Evolution Cruncher Chapter 12


Fossils and Strata

rainbow2.gif (1633 bytes)

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, in the encyclopedia on this website.

This is the largest and one of the most important chapters in this book. Fossil remains provide evolutionists with their only real 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 set of books (chapters 12, 9, and 10).

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).


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 (*A.H. Clark, *Richard Goldschmidt, *Steven Gould, *Steven Stanley, *Colin Patterson, etc.). They have spent their lives fruitlessly working, hands on, with one of the two main factors in the very center of evolution: the evidence (fossils) or the mechanism by which it occurs (mutations), and that part of the body within which it must occur (DNA). 

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—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 was 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 subspecies.

UNIFORMITARIANISM—(*#4/29 Uniformitarianism vs. Catastrophism*) A basic postulate of evolution is the concept of uniformitarianism.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.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 Pa!eozoic 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:


Quaternary - 1829

Tertiary - 1759

Cretaceous - 1822

Jurassic - 1795

Triassic - 1834

Permian - 1841

Carboniferous - 1822

Devonian - 1837

Silurian - 1835

Ordovician - 1879

Cambrian - 1835


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!

THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN—Much of this, especially the dates, are imaginary. The complete column almost nowhere. The laying down of fossil strata primarily occurred below the Pleastocene, mountain building during it, and post-Flood after it. Coal is mainly in the Carboniferous.

Geologic time scale Macmillan Dictionary, p. 430

EC418.jpg (156711 bytes)  EC418a.jpg (161449 bytes)

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 Precambrianthe 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 watera 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.

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?

Yes, we CAN know! Men have worked earnestly, since the beginning of the 19th century, to find evidences of evolution in the fossil strata.

"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 excluded)."—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! That ought to be enough to locate the missing links and prove evolutionary theory! That ought to be enough to locate the missing links and prove evolutionary theory!

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, "Macroevolutíon," 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.. 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, from the fossils, and the fossils are dated from their theories about the dating of 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.

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 datingThe 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.

Index Fossils

EC428.jpg (385633 bytes)

INDEX FOSSILS—Are you able to pick up a seashell, and know it died 52½ months earlier? Evolutionists can pick up a fossil shell and tell you it died 525 million years ago!

The fact is that rocks are not dated by any physical characteristic at all. What then ARE they dated by?

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 or under where they should go, or totally missing. But at least we can date by all their fossils.

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 evolutionary 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 DATE—so many millions of years ago—when they lived? These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! Their presence in a sedimentary stratum is supposed to provide absolutely certain proof that that stratum is just so many millions of years "younger" or millions of years "older" than other strata! These special "index" fossils are generally small marine invertebrates— backboneless sea animals that could not climb to higher ground when the Flood came! Their presence in a sedimentary stratum is supposed to provide absolutely certain proof that that stratum is just so many millions of years "younger" or millions of years "older" than other strata!

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 120 million years long and beginning 60 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.

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 evolutionary geologists know what dates to apply to those index fossils? The answer to this question is a theory! How can evolutionary 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 fossils 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 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 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 set of books, 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,

Actually, the entire theory of evolution is based on one vast circularity in reasoning! Because they accept the theory, evolutionists accept all the foolish ideas which attempt to prove it.

"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) (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 structuresBecause 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 disovery 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. The rocks cry out; they have a message to tell us. Are we listening?

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 exos`````````keleton (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 complexThe 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?, 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?

EVERY PHYLUM IN THE CAMBRIAN—The startling fact is that every phylum is represented in the lowest sedimentary strata of all: the Cambrian. The "Cambrian explosion" is, for evolutionary theory, a catastrophe from which it will never recover.

Every phylum in the Cambrian

Let no one say that the Cambrian level only has "simple, primitive," or "half-formed" creatures.

EC440.jpg (391921 bytes)


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, 1 978,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.


PRECAMBRIAN—In contrast, there is next to nothing answering to life-forms beneath the Cambrian!

The Cambrian rocks contain literally billions of the little trilobites, plus many, many other complex species. Yet below the Cambrian—called the "Precambrian,"—we find almost nothing in the way of life-forms. The message of the rock strata is "SUDDENLY abundant life; below that, NO LIFE!" Where this terrific explosion of abundance of life begins—in the Cambrian,—we find complexity, not simplicity of life-forms.

Multicellular animals appear suddenly and in rich profusion in the Cambrian, and none are ever found beneath it in the Precambrian (*Preston Cloud, "Pseudofossils: A Plea for Caution," in Geology, November 1973, pp. 123-127).

It is true that, in a very few disputed instances, there may be a few items in the Precambrian, which some suggest to be life-forms. But a majority of scientists recognize that, at best, these are only algae. Blue-green algae, although small plants, are biochemically quite complex; for they utilize an elaborate solar-to-chemical energy transformation, or photosynthesis. Such organisms could have been growing on the ground when the waters of the Flood first inundated it.

STROMATOLITES—The only macrofossils that are of widespread occurrence in the Precambrian are stromatolitesThe only macrofossils that are of widespread occurrence in the Precambrian are stromatolites. These are reef-like remnants usually thought to have been formed from precipitated mineral matter on microbial communities, primarily blue-green algae, growing by photosynthesis. So stromatolites are remnants of chemical formations—and never were alive!

"Further analysis of the world’s oldest rocks has confirmed that microscopic inclusions are not the fossilized remains of living cells; instead they are crystals of dolomite-type carbonates, rusted by water that has seeped into the rock."—*Nigel Henbest, "‘Oldest Cells’ are Only Weathered Crystals," in New Scientist, October 15, 1981, p. 164.

Two years later, an update report in New Scientist on "the world’s oldest (Precambrian) rocks" in Greenland said this:

"Geologists have found no conclusive evidence of life in these Greenland rocks."—*Chris Peat and *Will Diver, "First Signs of Life on Earth," in New Scientist, September 16, 1983, pp. 776-781.

Scientists have remarked on how there seems to be a sudden vast quantity of living creatures as soon as the Cambrian begins. All this favors the concept of Creation and a Genesis Flood, not that of slowly occurring evolution over millions of years.


THE GAP PROBLEM—(*#8/55 No Transitions: Only Gaps*) In this section we will deal with three specific problems, but we will frequently intermingle them in the discussion:

(1) There are no transitional species preceding or leading up to the first multi-celled creatures that appear in the Cambrian, the lowest stratum level.

(2) There are no transitional species elsewhere in the fossil record.

(3) The species that appear in the fossils are frequently found in many different strata.

(4) The great majority of the species found in the fossils are alive today.

NO TRANSITIONS—The Cambrian explosion is the first major problem with the fossil record. The lack of transitions is the second. But of all the problems, this lack of transitional creatures—halfway between different species—is, for the evolutionist, probably the biggest single crisis in the geologic column. Indeed, it is one of the biggest of the many crises in evolutionary theory!

"Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another. Instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds..

"It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149.

To make matters worse, in the fossil record we find the very same creatures that we have today, plus a few extinct types which died out before our time! Neither now nor earlier are there transitional forms, halfway between true species.

"When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100.

In the rock strata, we find horses, tigers, fish, insects, but no transitional forms. For example, we find large horses and small horses, but nothing that is part horse and part something else.

After giving years to a careful examination of the fossil record, comparing it with that of species alive today, a famous biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institute wrote these words:

"All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114.

"From the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today."—*Op. cit., p. 211.

FOSSIL GAPS—This glaring fact is a repudiation of evolutionary theory. Evolutionists even have a name for the problem: they call it "fossil gaps." No creatures that are half fish and half bird, or half pig and half cow are to be found—only distinct animal and plant types such as we know today.

A related problem is the fact that great numbers of fossils span across many strata, supposedly covering millions of years. This means that, throughout the fossil record, those species made no changes during those "millions of years."

THE OCTOPUS—Here is an excellent example of what we are talking about: the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates the squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates (animals without backbones). The eye of the octopus is extremely complicated, and equal to the human eye! Checking carefully through the fossil record, you will find only squid and octopi, nothing else. There was nothing evolved or evolving about them; they were always just squid and octopi. (You will also find an extinct species, called the nautiloids. But they seem to have been even more complex!)

Checking into this more carefully, you will find that octopi first appear quite early in the fossil strata. The reason for that would be simple enough: When an octopus is frightened, it may curl up in a cave or corner someplace, or it may shoot out quickly using jets of water. For this reason, some octopi would be buried early while others would be buried in higher strata. 

Checking still further, you will find that the octopus is found in nearly every stratum, from bottom to top! Many octopi continued to jet their way to the top of the waters as they rose.

(Later, after the Flood was finished, the balance of nature worked against the nautiloid and they were devoured by their enemies. Today there are none. Darwin’s "survival of the fittest" [the fittest will survive better than the others] apparently did not apply to the nautiloids, which were distinctly different than the octopi and squid, but apparently more capable than either.)

Checking still further, you will find that octopi and squid in all strata are identical to octopi and squid today.

MISSING LINKS—(*#11/133 Searching for Transitions [over a hundred quotations!]*) (*#11/133 Searching for Transitions [over a hundred quotations!]*) [It should be mentioned here that Appendix 11, at the back of our Fossils and Strata chapter on our website (evolution-facts.org), is the largest quotation appendix of all. It has 25 categories and 133 quotations. There are enough quotations here to form the basis for a major thesis.]

The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals, and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed.. 

Evolutionists know exactly what those transitional forms should look like, but they cannot find them in the fossil record! They are not to be found, even though thousands of men have searched for them since the beginning of the 19th century! Everywhere they turn, the paleontologists (the fossil hunters) find the same regular, distinct species that exist today, plus some that are extinct. The extinct ones are obviously not transitional forms between the regular species. For example, the large dinosaurs are not transitional forms, but are just definite species which became extinct in ancient times—probably by the waters of the Flood.

(Contrary to the lurid paintings of dinosaurs which evolutionists like to display as proof of their theory—extinction of a distinct species is not evolution, and provides no evidence of it.)

The search to find the missing links and fill the gaps between the distinct kinds has resulted in enormous collections of fossils. Recall to mind the earlier statements by Sunderland and *Kier, that 100 million fossils have been examined by paleontologists around the world.

"There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways it has become almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration . . The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps."—*T. Neville George, "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," in Science Progress, January 1960, pp. 1, 3.

If there are no transitional forms in the fossil record, there has been no evolution!


ABRUPT APPEARANCE OF THE HIGHER TAXA—(*#9/22 Abrupt Appearance*) The smaller, slower-moving creatures appear suddenly in the Cambrian. Above the Cambrian, the larger, faster creatures appear just as suddenly! And when these life-forms do appear—they appear by the millions! Tigers, salmon, lions, pine trees, gophers, hawks, squirrels, horses, and on and on!

Evolution cannot explain this sudden emergence, and competent scientists acknowledge the fact.

"The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates."—*James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist, November-December, 1975, p. 673.

"In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories about the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*G.G. Simpson, The Major features of Evolution (1953), p. 360.

"The sudden emergence of major adaptive types as seen in the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of families and orders, continued to give trouble. The phenomenon lay in the genetic no-man’s land beyond the limits of experimentation. A few paleontologists even today cling to the idea that these gaps will be closed by further collecting . . but most regard the observed discontinuities as real and have sought an explanation."—*D. Dwight Davis, "Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates," in Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (1949), p. 74.


UNCHANGING SPECIES—(*#13/17 Stasis*) An important principle noted by every paleontologist who works with fossils is known as stasis. Stasis means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged; in other words, not to change from one species to another! An important principle noted by every paleontologist who works with fossils is known as stasis. Stasis means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged; in other words, not to change from one species to another! An important principle noted by every paleontologist who works with fossils is known as stasis. Stasis means to retain a certain form, to remain unchanged; in other words, not to change from one species to another! The problem for the evolutionists is the fact that the animals in the fossil record did not change. Each creature first appears in the record with a certain shape and structure. It then continues on unchanged for "millions of years"; and is either identical to creatures existing now or becomes extinct and disappears. But all the while that it lived, there was no change in it; no evolution. There were no evidences of what paleontologists call gradualism, that is, gradual changes from one species to another. There was only stasis. The gap problem (no transitional forms between species) and the stasis problem (species do not change) ruin evolutionary theories.

"The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

"Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 

"Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14.


FOSSILS SAME AS THOSE NOW ALIVE—All of the fossils can be categorized into one of two groups: (1) Plants and animals which became extinct and (2) Plants and animals which are the same as those living today. Neither category provides any evidence of evolution, for there are no transitional forms leading up to or away from any of them. All are only distinct species.

Some creatures became extinct at the time of the Flood or shortly afterward. But all creatures which did not become extinct are essentially identical—both in fossil form and in their living counterparts today! This is a major point. No species evolution has occurred! The fossils provide no evidence of species evolution!


SHOULD BE MORE SPECIES—According to evolutionary theory, a massive number of species changes had to occur in ancient times, but we do not find evidence of this in the rocks. In order for one species to change into another, we should find large numbers of transitional species, partway between one species and another. But this is not found. A leading paleontologist explains:

"There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals known . . In spite of this large quantity of information, it is but a tiny fraction of the diversity that [according to the theory] actually lived in the past. There are well over a million species living today and . . [it is] possible to predict how many species ought to be in our fossil record. That number is at least 100 times the number we have found."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22.

(1) The fossil evidence does not have enough different species, and (2) it reveals no successively evolving species in ancient times.

But, in addition, the fossil experts admit that far too many "new species" names have been applied to fossils which have been found. Consider this:

CONFUSION IN NAMES—At this point we shall mention a technical point that only adds to the confusion as paleontologists try to search for the truth about the fossils. It also gives the impression of far more extinct species in the fossil record than there actually are.

Fossil hunters have the practice of giving different names to the same species if it is found in rocks of different periods! *Dr. Raup, head paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, says that as much as 70 percent of all the "new" fossil species found, are misnamed.

"Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, ‘Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?’ He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, ‘Oh, yes, that’s very widely done.’ Next he was asked, ‘That doesn’t seem quite honest. You wouldn’t do that, would you?’ He said that he hoped he wouldn’t . .

"Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species. So 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131.

Obviously, such a practice deepens the problem for the experts. In this chapter our concern will be with underlying facts and principles, yet the doubling and tripling of names for the same fossil species only makes it harder for the experts to extract themselves from their Darwinian muddle.

"An assistant of Dr. Eldredge, who was studying trilobite fossils at the American Museum, explained to the author how he made the decision on naming a new species: ‘I look at a fossil for about two weeks and then if I think it looks different enough, I give it a new name.’ So it is simply a mailer of judgment with no firm ground rules."—Op. cit., p. 131.

The experts tell us there are "millions of species," when there are not that many. Taxonomists are the men who classify and give names to plants and animals. Among them, the "splitters" are the ones who find it easier to make up new names than to go to the trouble of properly identifying a specimen in hand.

"We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation."—*V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132 [Chairman of the Geology Department, Swansea University].

(See chapter 11, Plant and Animal Species, for more on this.) It is well-known among the experts that there are far more splitters out there than lumpers,—simply because applying a new name for a fossil is easier and brings more fame than going through all the drudgery of researching into who had earlier named it.

*Edward Cope and *Othniel Marsh were two major museum fossil collectors in Western U.S. They fiercely hated one another, and for decades consistently double-named specimens—which had already been named earlier. (See chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, for more.)

"Sadly, in the later bitter rivalry between Cope and Marsh, Leidy [an earlier fossil collector] was all but forgotten. Paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History, recalled that many of the Eocene and Oligocene animals had been given three names in the scientific literature: the original Leidy name and the Cope and Marsh names."—*Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 272-273.


LARGER FOSSILS ANCIENTLY—It is an intriguing fact that, if the fossil evidence supported any species modification, it would be devolution—not evolution! Ancient plants and animals were frequently much larger than any now living. Not only do we find no crossing over the species line among fossils, but we also discover that species are not evolving, but degenerating with the passing of time.

A cardinal principle of evolutionary theory is that creatures must evolve into more complexity as well as bigger size. But the fossil record bears out neither theory. There is clear evidence of the complexity to be found in invertebrates, the supposedly "lowest" form of life. But there is a size differential as well:

"[Edward Drinker] Cope is known to many students only for ‘Cope’s Law,’ which asserts, roughly speaking, that everything goes on getting bigger . . Alas, it is not generally true. The modern tiger is smaller than the sabre-toothed tiger of the last ice age . . The horsetails of our ditches are tiny compared with the sixty-foot [18 m] horsetails of the Carboniferous. And where are the giant snails of the early Cambrian or the giant oysters of the Tertiary?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p 122.

The Bible indicates that in ancient times, people lived longer and were much larger. So it should not be surprising that extinct creatures were frequently larger than those alive today. They probably lived longer too. Among the fossils we find the following:

Plants: (1) Enormous plants once existed, far exceeding anything alive today. (2) Fifty-foot [152 dm] high ferns with 5-6 foot [15-18 dm] fronds. (3) Scouring rushes grew to a width of 12 inches [30.48 cm] in diameter. (4) One-hundred-foot [30.4 dm] high scale trees, with trunks 4-6 feet [12-18 dm] in diameter are found only in fossil form. None are alive today.

Small sea life: (5) Giant trilobites up to 18 inches [45.72 cm] long, with none alive today, and the creatures now living and most similar to them are quite small. (6) Fifteen-foot [457 cm] long straight-shelled cephalopods (Enckiceras proteiforme), and [9-foot 1274 cm] sea scorpions (Euryprids) once lived. Nothing of such immense sizes is found among them today. Those fossil Euryprids were the largest arthropods that ever lived. 

Insects: (7) Some insects were 4 to 8 inches [10.16-20.32 cm] in length. Dragonflies had a wingspread of 29 inches [73.66 cm], and some centipedes were 12 inches [30.48 cm] in length. 

Amphibians: (8) Today’s amphibians are small salamanders or frogs. But in the past, there were the giants of Stegocephalia, of which Onychopus gigas alone weighed 500 pounds [226.8 kg].

Larger marine life: (9) How would you like to meet a shark with jaws 6 feet [183 cm] across? That is what sharks were like in ancient times. (10) Basilosaurus was a marine mammal with a 4-foot [12 dm] head, 10-foot [30 dm] long body, and 40-foot [12.2 m] tail. 

Birds: (11) Diatiyma looked somewhat like an ostrich, but was 7 feet [21 dm] tall and had a head as big as a horse. (12) The Phororhacos was nearly 8 feet [24 dm] tall with a skull 23 inches [58.42 cm] across. (13) Dinornis was 10-feet [30.5 dm] tall, and was the largest bird that ever lived. 

Larger mammals: (14) The Mongolian Andresarchus had a skull 2½ feet [76 dm] long, and was one of the largest carnivores ever to live. (15) Imagine meeting a long-horned rhinoceros 14 feet [4.3 m] tall? Another rhinoceros, Baluchiterium, was 13 feet [40 dm] high and 25 feet [76 dm] long. (16) There were huge wooly mammoths, gigantic hairy mastodons, and 14-foot [43 dm] tall imperial mammoths. (17) Giant armadillos once lived, and ground sloths as big as elephants. (18) Pigs (Entelodonts) were 6 feet [18dm] high. (19) One bison (Bison latifrons) had a 6-foot [18 dm] horn spread. 

Reptiles: (20) Crocodile-like phytosaurs were 25 feet [76 dm] long, and dolphin-like ichthyosaurs were 30 feet [91 dm] in length. (21) There were 35-foot [171 dm] long marine reptiles (Mosasaurs) and 11-foot [34 dm] marine turtles (Archelon). (22) The Pteranodon had a 25-foot [76 dm] wingspread. (23) And then there were gigantic land reptiles, including the 45-foot [137 dm] Tyrannosaurus Rex, the 65-foot [189 dm] long Brontosaurus, the 10-ton [9,072 kg] Stegosaurus, and the 80-foot [244 dm] long Diplodocus. The Brachiosaurus was 50 feet [152 dm] tall, 100 feet [305 dm] in length, and weighed 80 [72.5 mt] tons. That would make it approximately three times as large as the largest dinosaur now known, and place it in the range of size of the blue whale—called the largest creature on earth.

In 1971, three specimens of the largest bird were found in Texas by *Douglas Lawson. The Pterosaur had an estimate wingspan of 51 feet [155 dm], twice as large as any flying reptile previously discovered. By way of contrast, the bird with the largest wingspan, the wandering albatross, measures 11 feet [33.5 dm], and the McDonnell Douglas F-15A jet fighter has a wingspan of 43 feet [131 dm].


THE MISSING TREE—The fossil record does not present a "family tree"; for there is no trunk and no branches; only twigs! The fossil record does not present a "family tree"; for there is no trunk and no branches; only twigs! If you remove the connecting links of a tree—the trunk and the branches,—what will you have left? only twigs lying all over the ground! That is the picture we find in plant and animal species living today. That is the same picture we find in the geologic column. No trunk, no branches—only distinct twigs, each one different than the others.

"So far as we can judge from the geologic record, large changes seem usually to have arisen rather suddenly, in terms of geologic time. Fossil forms intermediate between large subdivisions of classification, such as orders and classes, are seldom seen."—*Paul A. Moody, Introduction to Evolution (1962), p. 503.

WOODMORAPPE’S WORLD RESEARCH PROJECT—Since early childhood, we have all been exposed to these charts of rock strata and fossils, with the impressive dates alongside. It is called a "Geologic Column" chart.

A correlative scientific analysis, remarkable for its in-depth thoroughness and worldwide coverage, was published in the December 1983 issue of Creation Research Society Quarterly. Authored by John Woodmorappe, the 53-page article contains 807 references, 17 very detailed charts and graphs, 35 world maps, and 2 regional maps.

In this lengthy article, Woodmorappe validates several interesting points, among which are the following:

(1) Fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata; instead they tend to be mixed together in successive strata. One third of them span three or more strata levels.

(2) There is not an orderly progression of strata, from bottom to top. Successively "higher" index fossils are not found in "higher" strata as they are supposed to be. Index fossils do not tend to overlay one another in successive strata; instead they are generally found here and there on what approximates a chance arrangement! Such fossils are often clumped at a great horizontal distance from the index fossils they are supposed to overlay. More than 9500 global occurrences of major index fossils were marked on 34 world maps in order to analyze overlay occurrences. Great care was taken to be sure that the data on these maps would be as accurate as possible. After preparing maps for each type of index fossil, Woodmorappe overlaid them on a light table in order to compare and tabulate instances in which index fossils were above each other in harmony with classical evolutionary rock strata theory.

Table 3 was then prepared to compare the 34 world maps of index fossils. Using it, you can make xeroxes of these maps and make your own overlay analyses on a light table. Or you can make copies onto overhead projector transparencies—and show them to students and other audiences.

"Table 3 has been drafted to show the results of superposing Maps 1-34 against each other. There are 479 cross-comparisons; every fossil versus every other that belongs to another geologic period. It can be seen that only small percentages of all localities of any given fossil overlie, or are overlain by, any other single fossil of another geologic period. Thus fossils of different geologic periods invariably tend to shun each other geographically, and this in itself may be taken as prima facie evidence that all fossils are ecological and/or biogeographic equivalents of each other—negating all concepts of evolution, geologic periods, and geologic time. To the Diluviologist, this tendency of any two different-‘age’ fossils to be geographically incompatible allows an understanding of fossils in light of the Universal Deluge [the Genesis Flood]."—John Woodmorappe, "A Diluviological Treatise on the Stratigraphic Separation of Fossils," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1983, p. 150 [bold type ours].

Table 4 was prepared to show possible multiple fossil overlays rather than just two as with Table 3. The results of this presentation are disastrous for evolutionary theory.

"There does not appear to be any trend for individual fossils to be exceptionally commonly juxtaposed or non-juxtaposed with others."—Op. Cit., p. 151.

As we have earlier explained, it is the "index fossils" which are relied on as the proof of the evolutionary theory of fossil strata placement and dating. Here is Woodmorappe’s conclusion in regard to these so-called "index fossils":

"A total of over 9500 global occurrences of major index fossils have been plotted on 34 world maps for the purpose of determining superpositional tendencies. 479 juxtapositional determinations have shown that only small percentages of index fossils are juxtaposed one with another. Very rarely are more than one-third (and never more than half) of all 34 index fossils simultaneously present in any 200 mile (320 kilometer) diameter region on earth."—Op. cit., p. 133 [bold type ours].

(3) Beginning on page 151 of his article he considers possible causes and Flood mechanisms, as possible solutions to why these fossils are to be found in such a confused pattern.

(4) Woodmorappe concludes with an extensive discussion, on pages 167-171, of why so few mammal, bird, and human fossils have been found.

You may wish to obtain a copy of his article to read through and make transparency charts to share with others. The Creation Research Society Quarterly is one of the best publications in its field.

ASKING THE EXPERTS—Let us briefly pause in our examination of the strata/fossil evidence and what it reveals. We will now journey to three of the largest paleontological museum holdings in the world:

We will first go to the British Museum of Natural History. *Dr. Colin Patterson is in charge of its large paleontology (fossil) collection.

After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it.

"[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89.

Let us now leave *Dr. Colin Patterson in London, and go to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. It is one of the largest and oldest natural history museums in America—and probably in the world, and houses 20 percent of all fossil species known. Having had opportunity to carefully study these materials for years, *Dr. David Raup the leading paleontologist at this Field Museum, is in a position to speak with authority. He begins a key article summarizing what the fossil evidence reveals by saying:

"Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979.

*Dr. Raup then quotes a well-known statement by *Charles Darwin that he (*Darwin) was "embarrassed" by the lack of fossil evidence for origins (the Cambrian problem) and transitions (the gap problem) in his day. Then *Raup declares that the situation today is even worse—for we now have so much more fossil evidence which tells us the same message it told *Darwin! Noting that *Darwin wrote that he hoped that future discoveries would unearth fossils which would fill the gaps and provide the missing links, *Raup then says:

"We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit.

We will now leave Chicago and journey to one of the largest museums in the nation, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where *Dr. Niles Eldredge is in charge of its massive fossil collection.

While attending a science writers’ convention in Gatlinburg, Tennessee in November 1978, *Dr. Eldridge was asked by a reporter for evidence from the fossil record of transitional changes from one species to another. A report of his reply was printed shortly afterward in the Los Angeles Times:

"No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links.

"There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978.

Drs. *Patterson, *Raup, and *Eldredge spent a lifetime in fossil analysis before giving the above statements. Together, they have been in charge of at least 50 percent of the major fossil collections of the world. They have the evidence, they know the evidence, they work with it day after day. 

Figuratively, they sit on top of the largest pile of fossil bones in the world! They know what they are talking about. Their conclusion: "There are no transitional forms."

But WITHOUT transitional forms there can be NO evolution—for THAT IS what evolution is all about! Evolution is not copper changing into sulphur, it is not air changing into sunlight, nor is it wolves changing into German shepherds. It would be a true species change.

Evolution is one basic type of plant or animal changing into another basic type of plant or animal (apple trees into oak trees or goats into cows). There should be fossil evidence of those changes. The evidence would be "transitional forms" filling the "gaps" between the basic types. But such transitions are nowhere to be found

THE FISH THAT BECAME OUR ANCESTOR—(*#10 From Fish to Amphibian*) According to one of the legends of evolutionary theory, a critical point in our ancestry came one day, when a fish decided to crawl out of the water and start walking. He found it all so exciting that he turned into a land animal. The rest is evolutionary history: amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and man resulted. So you have a lot to thank that fish for.

In the 1980s, Luther Sunderland interviewed the head paleontologists of five of the largest natural history museums in the United States, overseeing at least 60 percent of the fossil collections in the world. One of the questions he asked them was about that fish that came out on land and began walking around. Another question was about whether they knew of any transitional species. The answer to both questions, by the five men, was either studied silence or an embarrassed sidestepping of the matter. For the story of his interviews, go to (*#10 From Fish to Amphibian*), which means go to our website, evolution-facts.org; then to Appendix 10 at the back of this chapter (Fossils and Strata). For more on this wonderful fairy tale, read chapter 22, Evolutionary Science Fiction.

DARWIN’S GREAT CONCERN—Over a hundred years ago, *Charles Darwin recognized the importance of the problem of fossil gaps (lack of transitional halfway species) in the strata. The gaps were already well-known in his time. Charles Darwin recognized the importance of the problem of fossil gaps (lack of transitional halfway species) in the strata. The gaps were already well-known in his time. Realizing that those gaps immensely weakened his general theory, he wrote this:

"This perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 6th edition (1956), pp. 292-293.

But *Darwin expressed hope that the gaps would later, after his death, be filled.

Since his time (*Darwin died in 1882), a major campaign has been underway for over a century to close up those "imperfections." But the hundreds upon thousands of fossils which have been found and examined only reveal with deeper clarity and distinctness merely the species we now have today, plus some extinct ones.

WORSE THAN BEFORE—*Charles Darwin speculated that, in our modern world, natural selection is changing species into brand new ones. But we find that *Darwin was wrong (see chapters 9, 10, and 11, Natural Selection, Mutations, and Plant and Animal Species).

*Darwin also said that the fossil record ought to show that natural selection had being doing this in the past, and that later discoveries of additional fossils would show his idea to be true. But the fossils show that *Darwin was wrong. *Raup says that the fossil situation is now even worse than it was in the days of *Darwin. Other experts agree with him.

The desperate straits of the evolutionists are caused by their frenzied search to prove evolution true! It has only brought to view a vast wealth of fossil data able to bury the theory. And it would bury it too, IF we all knew the truth of the situation. But the textbook and popular magazines continue churning out the statement, "evolution has now been proven to be a fact," and then vindicating those statements by referring to the peppered moth and recapitulation as proofs of evolution! (See chapter 9, Natural Selection for the peppered moth; and chapter 16, for Recapitulation. Also see chapter 17, Evolutionary Showcase. That chapter is astounding.)

Whether it be the fossil past or the natural world around us today; the only variations are within the true species, never across them. We can breed new varieties of roses, pigeons, or dogs, but they remain roses, pigeons, and dogs. Genetic studies clearly show that mutation and natural selection—working alone or together— cannot produce evolutionary change. Fossil evidence confirms this.

WHAT IT TAKES TO SURVIVE—Speak of "survival of the fittest"! The long survival of evolutionary theory disproves the phrase!of "survival of the fittest"! The long survival of evolutionary theory disproves the phrase! Here we have survival of the weakest, most foolish, and most easily disproved of "scientific" concepts.

Evolution as a theory survives because (1) the public does not know what is going on, (2) most scientists are working in very narrow fields and do not see the overall picture that you are learning in this book, and (3) many conscientious researchers dare not speak up lest they be relieved of their positions and salaries.

Yes, the scientists are working in narrow fields—

The biologists and geneticists bemoan the lack of evolutionary evidence in their fields (living species and genetic research), but then comfort themselves that, perhaps, the fossil evidence has established it.

The paleontologists and stratigraphers bemoan the void of evolutionary evidence in the fossil strata (species which earlier lived on the earth) but conclude that, surely, the startling advances in species discoveries and genetics research upholds it.

The scholars and researchers attend their own narrowed scientific meetings and rarely have time to check with those in other fields of study. The experts in each scientific specialty imagine that other experts elsewhere have solidly proven evolution, even though in their field of study it is ready to fall through the floor.

So much is known about so little in the sciences today that few experts can see the BIG picture. And the general public is given the WRONG picture. Evolution is as dead as the Dodo bird of the Mascarene Islands that died nearly two hundred years ago, and most people in the modern world are not aware of it.

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS—Here are a few of the key problems with the fossils in the strataHere are a few of the key problems with the fossils in the strata. These problems are serious enough that any one of them is enough to overthrow the evolutionary theory in regard to paleontology and stratigraphy:

(1) Life suddenly appears in the bottom fossil-strata level, the Cambrian, with no precursors.

(2) When these lowest life-forms appear (they are small slow-moving, shallow-sea creatures), they are extremely abundant, numbered in the billions of specimens, and quite complex.

(3) No transitional species are to be found at the bottom of the strata, the Cambrian.

(4) Just below the Cambrian, in the Precambrian, there are no fossil specimens.

(5) No transitional species are to be found below the lowest stratum, in the Precambrian.

(6) No transitional species are to be found above the bottom stratum, from the Ordovician on up.

(7) Higher taxa (forms of life) appear just as suddenly in the strata farther up. These higher types (such as beavers, giraffes, etc.) suddenly appear with no hint of transitional life-forms leading up to them.

(8) When they appear, vast numbers of these life-forms are to be found.


IMMENSE NUMBER OF FOSSILS—One of the most startling facts about the sedimentary strata around the world is the vast quantities of fossils they contain. Without a worldwide Flood, it would be impossible for such huge amounts of plants and animals to have been rapidly buried. And without rapid burial they could not have fossilized.

Yes, there are immense numbers of rapidly buried fossils; read this:

About one-seventh of the earth’s surface is tundra—frozen mud,—containing the fossil remains of millions of mammoths and other large and smaller animals. Then there are the log jams of dinosaur bones found in many places in the world. Over 300 different kinds of dinosaurs have been excavated from one place in Utah. Vast fossil beds of plants exist in various places. We today call them coal beds. In Geiseltal, Germany, were found the remains of 6,000 vertebrates. Great masses of amphibians have been found in the Permian beds of Texas. Elsewhere in Texas huge masses of fossil clams have been unearthed—yet never are living clams so tightly packed together as we find here. Examining them, we find clamshells that are closed! When a clam dies, its shell opens—unless before death it is quickly buried under the pressure of many feet of soil and pebbles. In one area alone in South Africa, there are about 800 billion fossils of amphibians and reptiles in an area 200,000 miles square [517,980 km2].

Old Red Sandstone in England has billions upon billions of fish, spread over 10,000 square miles [25,899 km2], with as many as a thousand fish fossils in one square yard. Trilobites are among the smallest of the fossils. They are found at the bottom of the strata, in the Cambrian. And the Cambrian—with its trilobites—is also found 7,000 feet high in the mountains. Yet trilobites were small shallow-sea creatures! What flood of waters carried them up there?

These vast beds of sedimentary fossil-bearing strata cover about three-fourths of the earth’s surface, and are as much as 40,000 feet thick.

COLLECTED HEAPS—There are heaps and heaps of fossil specimens in the collections of paleontologists and museumsThere are heaps and heaps of fossil specimens in the collections of paleontologists and museums.

Men have searched for fossils since the beginning of the 19th century, and the facts are now available: there is no evidence of evolution in the fossil record.

Forty-three hundred years ago, a great catastrophe, the Flood, overspread the world.

In our own day, a great catastrophe has inundated evolutionary theory. No less an authority than a Smithsonian paleontologist describes the basis of the problem:. 

"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 [Smithsonian scientist].

*David Raup, head paleontologist of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, describes the heart of the problem:

"So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found—yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."—*David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," in Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289.

NOT MADE NOW—Several years ago, two scientists tried to make some fossilsSeveral years ago, two scientists tried to make some fossils. According to the school textbooks, it should not be hard to do. *Rainer Zangerl and *Eugene S. Richardson, Jr., placed dead fish in wire cages and dropped them into several Louisiana lagoons and bayous. When the men returned six and a half days later, they found that bacteria and scavengers had consumed all the soft parts of the fish and had scattered the bones in the cages.

Sedimentary strata are filled with fish fossils, yet when a fish dies today, it never fossilizes; it bloats, floats, and then is eaten by scavengers and other small creatures.

"When a fish dies its body floats on the surface or sinks to the bottom and is devoured rather quickly, actually in a matter of hours, by other fish. However, the fossil fish found in sedimentary rocks is very often preserved with all its bones intact. Entire shoals of fish over large areas, numbering billions of specimens, are found in a state of agony, but with no mark of a scavenger’s attack."—*lmmanuel Velikovsky, Earth in Upheaval (1955), p. 222.

The strata have lots of animals in them, but when an animal dies today, it never fossilizes; it rots if the buzzards do not find it first. Dead animals do not normally produce fossils.

"The buffalo carcasses strewn over the plains in uncounted millions two generations ago have left hardly a present trace. The flesh was devoured by wolves or vultures within hours or days after death, and even the skeletons have now largely disappeared, the bones dissolving and crumbling into dust under the attack of weather."—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1949), p. 39.

There is an abundance of fossilized plant life in the strata; yet, when a weed, bush, or tree dies, it turns back to soil; it does not harden into a fossil.

It requires some very special conditions to produce fossils. Those conditions occurred one time in history. The evidence is clear that it was a worldwide phenomenom, and that it happened very, very quickly...

RAPID BURIAL—A striking fact about the fossils is that they were obviously all laid down at the same time—and very, very rapidly!

Where are the bison today? As we just read, most were slain by buffalo hunters in the Plains States of America over a hundred years ago. But where are their fossils? None are to be found. Millions of bison died, but there are no fossil remains. They rotted, were eaten by scavengers, decayed, and slowly returned back to the earth.

The fact is that fossils never form at the present time, yet in the sedimentary strata we find literally billions of them! Examination of the strata bearing them reveals it was obviously laid down by a massive flood of water.

The sheer immensity of these fossil graveyards is fantastic. And to think that it never happens today! Speaking about sedimentary deposits that he found in the Geiseltal, in central Germany, *Newell says:

"More than six thousand remains of vertebrate animals and a great number of insects, molluscs, and plants were found in these deposits. The compressed remains of soft tissues of many of these animals showed details of cellular structure [with] well-preserved bits of hair, feathers and scales . . The stomach contents of beetles, amphibia, fishes, birds and mammals provided direct evidence about eating habits."—*N.O. Newell "Adequacy of the Fossil Record," in Journal of Paleontology, May 1959, p. 496.

It would be impossible for vast numbers of plants and animals to be suddenly buried under normal circumstances. Yet we find that the fossils were buried so quickly that the food could be seen in many of their stomachs. Even the delicate soft parts of their bodies are visible, so rapid had been the burial. Quick, high compression adds to the evidence for extremely rapid burial. All of the life-forms were suddenly flattened out. Sharks have been found flattened to ¼ inch in thickness with the tail still upright, suggesting sudden catastrophic burial. It took rapid action to do that.

"Robert Broom, the South African paleontologist, estimated that there are eight hundred thousand million skeletons of vertebrate animals in the Karro formation."—*Op. cit., p. 492.

Describing herring fossils in the Miocene shales of California, a U.S. Geological Survey expert tells us:

"More than a billion fish, averaging 6 to 8 inches in length, died on 4 square miles [10.36 km2] of bay bottom."—*Harry S. Ladd, "Ecology, Paleontology, and Stratigraphy," in Science, January 9, 1959, p. 72.

What happened? Some terrible catastrophe occurred that suddenly overwhelmed the earth! Fossil seashells have been found in the highest mountains of the planet, including the highest range of them all, the Himalayas, which reaches in an arc across central Asia.

FISH SWALLOWING FISH—Princeton University scientists were working in Fossil Lake, Wyoming, when they found a fossil fish that was swallowing another fish. Because both fish had been pressed flat by the sudden burial, the paleontologists could see one fish inside the other with only the tail sticking out of the larger one’s throat. It was a perch swallowing a herring.

Obviously, this required a very sudden event to capture and kill a fish swallowing a fish! Nothing like this happens today.

In the Hall of Paleontology, at Kansas State University, can be seen a 14-foot fish that has swallowed a 6-foot fish. The fish that was swallowed was not digested,—and then both had been suddenly entombed.

FOSSIL FOOTPRINTS—Leonard Brand and James Florence did some excellent research! They gathered together the great majority of fossil footprint records from approximately 800 published papers, as well as from data in five major paleontological museums. This information was then correlated with burial records on the fossils themselves.

Comparing it all, they came up with some surprising conclusions:

(1) Birds and mammals were buried on about the same levels as the footprints of their species were found. This was in the Quaternary and Tertiary at the very end of the Flood.

(2) But, below these top strata, the footprints of amphibians, non-dinosaur reptiles, and dinosaurs were made well below the levels where the bulk of their bodies were buried!

That second discovery is rather astounding. If long ages had occurred during each strata, then the footprints and bodies should be found together. But if a worldwide single Flood was responsible for all the strata, then we would expect to find large numbers of amphibians, reptiles, and dinosaurs walking around earlier in the Flood, yet buried later in it!

For further data and charts on this, see the reference given below:

"During the early to middle part of the Flood large numbers of amphibians and reptiles were moving about, and thus producing footprints. Later as the Flood progressed (upper Jurassic and Cretaceous) there were very few live amphibians or reptiles to produce footprints, except for the large dinosaurs. During the Cretaceous when the only footprints preserved were the large dinosaur tracks, there were many amphibian and reptile bodies that were being buried to produce the abundant Cretaceous body fossils. During the Cenozoic almost no amphibian or reptile footprints were preserved.

". . During the flood the birds and mammals were in the uplands, away from the depositional basins, because of ecological differences and/or more adaptable behavioral responses to the unusual biological crisis caused by the flood."—Leonard Brand and James Florence, "Stratigraphic Distribution of Vertebrate Fossil Footprints Compared with Body Fossils" in Origins, Vol 9, no. 2 (1982), p. 71.

PLANTS AND ANIMALS NOT TOGETHER—According to the theory, over a period of millions of years, plants and animals died, dropped to the ground and changed into fossils (even though such fossilization never occurs today). Gradually, they were covered with dirt as, over the centuries, falling leaves turned into dirt.

But in reality, it is only rarely that we find plants and animals together in the fossil beds! That is why "Minium’s Dead Cow Quarry" in Kansas is so very much appreciated by paleontologists: it is an exception to the rule and does have plants and plant seeds in the same rock with animals (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution 1990, p. 307).

Why would plants and animals normally not be found together in the fossil strata? The reason is simple enough. They were all washed into place by the worldwide Flood. The water tended to sort them out, resulting in rafts of vegetation being floated into place, which became our present coal beds, while other pockets in the strata became filled with "fossil graveyards" as animals were washed into other locations. 

IN WHAT FORM ARE THE FOSSILS?—There are millions upon millions of fossils. You may wonder what those fossils are like. Here are the seven primary types of fossils:

(1) Hard parts (the bones and shells) of some plants and animals were preserved.

(2) Carbon alone was preserved. This is where our coal beds came from.

(3) The original form is preserved only in casts and molds. The original material dissolved away and a cast of its shape was preserved. This would also require sudden burial.

(4) Sometimes petrification of wood occurred. An excellent example of this would be the Petrified Forest in Arizona, where we find entire tree trunks that have turned to stone. After sudden burial, each cell in the wood was gradually replaced by minerals from an underground flow of water.

(5) There are prints of animal tracks. Thousands of animal tracks have been found preserved in stone, and the prints are always shown running away from something. In Glen Rose, Texas, and several other places, prints of giant humans have been found. In the same bed with the human footprints have been found dinosaur tracks! This shows that the dinosaurs lived when man did, and not millions of years earlier, as the evolutionists claim. (Much more information on this will be found in chapter 13, Ancient Man.)

(6) Ripple marks and rain drop splashes. Ancient hail imprints (which are quite different than raindrops) have never been found. The weather must have been consistently warm when the Flood began (*W.H. Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation (1950), p. 621).

(7) Worm trails, droppings, feathers, chemicals, and even fish odor were preserved by sudden burial!

CAMBRIAN FOSSILS IN FINE DETAIL—Before concluding this section on what is included in "fossils," we should mention that the soft parts of the plants and animals are at times clearly traced in the rocks. One excellent example of this is the Burgess Pass fossils.

In 1910, a pack train loaded with supplies was struggling over a mountain path high in the Rocky Mountains of British Columbia, near the Burgess Pass, when a horse kicked a dark rock and stumbled. One of the men examined the rock and found that it had fine, exquisitely detailed fossil markings. Later, the Smithsonian Institute sent out paleontologists and workmen who quarried out tons of rock from the side of that and nearby mountains, and sent 35,000 fossils to be analyzed and housed in our national museum in Washington, D.C.

These specimens were primarily bottom-dwellers from ancient seas, such as worms, trilobites, brachiopods, lampshells, and more. Here, in these very high mountains, the soft parts of these creatures are from Cambrian deposits (the lowest of all strata) were clearly visible. Even delicate internal organs were traced on the stone. The transitional species leading up to those common Cambrian specimens ought to have been found, but they were not. Yet Burgess Pass, and nearby digging sites (such as Mount Stephen), ultimately yielded almost copious amounts of fossils of nearly every major type of life-form.

POLYSTRATE TREES—Here are two views of upright, fossilized trees in sedimentary strata. One is a drawing; the other a photograph.

Polystrate trees could not possibly occur if the strata were slowly laid down over millions of years, as the evolutionists claim.

Polystrate trees

EC474.jpg (296497 bytes)

"These went further [than merely including fossil bones]—with the outline of the body, even the soft internal organs were often traceable like miniature X-ray films. Among the many fossils found are a wide range of major kinds. I already referred to three main kinds—brachiopods, worms and arthropods (the trilobites). Almost every major kind of animal has been found there, except those with backbones."—Harold O. Coffin, "Famous Fossils from a Mountaintop," in Origins, January 1, 1974, p. 46.

BURIED FORESTS—Another dramatic evidence of a catastrophic flood of massive proportions—as the cause of the sedimentary strata—is the buried forests.

Coal beds, of course, are one such example of buried forests. They will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

One of the best places to see buried forests is Specimen Ridge in Yellowstone Park, in Montana. You will there find a succession of petrified tree layers. The uniformitarian evolutionists claim that the trees grew there, died, and were gradually covered by soil deposits over oncoming ages as the dead trees stood there. Gradually, after tens of thousands of years, additional trees died and were covered over by more millennia of soil deposits!

But careful analysis of the entire ridge reveals a unity of age, burial conditions, and surrounding deposits. A succession of strong currents, interspersed with flows and volcanic showers from another direction, washed the sedimentary strata into place.

(Both later in this chapter, in chapter 14, and somewhat in chapter 6, we give more attention to the implications of these fossil upright trees, also called polystrate trees.))

Stop and think of it a minute: Would a vertical tree die and stand there for half a million years while rock strata gradually covered it? Yet we find polystrate trees in the strata and even in coal beds.

NON-EXTINCT FOSSILS—The great majority of animals and plants that lived long ago were just like those alive today, with the exception of some extinct species. Here is a sampling of what you will find in the complete strata of the "geologic column"—but remember that this "complete" strata is to be found in its entirety nowhere in the world. Beginning at the bottom, and proceeding to the top, this is what we find:

Precambrian . . . . . . algae, bacteria, fungi

Cambrian . . . . . . . . sponges, snails, jellyfish 

Ordovician . . . . . . . . clams, starfish, worms . 

Silurian . . . . . . . . . . . scorpions, corals 

Devonian . . . . . . . . . sharks, lungfish 

Carboniferous . . . . . ferns, cockroaches 

Permian . . . . . . . . . . beetles, dragonflies

Triassic . . . . . . . . . . pines, palms 

Jurassic . . . . . . . . . . crocodiles, turtles 

Cretaceous . . . . . . . . ducks, pelicans 

Paleocene . . . . . . . . . rats, hedgehogs 

Eocene . . . . . . . . . . . lemurs, rhinoceroses 

Oligocene . . . . . . . . . beavers, squirrels, ants 

Miocene . . . . . . . . . . camels, birds 

Pliocene . . . . . . . . . . horses, elephants 

Pleistocene . . . . . . . . man

(Later in this chapter, under the section, "Mixed-up Fossils," we will learn that the fossils are not neatly contained in certain strata; they are often far above or below their assigned strata.)

It is obvious from the above list, that the species we had before, we have now. Those fossils are just like their counterparts living today. Yes, there are some extinct species, for some kinds have died out. But it is of interest that even a number of the anciently extinct species—have in recent years been found to be still living!

Here are some of the thousands of creatures alive today that are totally identical to what they looked like millions of years ago: Cockroach (250 million years); starfish (500 million years); shark (181 million years); sea urchin (100 million years); ginkgo tree (200 million years); dragonfly (170 million years); bacteria (600 million years).

Consider the bat: All the fossil bats look just like the ones that fly around now. It was reported that *Jepsen had found the oldest fossil bat ever! (*G.L. Jepsen reported in Science, for December 9, 1966). A photograph of its skeleton, plus an accompanying sketch are shown in the article. That oldest-known bat is supposedly 50 million years old, and yet it is just like a modern bat skeleton. And below it? not one transitional fossil anywhere that leads us from "lower forms of life" to the bat. When the bat first appears, it is all bat, and nothing but bat!

LIVING FOSSILS—(*#17 Living Fossils [coelacanth and plesiosaur]*) [Appendix 17 on our website has stories, four photographs, and more, but no quotations.]

There are species found only in rock strata, and supposedly millions of years old, which have been declared "extinct for millions of years." This has been considered another "proof" of evolution, although extinction is no evidence of evolution; evolving into new life-forms is. 

Yet in recent decades a number of these "extinct for millions of years" species have been found to not be extinct after all!

The BIG question is this: Where then were they all those "millions of years" they were missing from the upper rock strata?

"Long before I began to research the subject in any detail, I had brooded about a number of puzzling features—things which didn’t seem to fit the [evolutionary] argument—which the textbooks largely ignored.

"There is, for example, the fact that some creatures fail to evolve but chunter on quite successfully as ‘living fossils.’ Bees preserved in amber from the Tertiary period are almost identical with living bees. And everyone has heard of the coelacanth, supposed to have been extinct since the beginning of the Cretaceous period. The plant world also offers living fossils, such as the gingko, with a leaf unlike that of any modern tree."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), pp. 25-26.

So many of these "living fossils" have been found that scientists have given a name to the study: Cryptozoology, the study of "hidden animals." According to evolutionary theory, they were once alive, then got hidden for millions of years, and continue living today. Here are some of these "living fossils," all of which are alive today:

(1) Coelacanth fish: The crossopterygian fish—"extinct" since Cretaceous. It has not been found in the strata for the past "50 million years"—yet is alive today.

(2) Metasequoia: The "dawn redwood"— "extinct" since Miocene; not in the strata for the past "60 million years," yet it is alive today.

(3) Tuatara: A beakheaded reptile—"extinct" since Cretaceous; not found in the strata for the past "135 million years"—but today is alive.

(4) Neopilina: A segmented deep-sea mollusk— "extinct" since Devonian. Although missing from the strata for the past "500 million years," it is alive now.

(5) Lingula: A brachiopod shellfish—"extinct" since Ordovician; not in the strata for the past "500 million years," yet it is happily living today.

The now-famous Coelacanth was a large fish known only from its fossil and allegedly extinct for 50 million years. Extinct, that is, until several specimens were found in the ocean! The first was found in a fisherman’s net off the coast of Madagascar on December 24, 1938. Since then eight more specimens have been found alive.

It only requires a moment’s thought to arrive at a startling fact: How could the Coelacanth have become extinct 50 million years ago, and then be found now? In order to be declared "extinct" such a long time ago, the creature would obviously have had to have been found by paleontologists in older strata—and then not found at all in more recent strata. Why is the Coelacanth not in those more recent strata? Did it decide to hibernate for 50 million years?

This is clear-cut evidence that the sedimentary strata was the result of a rapid laying down of sediments during the Flood,—rather than the tortuously slow "inch a hundred years" deposition pattern theorized by the evolutionists.

Interestingly enough, some of these "living fossils" formerly were used by evolutionists as "index fossils" to prove the ancientness of certain rock strata! As you will recall, most index fossils are small marine organisms. They live so deep in the ocean that many of them (trilobites, graptolites, ammonites, etc.) may still have living representatives alive today, since we have but only slightly explored the ocean bottoms. 

There are scientists who believe they will find living trilobites before long (see "Start Search for Living Trilobites," Science Digest, September 1959), and one living fossil, very close to the trilobite has already been discovered (see "Living Fossil Resembles Long-extinct Trilobite," Science Digest, December 1957). 

Many other examples could be cited. Here are two:

"In the 19th century, hunters reported tales among Congo tribesmen of a large, cloven-hoofed animal with a giraffe-like head and zebra stripes on its hindquarters and legs. Most zoologists dismissed it as a local legend, but Sir Harry H. Johnston was fascinated when he read about this unknown beast of the deep forest. Years later, he launched an expedition in search of the creature, which the natives called okapi (o-CAP-ee).

"After a nearly disastrous series of misadventures, he finally captured an okapi in 1906. One of the few large mammals discovered in the 20th century, the okapi turned out to be a living representative of a genus (Palaeofragus) known from fossils and believed by zoologists to have been extinct for 30 million years."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 102.

"According to Science News (June 9, 1990, p. 359), a species of dogwood tree, the Diplopanax stachyanthus, was believed by botanists to have died out about 4 million years ago. Apparently only fossil records remained of this tree.

"But now a botanist at Washinton State University has examined the fossil fruit of trees believed to be 15 million years old and found them to be essentially identical to the fruit of a dogwood family discovered in China in 1928.

"But wait a minute. If evolution is driven by the survival of the fittest, then I would expect older and inferior species to die out and be replaced by newer and better evolved species. If that be the case, what is a 15 million year old tree doing hanging around today? It should have died out long ago. Or else the figure of 15 million years is grossly wrong. In either case, something is evidently wrong with the theory of evolution."—Bob Vun Kannon, "A Living Fossil," The Adventure, September 1990.

The existence of "living fossils" is a serious one for the evolutionist. Evolutionary theory is based on several concepts, two of which are violated here: (1) If a species becomes extinct, it cannot come back to life. (2) Species evolve upward, and can never return back to an earlier form. If that particular species has not existed for the past 15 million years, how then could it exist today?

THE EXTINCT DINOSAUR—Ever since *Charles Lyell, the extinct dinosaur has been considered an outstanding example of evolution. Yet all that it proves is that animals can become extinctthere are no facts related to dinosaurs which prove evolution (species change) in life-forms. That which extinct dinosaurs do prove is that the uniformitarian theory (which is the basis of evolution) is incorrect. Some massive catastrophe overwhelmed and destroyed the dinosaurs.

In order for the dinosaur to prove evolution, there would have to be transitional forms leading up to them. But the dinosaurs are like everything else: distinct species.

LIVING DINOSAURS—Evolutionists are anxious that it be thought that no dinosaurs are alive todayEvolutionists are anxious that it be thought that no dinosaurs are alive today. According to their theory, dinosaurs lived during the Mesozoic era—from about 225 million years ago to 65 million years ago. If some of them were to be found alive today, then evolutionists think this would weaken their theory. But actually that would neither prove nor weaken their theory, since dinosaurs—past or present—present no evidence of the evolutionary process.

In museums all over the world, dinosaur-bone displays are exhibited as a proof of evolution. Their very extinction is supposed to establish it. —But did you know that a living dinosaur has been found?

In April 1977, a Japanese fishing vessel caught a 4,000 pound [1814 kg] dead creature in its nets off the east coast of New Zealand. It was photographed, sketched, carefully measured, and flipper samples were kept for tissue analysis. It has every appearance of being a Plesiosaur, or sea-dwelling dinosaur—which prior to 1977 had only been found in fossil form! Japanese scientists are convinced it was indeed a Plesiosaur. Japan even printed a postage stamp of the creature, in honor of the find. (A photograph and sketch of one is shown on page 107 of Ian Taylor’s excellent book, In the Minds of Men.)

But there are other living creatures which answer to the description of "dinosaurs." What is a dinosaur? Very simply, it is a large reptile. Crocodiles, alligators, and caiman are large reptiles.

"Although they are now 99 percent extinct and seldom exceed twelve feet in length, the American alligator attained lengths of nearly twenty feet as recently as the turn of the century (see National Geographic Magazine, January 1967, p. 137). Only about 500 years ago the aepyornis, a dinosaur bird nearly ten feet [30 cm] tall and weighing half a ton [456 kg], still lived on the island of Madagascar (see National Geographic Magazine, October 1967, p. 493)."—John C. Whitcomb, World that Perished (1988), p. 30.

"Because the huge skeletons that were built up out of fossilized remnants were clearly reptilian in nature, they were called ‘terrible lizards,’ which in Greek is dinosauria, by the nineteenth-century zoologist Sir Richard Owen. But the ancient giant reptiles are more closely related to alligators than to lizards, and should have been named dinocrocodilia."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 136.

We have both small and large alligator-type creatures alive today. Some extinct dinosaurs were as small as a chicken, but some modern alligator-type creatures are quite large. Some crocodiles alive today (Crocodylus porosus), can reach a length of 33 feet [100.6 dm]; all are large, heavy, fierce reptiles. 

The komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) is another large reptile and looks very much like a dinosaur. It was discovered in 1912; and, although evolutionists tried to explain it away by calling the komodo a "lizard," it surely is more than that! Consider the following description:

"The body is covered with small scales; the neck is thick and the head broad and elongated. The huge mouth contains teeth ½ in [1 cm] long and deeply cleft tongue 12-16 in [30-40 cm] long. The legs are well developed and there are long claws on the toes. The muscular tail has no fracture planes and is somewhat laterally compressed.

"The Komodo dragon is the biggest predator on the islands [in Indonesia] where it lives. It hunts hog, deer, wild pig, macaques, and rats, and digs up the eggs of mound birds . . It can run as fast as a man for short stretches. Smaller specimens are said to lurk in trees above tracks used by game and jump onto the backs of deer or pigs."—*Great Book of the Animal Kingdom (1988), p. 152.

The komodo dragon, truly a reptilian giant, attacks and kills large hogs has a lifespan of 25 years, is 10 feet [30 dm] long, and has a weight of 350 pounds [158.76 kg]! It is decidedly larger than some of the extinct reptiles, called "dinosaurs." (There was a wide variety of extinct dinosaurs: some of the extinct ones were quite small; some ran rapidly like ostriches and caught birds with their front paws, and some flew like birds.) 

The komodo dragon is the biggest of the monitors, of which there are 31 species. Some are quite large. Most live in the islands north of Australia. One of these, the Papua monitor (Varanus salvadori) is longer than the komodo dragon—over 13 feet in length—although it is not as bulky.

A number of prominent scientists, including *Myer, consider crocodiles and alligators to be "living fossils."

"Nile crocodiles and American alligators belong to a group of reptiles called broad-nosed crocodilians. In the warmer parts of the world, broad-nosed crocodilians are the largest predators to walk on land. They are living fossils in the sense that they resemble ancient forms in the shapes and the ruggedness of their heads and bodies."—*Ernst Myer, "Crocodilians as Living Fossils," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 105.

EXTINCT FOSSILS—What about the fossilized creatures which are now extinct? All that extinct fossils—such as dinosaurs—prove is that animals can die out. Extinction is not evolution, and provides no evidence of evolution.

In addition to the dinosaurs, a number of other animal and plant species became extinct also. Interestingly enough, the extinct species were generally more complex than plants and animals now living!

NONE OF THE FOSSILS OR STRATA ARE ANCIENT—Fossils from every level of sedimentary strata have been analyzed by amino acid dating methods (see chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods.)

Scientists have been shocked to discover that both the "youngest" as well as the "oldest" fossils (even those of the Cambrian!) reveal traces of amino acids! This is astounding news, and runs counter to evolutionary theory. This means that, instead of being hundreds of millions of years apart, ALL of the fossil-bearing strata were laid down fairly recently at about the same time! In order to "save the fossils" as a trophy of evolution, there has been speculation that amino acids in the "oldest" fossils are merely contaminants that somehow got there at some recent time.

Shells from as far back as the Jurassic strata, which is supposed to be 135-180 million years old, have been found to have amino acids still locked into protein structures.

Shells from as far back as the Jurassic strata, which is supposed to be 135-180 million years old, have been found to have amino acids still locked into protein structures. The amino acid residues came from inside those shells—so the shells cannot be more than a few thousand years old!

Amino acid studies in the fossil-bearing sediments reveal that there are no ancient fossil strata!

HUMAN REMAINS IN ANCIENT DEPOSITS— Near the end of chapter 13, Ancient Man, we will describe a number of instances in which evidences of human beings have been found in what evolutionists consider to be extremely ancient rocks and coal. That information clearly disproves the geologic column dating theories, so we will summarize some of that information here. For more detailed coverage, we refer you to the chapter on Ancient Man.

Evidence from chapter 4, Age of the Earth, and the last part of chapter 13, Ancient Man, reveals that both the planet and mankind are quite young—and have not been here over 6,000-10,000 years.

Here is a summary of some of the data found near the end of the Ancient Man chapter:  

(1) Guadaloupe Woman: The almost-complete skeleton of a woman was found in limestone which is supposed to be 28 million years old. The limestone sheet, in which the skeleton was encased, was hard, thick, and over a mile [1.609 km] in length.

(2) Calaveras Skull: A completely mineralized human skull was found in Pliocene stratum which dates to over 2 million years old.

(3) Human footprints: Human footprints have been found in various sites in the United States, as well as in Laetoli, Africa. These would include:

[1] Glen Rose tracks: Children’s and adult footprints, up to 15 and 21½ inches [38-54.6 cm] in length, have been regularly found in Early Cretaceous rock throughout most of this century on the former riverbed of the Pulaxy River in Texas. Children’s tracks always accompany those of adults, tracks go across very large dinosaur tracks and have been found above them, and all tracks are running. These tracks are in Early Cretaceous formations, which date to 120 million years ago.

[2] Antelope Springs tracks: William Meister and others have found sandaled human tracks stepping on trilobites in Cambrian strata (570 million years old), in Utah.

(4) Evidence in coal: Human remains and relics of various kinds have been found in coal, dating to millions of years ago. This includes a human skull, two giant human teeth, a gold chain, gold thread, steel nail, metal screw, wedge-shaped object, and an iron pot.

14 - COAL

WHY IS IT NOT BEING MADE NOW?—(*#20-21/13 Considering Coal / Making Petroleum and Coal*)

A related puzzle is the great amount of petroleum and coal in our world. It is generally acknowledged by experts that petroleum comes from ancient animals, and coal from ancient plants. Rapidly buried plant and animal life at some earlier time in earth’s history produced both petroleum and coal. But neither of them is being formed today. This is a great mystery to the scientists.

Coal forms less than one percent of the sedimentary rock strata, yet it is of special significance to those seeking to understand the geologic record.

The rock strata known as Carboniferous contains the most coal, but it is also found in other strata. Coal results when plant remains are compressed and heated by the weight of overlying sediments. Around the edges of coal seams is frequently seen the identifiable plants it came from. Enormous forests must have been rapidly buried in order to produce coal.

The uniformitarian theory (called the autochthonous theory), held by evolutionists, teaches that coal has been regularly made for millions of years (even though it is admitted that it is not being made now). According to this theory, peat bogs were the source of the immense coal beds we now have. It is said that plants which compose the coal accumulated in large freshwater swamps or peat bogs during many thousands of years.

But this theory does not square with the facts: (1) Much of the coal is obviously from types of plants and trees (such as the pine) which do not grow in swampy areas. (2) No coal is being made today in swamps. (3) No locality is known, anywhere in the world, where the bottoms of peat beds are forming typical coal beds. (4) Some coal seams are up to 30 or 40 feet [91-122 dm] in thickness, representing 300 to 400 feet [122 m] of plant remains for one seam, therefore some astounding conditions were required to produce all that coal!

"Though a peat-bog may serve to demonstrate how vegetal matter accumulates in considerable quantities, it is in no way comparable in extent to the great bodies of vegetation which must have given rise to our important coal seams . . No single bog or marsh [today] would supply sufficient peat to make a large coal seam."—*E.S. Moore, Coal: Its Properties, Analysis, Classification, Geology, Extraction, Uses and Distribution (1940), p. 146.

The second theory is called the allochthonous theory, and suggests that coal strata accumulated from plants which had been rapidly transported and laid down during a massive flood that inundated entire continents and suddenly stripped them of their trees.

Here is some evidence favoring this second view: (1) The immense quantity of vegetation that was buried to produce this coal. (2) The way that vegetation was so suddenly laid down and buried. (3) The fact that marine fossils such as fish, mollusks, and brachiopods are commonly found in coal.

"The small marine tubeworm Spirobis is commonly attached to plants in Carboniferous coals of Europe and North America. Since there is little anatomical evidence suggesting that coal plants were adapted to marine swamps, the occurrence of marine animals with nonmarine plants suggests mixing during transport, thus favoring the allochthonous model."—Stuart E. Nevins, "The Origin of Coal," in Up With Creation (1978), p. 241.

One doctoral thesis detailed how coal could have been rapidly formed as, under conditions imposed by a worldwide flood, floating mats of trees and vegetation sank, producing our present coal beds (S.A. Austin, "Depositional Environment of the Kentucky No. 12 Coal Bed, et. al.," Geology Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1979).

(4) Upright tree trunks (polystrate trees), 10 to 30 feet [30.5-91.4 dm] or more in height, are often found in the strata associated with coal, or in the coal itself. The sediments forming the coal had to form rapidly in order to solidify before the tree trunks could rot and fall over.

"Figure 24 shows a tree that was buried to a depth of 4.6 m [15 ft]. Because the tree is in growth position and shows no root regeneration, it probably was buried very quickly, cetainly before it could decay."—*R.C. Milici, et. al, "The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian [Carboniferous] Systems in the United States: Tennessee," United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 111O-G32-4.

(5) Sometimes these upright trees are upside down, and sometimes so much vegetation was poured in by the flood waters, that tree trunks will be found interspersed at different levels in relation to one another. (Just after the big volcanic explosion of Mount St. Helens occurred in May 1980, analysis of nearby Spirit Lake revealed large amounts of vegetation with many vertical floating trees among them. The weight of their roots and girth of their lower trunks caused some of them to float in a vertical or near-vertical position. Yet, even then, conditions in Spirit Lake still did not match those of the worldwide Flood, for rapid burial did not take place—so fossils and coal were not formed.)

(6) The hollow trunks of trees in coal seams will be filled with material not native to the coal—showing that the trees or the coal were carried there from somewhere else.

(7) Stigmaria is the name given to the roots of these trees. Studies by *Rupke in 1969 revealed that these tree roots were carried in from elsewhere (* N.A. Rupke, "Sedimentary Evidence for the Allochthonous Origin of Stigmaria," in Geological Society of America Bulletin, Vol. 80, 1969, pp. 2109-2114.)

(8) Coal is found in layers, called cyclothem. Between each layer of coal will be some washed-in material: sandstone, shale, limestone, clay, etc.

Each of these layers of coal may be thin,—but it can be amazingly wide in area. Modern stratigraphic research has shown that just one of these coal seams reaches from Oklahoma, Missouri, and Iowa, eastward through Indiana to Ohio to Pennsylvania, and southward through Kentucky. This one coal seam alone comprises 100,000 square miles [258,990 km2] in central and eastern United States. There are no modern conditions that could duplicate such coal production, yet evolutionary geologists routinely tell us that "the present is the key to the past"; i.e., the way things are happening now is the way they happened in past ages.

(9) Under and over the coal seams is frequently found underclays which are not natural soil for swamps or forests. In addition, there is an absence of the necessary soil for the luxuriant vegetation which turned to coal. It is clear that the clay was washed in, then the vegetation, and then more clay.

(10) Large rocks, not native to the area, have frequently been found in coal beds all over the world for over a hundred years. Their average weight is 12 pounds [5 kg], with the largest 161 pounds [73 kg]. (See *P.H. Price, "Erratic Boulders in Sewell Coal of West Virginia," in Journal of Geology, Vol. 40, 1932, pp. 62-73.)

(11) Lastly, analysis of the structure of coal itself reveals particle orientation, sorted texture, and microlamination,—all of which indicate transportation to the site rather than growth-in-place.

Coal and petroleum are only found in sedimentary strata. Fossils are only found in sedimentary strata. All the evidence for a careful study of coal points to a worldwide Flood as the event that laid down those strata!

(12) Both petroleum and coal can be made in a comparatively short period of time. Research scientists find that it is not difficult to make, and could be made by nature just as quickly. The key is immense pressure.


The sedimentary rock strata are frequently not arranged as they ought to be—if they had been quietly laid down over millions of years.

Five primary problems are (1) fossils in wrong places, (2) missing strata, (3) geosynclines, (4) megabreccias, and (5) over-thrusts. We will discuss all five in this concluding section.

ONGOING STRATA CONTROVERSIESThe strata charts in the textbooks and popular magazines look so very complete and organized. Yet, in truth, it is not so. The problems are so serious that running controversies were carried on for years between feuding strata experts. Because the evidence was so confused, no one knew who was right. Finally, they arbitrarily settled on patterns which are on the strata charts as we see them today.

For example, there is the Sedgwick-Murchison-la Beche controversy, which was fought over the Cambrian, Silurian and Devonian strata systems:

"Sedgwick was the first to describe the fossils of the lower Graywacke Strata, which he named the Cambrian system, after an ancient name for Wales. Eventually their studies led them to different levels of the Graywacke, where the mercurial and territorial Murchison claimed much of Sedgwick’s domain for his newly founded Silurian system.

"Inevitably, almost all of the members of the Geological Society were drawn into the fray, and, when another geologist of the time, Sir Henry Thomas de la Boche, claimed part of the Graywacke for his Devonian period, the battle lines were drawn. For nearly a decade the Great Devonian Controversy, as it was called, raged on in the scientific journals. The political maneuvering behind the scenes was almost as convoluted as the Graywacke itself."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 401.

Elsewhere, *Milner explains how Murchison solved the controversy.

"The men were completely unable to agree on where the natural boundaries occurred. Murchison, however, found a way to resolve the dispute. He got himself appointed director of the National Geological Survey and simply ordered that the name "Cambrian" be deleted from all government books and geological maps."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69.

Later, after both men were dead, part of Murchison’s Silurian was renamed "Cambrian."

MIXED-UP FOSSILS—(*#14/27*) Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. In reality, fossils are frequently found in the wrong place,—especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.

There are three ways that the experts deal with to this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When large numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. (3) When they are found above their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into a higher strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell through up solid rock into higher levels.

REWORKING AND DOWNWASH—As noted in the above paragraph, "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain fossils which, by their location, disprove the theory. ("Overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.)

"Fossils frequently occur where they are not ‘supposed’ to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked.

"In ‘reworking,’ it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age.

"The reciprocal situation is ‘downwash,’ where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized."—John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.

POLLEN AND SPORES IN THE CAMBRIAN—(*#15/4*) A related problem concerns the fact that pollen from flowering plants has been found in Cambrian and even on top of Precambrian rock! This, of course, is in total disagreement with evolutionary theory, which maintains that flowering plants did not exist until many millions of years later. This would mean that the "Cambrian explosion" included flowering plants!

(For a listing of over 200 out-of-place fossils, see John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, pp. 210-214.)

SKIPPING—(*#16/7 Problems with Skipping*) Still another problem in the fossil record has been given the name "skipping". A species will be in a stratum, and totally disappear from the next stratum or two above that, and then reappear again. As mentioned earlier, in some cases a species disappears, never again to be seen until our own time when—there it is—alive and well on planet earth!

MIXED-UP STRATA—(*#19/34 Mixed Strata and Overthrusts*) The problems with the "geologic column" of strata and fossils keep getting worse! We have been discussing problems with the fossils,—but now we will turn our attention to the strata itself, and we learn that the situation becomes totally unmanageable! Evolutionary theory falls helpless in the process of trying to reconcile these insoluble hurdles to its success.

MISSING STRATA—Surprising as it may seem, the only evidence for the geologic succession of life is found in the strata charts of the geologists and in their imagination.

Nowhere in geological formations can we find (1) all the strata in order, (2) all the strata—even out of order, (3) most of the strata, in order or out of it. Instead we only find little bits here and there, and frequently they are mixed up (out of their theoretical sequence).

Never are all the strata in the theoretical "geologic column" to be found in one complete sandwich—anywhere in the world! Most of the time only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found. Even that classic example of rock strata, Grand Canyon, only has about half of them. But the missing strata should be there!

How can strata be missing? Yet this is the way it is everywhere on earth. In the Southwest United States, in order to find Paleozoic strata, we would need to go to the Grand Canyon. To find Mesozoic requires a trip to eastern Arizona. To find Tertiary, off we would have to go to New Mexico. Nowhere—anywhere—is the entire geologic column of the evolutionists to be found, for it is an imaginary column.

"Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called ‘geologic column.’ In fact, at most places on the continents, over half the ‘geologic periods’ are missing! Only 15-20 percent of the earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even within the Grand Canyon, over 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 15.

"Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten [strata] systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth’s surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata system missing beneath; 94% of the earth’s surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland) . . The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!"—S.A. Austin, Impact 137, November 1984, p. 2 [emphasis his].

The next few quotations contain startling admissions. We do well to carefully consider what they tell us:

"If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles [161 km] high . . It is of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this at any one place."—*O. Von Englen and *K. Caster, Geology (1952), pp. 417-418.

"Whatever his method of approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts: There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present . . To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record.

"If the complete story of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of thirty volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattered bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words or letters."—*H. Brown, *V. Monnett, and *J. Stovall, Introduction to Geology (1958), p. 11.

"We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place."—*Derek V. Ager, Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1981), p. 32.

Evolutionists explain that the proper word for them are "unconformities"; it would not do for scientists to use the phrase "missing strata,"—for if they are missing, then where did they go? Did billions of years of life on earth suddenly vanish?

"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on."—*Wílliam R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (1980), p. 219.

How can it be that the geologic column is so incomplete, when evolutionary theory teaches that it was quietly, slowly laid down uniformly over millions of years? The truth is that the rock strata point us back to a terrible worldwide catastrophe—a Flood,—not to millions of years of gradual soil deposits from dead plants and windblown soil.

THE GRAND CANYON—A visitor to the Grand Canyon gazes down upon a major fissure in the earth’s surface that is a mile [1.609 km] deep. The Colorado River winds its way for 200 miles [231.8 km] at the bottom of this canyon. By the time the visitor departs, his head spins with U.S. Park Service lectures, diagrams, and films about names such as Kaibab, Toroweap, Devonian, Permian, and Cambrian, and numbers ranging through millions of years.

But what the tourists are not told is that the Grand Canyon—which has more strata than most areas—only has FIVE of the TWELVE major strata systems (the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh, with small portions here and there of the fourth). Totally missing are the second, third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth!

Listed below are the 12 major strata systems—from top to bottom—as they are given in the schoolbook charts of the so-called "geologic column." Those strata which are found in the Grand Canyon are shown in larger type. The Devonian, which is only found in part here and there in Grand Canyon strata, is in smaller italic:













The Grand Canyon was formed rapidly:

"The plain fact of the great number of para-conformities found in the Canyon is strong evidence in favor of short-term deposition. If many millions of years separated these various strata, how do evolutionists explain the anomaly of a river [the Colorado] taking ‘only a few million’ years to cut through some 8,000 feet [2,438 m] of sediments which supposedly took up to 500 million years to be laid down, when those same strata exhibit no sign of erosion themselves.

"The obvious and simplest explanation is that these sediments were laid down in too brief a time span to allow erosion, and then scoured out by a large body of moving water much bigger than the present-day Colorado, and not very long ago."—A.W. Mehlert, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1987, p. 28.

 All in all, the Grand Canyon is an outstanding evidence of the Genesis Flood.

"One of the most spectacular evidences of what a year-long, worldwide Flood would accomplish may be seen in Grand Canyon of Arizona. This gigantic formation is in some places more than 5,000 feet [1,524 m] deep, 25,000 feet [7,620 m] across, and extends for more than 100 miles [160.9 km] to the east and west."—John C. Whitcomb, World that Perished (1988), pp. 74-75.

The Colorado River lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, yet it is a typical winding river—the type found in fairly flat terrain. Winding rivers do not cut deeply! It is the straighter, steeper rivers with swiftly rushing water, which deeply erode soil and hurl loose rocks along its side downstream.

The Colorado is a serpentine river in flatter country. It could not possibly have carved out the Grand Canyon, unless: (1) a colossal amount of water was flowing; (2) the sediments comprising the canyon walls through which it was cutting were soft; that is, they had only recently been laid down by flood waters and had not yet solidified into solid rock, and (3) a rather sudden event caused that flowage of water!

These are exactly the conditions which the Flood would have provided. The Colorado River drained an immense area in Utah and eastern Nevada. A lake covered that entire area, and an uplift caused the water to rather suddenly drain out. See chapter 14, Effects of the Flood, for more on events during and just after the Flood.

Shortly after the Flood, while volcanism was at its height and the strata was still soft, the ground heaved upward over a vast area, which emptied Lake Bonneville. That flowing water drained toward the southwest, forming Grand Canyon. Great Salt Lake is all that remains of the ancient lake. If you ever visit the area, you will see the former shoreline of the lake, high on the surrounding mountains.

Notice that the Colorado did little in the way of hurling rocks downstream. This is because the Grand Canyon had not yet hardened into rock when it was cut through. If the Colorado had carved the Grand Canyon out of solid rock, we would find huge tumbled boulders in and alongside of the stream bed. But such is not seen. In contrast, later glacial action, after the rocks had hardened, did move large boulders in other areas; for example, they are to be seen in the Merced River below Yosemite.

STRATA GAPS—We are learning that there are not only fossil gaps, there are strata gaps as well! We are learning that there are not only fossil gaps, there are strata gaps as well! Together, they spell the doom of the evolutionary theory, as it is applied to sedimentary strata and the fossil evidence.

The earth is supposed to have gradually been covered by one after another of the 12 major strata systems, listed above, over a period of millions of years. If that is true, why are a majority of those 12 strata systems missing from any given locality in the world? Why then are less than half present in that great classic of them all: the Grand Canyon? Why then are less than half present in that great classic of them all: the Grand Canyon? Why then are less than half present in that great classic of them all: the Grand Canyon?

If the sedimentary rock strata was slowly formed over millions of years in a uniformitarian manner, then all the strata should be found throughout the world. Keep in mind that evolution teaches that "each strata represents the accumulated sediment from a span of millions of years at a certain earlier epoch in earth’s history." If this theory were true, then ALL the strata would have to be found evenly, everywhere on the globe.

Here is a statement in scientific jargon:

"Many unconformity bounded units are considered to be chronostratigraphic units in spite of the fact that unconformity surfaces inevitably cut across isochronous horizons and hence cannot be true chronostratigraphic boundaries."—*C. Hong Chang, "Unconformity-Bounded Stratigraphic Units," in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, November 1975, p. 1544.

Here, in everyday English, is the meaning of that statement: Many of the tilted, folded, and mixed-up fossil strata are theoretically supposed to measure long ages of time, but in reality there is such confusion that it is impossible for such strata to measure anything!

THE EVIDENCE IN THE ROCKS—If it was the Genesis Flood which suddenly formed the rock strata, then we would expect to find the strata just as it now isIf it was the Genesis Flood which suddenly formed the rock strata, then we would expect to find the strata just as it now is.

This is what we would expect to find:

(1) Pockets of inundated, covered animals here, and others there. (2) Mixed-up and missing strata everywhere we look. (3) Geosynclines (twisted and folded strata) frequently found. (4) Megabreccias (giant boulders) as a regular occurrence in the strata. (5) Upside-down strata. (6) Overthrusts, in which "more recent" strata lie buried deep beneath "older" strata. (7) Vertical tree trunks (polystrate trees) in place, from bottom to top spanning through various "ages" of strata. (8) The slowest marine creatures in the lowest strata, slowest land animals higher up. (9) Birds less frequently found since they could fly to the higher points. (10) Apes very difficult to find, and man almost impossible to find—since both would know how to reach the highest points and cling there. Their bodies would then float and decay without being covered by sediment. (11) Complex life-forms would be found in rich profusion at the very bottom of the fossil-bearing rock strata (the Cambrian "explosion"), with next to nothing beneath it. (12) And, amid all the fossil strata,—only the same separate, distinct species we now see on earth and in the sea, plus some which have become extinct—with no transitional forms to be found anywhere in the rock strata.

GEOSYNCLINES—In many places, layers of sedimentary rocks have been buckled into folds. Some of these folded rock strata are small, others are massive and cover miles in area (folded mountains). In some places the strata angles itself downward into the earth, or upward, breaking off as the sharp edge of high mountains (fault block mountains).

"It is cause for some wonder that strong brittle rocks can be bent into sharp fo1ds."—*C.R. Longwell, *A. Kropf, and *R.F. Flint, Outlines of Physical Geology (1950), 2nd ed., p. 246.

THE MATTERHORN—The evolutionists tell us this mountain climbed 30 to 60 miles over other mountains, to its present location (see p. 510).

GEOSYNCLINES—Here is a description of the different types and parts of folded mountains (p. 499).

Matterhorn and Folded Mountains

EC500.jpg (609671 bytes)

The general name for all of this is geosynclines. In an anticline, the bent, outside layers of rock are in tension but are generally unfractured and in many places not even cracked. Two facts are obvious: (1) Immense forces caused this buckling! (2) The buckling occurred while the rock was still fairly soft.

(What actually happened was that still-soft layers, laid down by the Flood, were then bent by convulsive movements of the earth. Afterward, in their twisted shape, they dried into hard rock.)

"The rocks were bent in the early stages when the sediments were pliable and before metamorphosis took place. This would easily satisfy all the facts, but would require the process to have taken place over a short period of time, say a few months; but, of course, it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that a major catastrophe was involved."—Ian Taylor, in the Minds of Men (1987), p. 105.

MEGABRECCIAS—These are gigantic boulders, which were moved into place by the waters of an immense flood. On all sides will be found rock strata, with some of these boulders impacted into its midstThese are gigantic boulders, which were moved into place by the waters of an immense flood. On all sides will be found rock strata, with some of these boulders impacted into its midst.

A rock equivalent to one cubic meter may weigh three metric tons [6,614 lb], and most megabreccia clasts are larger than this. Yet such gigantic boulders were obviously transported to their present site in the rock strata.

In Peru, blocks weighing up to 5,000 metric tons [11 million lbs] occur in Eocene strata far from the place where they originated. Each boulder is 10-15 meters [32.8-49.2 ft] across. In Texas, rock slabs 30 meters [98.4 ft] in diameter are found in Paleozoic mudstones. No rocks of similar composition are to be found nearby. Other examples could be given.

The strata are caving in on evolutionary theory. But, as they say in the vernacular: "You haven’t seen anything yet!"—Now look at overthrusts!


Overthrusts constitute part of the problem of physical strata, yet it is such a major issue that it deserves a section all to itself. When we consider the implications of this astonishing obstacle to evolutionary theory, we wonder why anyone can claim that rock strata can be dating tools, and that each stratum is millions of years "younger" or "older" than another one.   

OVERTHRUSTS—(*#19/34 Mixed-up Strata and Overthrusts*) This is the most shocking of the evidences disproving one of the most basic of evolutionary theories, the strata theory.

William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839), of England, was one of the very first people in the world to begin analyzing sedimentary rock strata. He was also one of the first to assume that most basic of evolutionary strata theories: "the older strata must be under the younger strata." He called that theory the "doctrine of superposition."

Evolution teaches that some plants and animals are long ages "older" than others and were here on earth millions of years before the "younger" ones evolved into existence. Applying this theory to the rock strata is the means of dating the strata, but it requires that each stratum have an age that is millions of years older than the next stratum above it.

"The basic chronology of Earth history was established by identifying different strata or layers in geologic formations and relating them to other layers. It is based on the assumption that lower beds were laid down first and are therefore older, while higher (later) beds are younger."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 421.

If the theory is correct, then the OLDER strata should always be BELOW the MORE RECENT strata. If the theory is incorrect, then the two will often be confused—and that is what we find out in the field.

We go to the mountains to study the strata, for there we find them most clearly exposed. Yet in every mountainous region on every continent on the globe, there are numerous examples of supposedly "old" strata superimposed ON TOP OF "younger" strata! (An extensive listing of such areas is to be found in *Bulletin of Geological Society of America, February 1959, pp. 115-116.)

This contradiction to the evolutionary theory of rock strata and fossils is so common that it has been given a variety of names: overthrust, thrust-fault, low-angle fault, nappe, detachment thrust, etc. We will here refer to them by their most common name, overthrusts.

Rather than admit the truth, evolutionists have worked out a fantastic explanation for overthrusts. . .

At some time in past ages,—the lower strata (which are supposedly "older") are supposed to have slid sideways for many miles—and then journeyed up and over (were thrust over) the "younger" strata on top!

"The only explanation for the [younger] buried strata is that the [older] overlying crystalline rocks were emplaced along a major subhorizontal thrust fault."—*F.A. Cook, *L.D. Brown, and *J.E. Olwer, "The Southern Appalachians and the Growth of the Continent," in Scientific American, October 1980, p. 161.

Such an explanation is incredible!

Many of the great overthrust areas occupy hundreds and even thousands of square miles! In desperation at the problems, men are trying to move mountains in order to support a crumbling theory! 

"We may even demonstrate that strata have turned completely upside down if we can show that fossils in what are the uppermost layers ought properly to lie underneath those in the beds below them."—*A. Geikie, Textbook of Geology (1963), p. 387.

"Since their earliest recognition, the existence of large overthrusts has presented a mechanical paradox that has never been satisfactorily resolved."—*M.K. Hubbert and   *W.W. Riley, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Over-thrusting Faulting," in Bulletin of Geological Society of America, February 1959, pp. 115-117.

If evolutionary geologists cannot maintain the truth of their overthrust theory, they will lose the foundation proof for evolution: the fossils as datable evidence for long ages of time. Fossils constitute a proof of evolution only because more recent strata are supposed be lying on top of older strata.

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely separated regions and from continent to continent."—*H.D. Hedberg, in Bioscience, September 1979. (1950), 2nd ed., p. 246.

HEART MOUNTAIN—Here is a sketch of part of this massive 30 x 60 mile formation which, the evolutionists explain, traveled hundreds of miles—and climbed up onto "younger" strata.

EC504.jpg (320058 bytes)

HEART MOUNTAIN—Here is one of many examples of an overthrust: The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming is a triangular area, 30 miles [48.2 km] wide by 60 miles [96.5 km] long. One apex presses against the northeast corner of Yellowstone Park. Within this gigantic overthrust are 50 separate blocks of Paleozoic strata (Ordovician, Devonian, and Mississippian). They are resting horizontally and as though they belonged there—but ON TOP OF Eocene beds which are supposed to be 250 million years younger! Photographs of the fault line, separating the Paleozoic strata from the Eocene, reveal it to be perfectly snug and normal. No evidence of massive crushing of rock beneath the fault line is to be seen (as would be seen if the upper "younger" strata slid up and over the lower "older" strata).

Searching for the area from which this gigantic overthrust horizontally slid—the scientists could not locate it. They could not find any place where the top layer slid from!

"The Heart Mountain thrust has long been structurally perplexing because there are no known structural roots or source from which it could have been derived. Furthermore, there is no known surface fault or fault zone within or adjoining from which the thrust sheet could have been derived."—*Op. cit, p. 592.

One expert, *Pierce said the solution was "gravity" (op. cit., p. 598). But, as with many others, this particular overthrust is an entire mountain! Heart Mountain is a high mountain, not a plain nor a low valley. It is a horizontal bed of hundreds of feet of rock resting high above the Wyoming plains, overlooking them. It would require some special type of gravity to put those billions upon billions of pounds of rock up there—and do it all so carefully that it rests there, fitted perfectly together. This 30 x 60 mile [48.8-96.6 km] triangle of very thick rock is supposed to have wandered there ("gravitated there" is how some experts describe it) in some miraculous way from somewhere else—and then climbed up on top of all the other rocks in the plains beneath it!

LEWIS OVERTHRUST—The Lewis overthrust in Montana, first discovered in 1901, is massive in size. It is another example of the overthrust problem.

"The Lewis overthrust of Montana has a length of approximately 135 miles [217.25 km] and a horizontal displacement of about 15 miles (24 km). Its fault plane dips to the southwest at an angle of about 3 degrees."—*William D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (1954), p. 268.

Since *Thornbury wrote the above lines, additional research has disclosed that the Lewis overthrust is 3 miles [4.8279 km] deep, 135 miles [217 km] long, and 35 to 40 miles [56.3-64.4 km] wide! (See *C.P. Ross and *Richard Rezak, "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier National Park," in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 294-K, 1959, pp. 422, 424.)

That is a lot of rock! In order to protect their fossil strata theory, the evolutionists soberly tell us that ALL THAT ROCK moved sideways many miles from somewhere else.

This massive overthrust is truly vast in size. Here is how to locate it: On a map of North America, (1) place a penciled "X" on a point a little north of Crowsnest Mountain on Highway 3 on the border of British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. (2) Place a second "X" a little below Cut Bank, Montana. (3) Then go west from that second "X" to the southern border of Glacier National Park, and include all of it to its southwestern border; place a third "X." (4) Now go north and include all of Glacier National Park to its northwest border; place a fourth "X." Now draw lines connecting all the "Xs." All that territory in the Pacific Northwest—with a thickness up to 3 miles [4.8 km] deep—is supposed to have traveled there from somewhere else!

Not only does the Lewis Overthrust include all of Glacier National Park and Chief Mountain, but what do you think is beneath it?—undisturbed shale, which is hardened clay that has never been disturbed. Shale crumbles easily when shattered or placed under grinding sideways pressure. That immense area of nearly horizontal rock is supposed to have slid sideways for a great distance over fragile shale, without ever having disturbed it!

"The fault plane [as viewed from the Bow Valley] is nearly horizontal and the two formations, viewed from the valley, appear to succeed one another conformably. The cretaceous shales [hardened clay beneath the Lewis overthrust] are bent sharply toward the east in a number of places, but with this exception have suffered little by the sliding of the limestone over them, and their comparatively undisturbed condition seems hardly compatible with the extreme faulting [horizontal sliding] which was necessary to bring them into their present position."—*J.L. Kuip, "Flood Geology," in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, January 1950, pp. 1-15, quoting *R.G. McConnell, a Canadian geologist.

The Lewis overthrust should have pushed a great mass of broken rock (rubble or breccia) along in front of it and on its sides as it traveled sideways overland. But it did not do this; there is none there. That in itself is a proof that the Lewis overthrust did not move sideways! 

Commenting on the fact that there is an "absence of rubble or breccia" pushed up by the Lewis fault when it supposedly slid sideways for miles, *Ross and *Rezak, two experienced geologists, then express their own doubts:

"Such a slab moving over ground, as is now believed to have existed, should have scarred and broken the hills and have itself been broken to a greater or less extent, depending on local conditions. No evidence of either of these things has been found."—*C.P. Ross and *Richard Rezak, Op. cit., p. 424.

A University of California scientist personally examined the point of contact where the Lewis fault rests on the rock beneath it, and made the following statement.

"At the actual contact line, very thin layers of shale were always present . . A thin band of soft shale sticks to the upper block of Altyn limestone. This seems to clearly indicate that, just before the Altyn limestone was deposited . . a thin water-like one-eighth to one-sixteenth inch layer of shale was deposited . . Careful study of the various locations showed no evidence of any grinding or sliding action or slicken-sides such as one would expect to find on the hypothesis of a vast overthrust.

"Another amazing fact was the occurrence of two four-inch layers of Altyn limestone intercalated with [inserted between] Cretaceous shale . . Furthermore these were cemented both to the upper Altyn limestone and shale. Likewise careful study of these intercalations showed not the slightest evidence of abrasive action such as one would expect to find if these were shoved forward in between layers of shale as the overthrust theory demands."—Walter E. Lammerts, personal letter dated November 27, 1957 to H.M. Morris, quoted in J.C. Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (1961), pp. 189-191.

Fantastically large frictional forces would have to be overcome in sliding these mountainous masses of rock horizontally. No one has figured out how it could have been done. It is far beyond the laws of physics. But, undaunted, some evolutionists said it could happen if its undersurface was wet! One scientist (*Terzaghi) did some testing and found that water would actually increase frictional drag, not lessen it.

The Lewis Overthrust consists of six layers of rock which are supposed to have slid sideways over "younger" strata. Those overthrust layers are three miles thick!

"This strata mix-up was first identified by Willis in 1901, who named it the Lewis Overthrust. Let us now consider the overriding rock strata which forms the supposed thrust sheet. Starting at the bottom of the belt strata, the Altyn Limestone has an average thickness of 2300 feet [701 m]. The Appekunny above it is 3000 feet [914 m] thick. This continues on up until the rock column reaches a minimum height of three miles. These overriding rocks form what is called the ‘Belt Series.’ "—John W. Read, Fossils, Strata, and Evolution (1979), p. 30.

The Lewis Overthrust is 135 miles [217 km] long, and its maximum thickness is 3 miles [4.8 km]!

This is what we find in the "belt strata" of the Lewis Overthrust, as viewed in Glacier National Park. The following list is from top to bottom of the Lewis Overthrust:

Kintla Argillite. This is found on some mountaintops.

Shepard Limestone. This limestone is 600 feet [183 m] in thickness. 

Siyeh Limestone. This second layer of limestone is nearly a mile [1.6 km] thick, and generally over 4,000 feet [1,219 m] from top to bottom! 

Grinnell Argillíte. Argil is a type of clay; argillite is a fragile shale. This stratum is over half a mile [1.609 km] in thickness: 3,000 feet [914 m]. 

Appekunny Argillite. This second layer of shale is over 3,000 feet [914 m] in thickness. 

Altyn Limestone. Limestone is composed primarily of calcium carbonate which is not as strong as many other rocks. This layer averages nearly half-a-mile [8045 km] in thickness: 2,300 feet [701 m].

We have provided you with a detailed description of the Lewis Overthrust, in order to demonstrate the impossibility of the overthrust theory. But there are many other overthrusts elsewhere in the world. If the overthrust theory is incorrect—then the entire concept of the "geological column" is wrong,—and the rock strata, with their enclosed fossils, were NOT laid down over a period of long ages!

THE MATTERHORN—Everyone has seen photographs of the triangular shaped Matterhorn. It lies in the Pennine Alps, on the border between Valais, Switzerland, and the Piedmont region of Italy. Located 40 miles [64.4 km] east of Mount Blanc, the Matterhorn is one of most spectacular mountains in the world. It looks like a gigantic, steeply pointed pyramid, and is 14,685 feet (4,476 m] in height.

THE MYTHEN—Another massive mountain in the Swiss Alps is the Mythen Peak. This one is really a marathon runner. The Mythen ran all the way from Africa into Switzerland! (It probably got wet as it went through the Mediterranean Sea.) In this mountain, you will find the Eocene strata (55 million years old) lying under Triassic (225 million), Jurassic (180 million), and Cretaceous (130 million). According to the theory, the Eocene is supposed to be on top of the Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic,—but instead it is under all three!

THE APPALACHIANS—As with many mountain ranges, geologists always thought that the Appalachians (which include most of the mountains in Eastern America) were up thrust mountains—pushed up from below. But then they made a shocking discovery: underneath the entire Appalachians is some supposedly "younger" strata. The experts say that the entire Appalachian range ran sideways under the Atlantic Ocean, climbed out onto shore, and journeyed on over to its present location. If you will look on a physical map of the United States, you will find that the Appalachians extend from above Maine to Birmingham, Alabama.

"The Appalachians, which run from Newfoundland to Alabama, were probably formed not by upward thrusting, as previously believed, but by a thick conglomerate of oceanic and continental rock that was shoved horizontally at least 250 kilometers [155.3 mi] over existing sediments 

"Beneath that jumble [of the Appalachians], lies a younger, flat, thin 1-5 km [.62-3.1 mi] thick layer of sediments that ‘no one thought existed.’ The unbroken, wide extent of the layer . . and its similarity to sediments found on the East Coast indicate that the mountains ‘could not have been pushed up.’ "—*Science News, 1979.

A small but excellent 64-page booklet, that is filled with pictures and diagrams that focus on the "mixed-up strata" problem, is Fossils, Strata, and Evolution (1979), by John G. Read.

Walter Lammerts spent years collecting geological articles dealing with the problem of overthrusts. He has published eight lists documenting 198 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. (W.E. Lammerts, "Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations of Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Part 1-8," Creation Research Society Quarterly, eight issues between September 1984 and June 1987.)

OVERTHRUSTS DISPROVED—Common sense disproves the evolutionary theory of overthrusts (sideways movement of immense rock masses from miles away), but three researchers decided in 1980 to check it out scientifically. They disproved the entire overthrust theory, as they showed that the terrific lateral pressures involved in moving these great masses of rock sideways—would produce so many fractures in the overthrust rock as to entirely crumble it!

"If we assume that rocks have no tensile strength . . then when the pore fluid pressure exceeds the least compressive stress, fractures will form normal to that stress direction. These fractures limit pore pressure . . We suggest that pore pressure may never get high enough to allow gravity gliding . . the rocks might fail in vertical hydrofracture first."—*J.H. Willemin, *P.L. Guth, and *K.V. Hodges, "High Fluid Pressure, Isothermal Surfaces, and the Initiation of Nappe Movement," in Geology, September 1980, p. 406.

"It seems mechanically implausible that great sheets of rock could have moved across nearly flat surfaces for appreciable distances."— *Philip B. King, "The Anatomy and Habitat of Low-Angle Thrust Faults," in American Journal of Science, Vol. 258-A, 1960, p. 115.

As noted earlier, "thrust faults" is another name for overthrusts.


WHY DO THEY DO IT?—ln view of such facts, why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes to defend their beloved strata age theory?

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."—*C.O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1960), p. 47.

CLINGING TO A CRUMBLING ERROR—(*#22/4 The Geological Clock*) Reporting on a major evolutionary conference in late 1980, Newsweek magazine described some of the discussion as men argued among themselves to find some reason for holding on to the foolishness they inherited from Darwin:

"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule . . The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated."—*Newsweek, November 3, 1980.

Is evolution beginning to look hopeless? It not only is hopeless, it is useless. When . When . When *Charles Darwin published his book, Origin of the Species, back in 1859, no one knew what discoveries would be made later. But in our day a vast wealth of knowledge has been amassed, and evolution stands condemned as meaningless and worthless.

SCIENTISTS ARE WAKING UP—Many scientists are becoming aware of the facts and are beginning to speak out more boldly,—but only among themselves or in their scientific journals. The general public continues to hear only the usual "the fossils prove evolution" claim.

Here is how a professor of zoology at Oxford University, puts it:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation."—*Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

*Colin Patterson spent a lifetime, first searching for fossils and later managing the fossil (paleontology) department of one of the largest fossil museums in the world, the British Museum of Natural History. Eventually, he admitted to himself that he had been self-deceived all his life. During a 1981 keynote address at a convention of fossil experts at the American Museum of Natural History, in New York City, he said this:

"One of the reasons I started taking this anti-evolutionary view, or let’s call it a non-evolutionary view, was last year I had a sudden realization for over twenty years I had thought I was working on evolution in some way. One morning I woke up and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing I knew about it. That’s quite a shock to learn that one can be misled so long. Either there was something wrong with me or there was something wrong with evolutionary theory. Naturally, I knew there was nothing wrong with me, so for the last few years I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people.

"Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History [in Chicago], and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time; and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing—that it ought not to be taught in high school.’ "—*Colin Patterson, address at American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981.

Philip Johnson, a Berkeley professor, later wrote:

"I discussed evolution with Patterson for several hours in London in 1988. He did not retract any of the specific skeptical statements he has made."—Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial, 1991, p. 157.

THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES—Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a proud king who was fooled by some fly-by-night tailors. They told him they could provide him with the finest of clothing, extremely delicate and sheer. He commissioned them to begin the task of preparing him a new outfit. Upon seeing it, he found it to be so sheer—he could not even see it! But since the king is never supposed to be second to any man in understanding of a matter, he dared say nothing.

Finally, the great day came and he paraded through town in his new clothes. Everyone stood silently as he passed in pride and great majesty on his noble steed, clad (according to two variations of the story) only in his long underwear, or less.

No one dared say anything, for surely the king ought to be able to see this delicate clothing better than they. Finally a child spoke up, and said to his mother, "But he has no clothes on!" At this the crowd awakened as from sleep, and word passed from mouth to mouth amid roars of understanding laughter. 

We in the 20th century bow low before the theories of "science," little realizing that a small group maintains a strict control over what will be researched and concluded while the majority of scientists stand silently aside, fearful to speak lest they lose their jobs.

The emperor was told, "Anyone who is unfit for his position, will not be able to see this sheer clothing." Science students are today told in school that anyone who does not believe in evolution is unfit for a position as a scientist.

We are waiting for a loud voice to cry out: "The emperor has no clothes; evolution is a myth and not science."

To a great degree, that loud voice will have to come from the common people; for far too many scientists fear to say much...

"If we insist on maintaining and supporting the theory of evolution, we are then forced to eliminate and disavow mathematical probability concepts. If we are convinced that mathematics is correct, then we have to discard the present concepts of evolution. The two teachings do not seem to be compatible with each other.

"As objective scientists, which shall we support?

"Remember the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes? Not a single vassal dared point out the obvious fact that the emperor was naked; instead they competed with each other to vociferously praise the wonderful tailoring of the new suit. They even described in detail the fine and exquisite stitching to be found in the lower left corner of the imaginary coat. They were all gratified—to their own satisfaction—to hear themselves describe the virtue and beauty of the coat.

"It was left to the simplistic mind of a naive child to exclaim: ‘but this is not so—the Emperor is naked!’ "

"Does this sound familiar? History has a way of repeating itself."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong—A Study in Probabilities (1984), pp. 217-218.

"It is indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. I view stasis and the trumpeting of stasis to the whole world that the fossil record shows slow, steady, continuous change (as opposed to jerky patterns of change) as akin to the ‘Emperor’s new clothes.’ Paleontologists have known this for over a hundred years."—*Norman Eldredge, "Did Darwin Get it Wrong?" November 1, 1981, p. 6. [Head paleontologist, American Museum of Natural History, New York City].

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes!’ "—*Kenneth Hsu, "Darwin’s Three Mistakes," in Geology 14 (1986), p. 534.

SPECIAL NOTE—This chapter did not fully explain how the facts relating to strata and fossils apply to the Flood. That information will be given in chapter 13