not contemporaneous with "reef"
: accumulation. In addition, the Capitan lacks large, _in situ_,
: organically-bound frameworks and deposits of broken debris which
: can be shown to be derived from an organic framework.
:
: Nevin's research indicated that the Capitan is composed
: primarily of broken fossil fragments in a fine-grained matrix of
: lime, silt, and sand which were not wave-resistant when
: deposited. The fossil flora and fauna of 'Capitan Reef," be
: reported, represent a shallow water assemblage which was not
: especially adapted to a wave or strong current environment.
: Reef-forming organisms which could bind sediments and build
: frameworks are either altogether absent or largely
: inconspicuous.
:
: Nevins concluded that the available data certainly do not
: require many thousands of years for the Capitan to have
: accumulated, and therefore seem to present no problem for
: Biblical chronology. Instead, the lack of large
: organically-bound structures, which would have required
: thousands of years for growth, suggests that deposition was very
: rapid. Nevins proposed that the Capitan Limestone accumulated
: rapidly either during the last stages of the Flood or shortly
: thereafter.
:
:
: *Geologic Study of the John Day Country*
:
:
: Recently Nevins reported on his study of the strata of the John
: Day Country in the Blue Mountain region of northeastern Oregon,
: which reveals abundant testimony of volcanic catastrophism. (22)
: The strata, which show a cumulative thickness of over 7,000
: feet, consist primarily of numerous terrestrial lava flows,
: gigantic ashflow tuff beds (each extruded in a single explosive
: event as a huge cloud of incandescent ash), boulder breccia
: layers (presumably deposited from enormous mud flows),
: tuff-breccia beds (representing very explosive stages in
: volcanism), and volcanic siltstone and sandstone (deposited as
: each explosive episode subsided). The area covers about 5,000 s
: square miles and lies southwest of the Columbia Plateau, which
: consists of a basaltic lava flow covering 100,000 square miles
: and as much as a mile in thickness.
:
: Nevins pointed out that fossils of large mammals and tropical
: and subtropical plants occur in particular horizons, which
: suggests that only on rare occasions of quiescence between
: volcanic eruptions was life reestablished in this region. Nevins
: maintained that the supposed evolutionary fossil series leading
: to the modem horse is artificial and thus false. Further, he
: maintained that there is little evidence suggesting 60 million
: years of history for this area as assumed by evolutionary
: geologists.
:
: Nevins suggested that since good evidences of the Flood are not
: found in the John Day Country strata he studied, the Flood must
: have preceded the formation of these strata. He thus concluded
: that an interval of many hundreds of years intervened between
: the close of the Flood and initiation of the recent glacial
: period. The vast volcanism of the John Day Country and the
: glacial ice sheet which covered the northern areas of North
: America and Europe are thus attributed to catastrophic events
: which occurred during the period of readjustment following the
: stupendous catastrophism of the Flood.
:
:
: *The Magnetic Moment and Age of the Earth*
:
:
: Thomas Barnes has carried out a fascinating study of the decay
: of the earth's magnetic moment and the implication this has
: regarding the age of the earth. His results are contained in an
: article in this issue and in a series of papers in the _CRS
: Quarterly_, (23-25) and in a monograph published by the Institute
: for Creation Research. (26)
:
: The earth's main magnetic field has been shown to be due to a
: magnetic dipole, the strength of which is called its magnetic
: moment. The magnetic field is due to circulating electric
: currents. These currents probably reside in the core of the
: earth. The core is believed to consist of hot liquid metal,
: composed mainly of iron. There is no mechanism to sustain these
: currents, so these currents and the resultant magnetic field are
: decreasing in strength, that is, decaying. These currents and
: the accompanying magnetic field thus have every appearance of
: having been "woundup" at some time in the past, with
: uninterrupted decay to the present.
:
: Measurements of the earth's magnetic moment have been made since
: 1835. Using these measurements, Dr. Barnes has calculated that
: the earth's magnetic moment is decaying exponentially with a
: half-life of 1400 years. The magnetic moment is decreasing
: because the circulating electric currents which generate the
: earth's main magnetic field are decreasing in strength. Part of
: the energy of these currents is continually being lost as beat
: energy, with resultant decrease in the strength of the currents
: and the magnetic field they generate.
:
: Extrapolating the strength of the earth's magnetic moment back
: into the past, based on the exponential decay curve, the value
: of the magnetic moment at any time in the past can be calculated
: (the magnetic moment would double for every 1400 years). The
: heat that would be generated by the current necessary for such a
: magnetic moment can also be calculated. Beyond about 10,000
: years, the magnetic moment would exceed a reasonable estimate
: for any planet the nature of the earth, and by one million years
: the current required to generate the magnetic moment predicted
: on the basis of the decay curve would liberate enough beat to
: vaporize the earth. Barnes thus maintained that these data,
: which are especially reliable because they are based on
: measurements over 130 years, indicate that the earth cannot be
: much older than 10,000 years.
:
: In an attempt to get around this barrier to a long age for the
: earth, evolutionists must postulate that some sort of a
: self-generating dynamo causes the liquid in the core to
: circulate, generating the magnetic field, rather than an
: electrical current circulating in a quiet liquid core as
: postulated by Barnes. Barnes pointed out that there is no
: physical evidence for motion within the core, and, in addition,
: a self-generating dynamo within the core would require motions
: of an extremely complex and unreasonable nature. He concluded
: that no acceptable dynamo theory to sustain or oscillate the
: earth's magnetic field has ever been conceived nor is one very
: likely. Dr. Barnes strongly affirms that the data on the earth's
: magnetic field demand a young age for the earth, an age that
: probably could not have much exceeded 10,000 years. (26)
:
:
: GENETICS
:
:
: *Mutations and Evolution*
:
:
: In a series of papers in the _Quarterly_, (27-29) Walter Lammerts
: presented data which are very damaging to the idea that
: mutations could have supplied the means of change that would
: have allowed evolution to occur.
:
: Genes are the units of heredity which when replicated by an
: organism and passed on to offspring during reproduction cause
: the characteristic traits of a species of organisms to be
: reproduced. These genes are composed of a type of chemical
: structure called deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). Each gene, or DNA
: unit, is made up of hundreds or thousands of sub-units arranged
: in sequence in a long chain. The genetic message encoded in each
: gene is determined by the specific sequence or arrangement of
: the sub-units in the DNA chain, analogous to the way the message
: in this sentence was composed by arranging the letters of the
: alphabet in a unique sequence.
:
: Mutations are random changes in the chemical structure of DNA.
: That is, mutations cause one sub-unit to be randomly exchanged
: for another, or sub-units may be randomly excised or inserted.
: Analogously, letters in this sentence might be blindly removed
: and replaced with others. Blindly or randomly exchanging letters
: in the sentences on this page would rapidly generate spelling
: errors and, very shortly, complete nonsense. Similarly, the
: effect of mutations in living organisms is harmful and often
: lethal.
:
: While evolutionists readily admit that the vast majority of