Les fossiles

DATED BY FOSSILS?—The strata are said to be
dated by FOSSILS! Well, now we have arrived at something
concrete. The strata are all mixed up, piled on
top, under where they should go, or totally missing.
But at least we can date by all the fossils in them.
But wait a minute! We cannot even use 99 percent
of the fossils to date them by, since we can find the same
type of fossils in one stratum as in many others! And in
each stratum are millions of fossils, representing hundreds
and even thousands of different species of plant and/or
animal life. The result is a bewildering maze of mixedup
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 as 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 that could not climb to higher
ground when the Flood came! Their presence in a sedimentary
stratum is supposed to provide absolutely certain
Fossils and Strata 429
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
600 million years in the past. But rocks containing another
type of trilobite (Bathyurus) are arbitrarily classified
as “Ordovician,” which is claimed to have spanned
45 million years and begun 480 million years ago.
—But how can anyone come up with such ancient
dates simply by examining two different varieties of trilobite?
The truth is that it cannot be done. It is science
fiction to even pretend to do so.
Add to this the problem of mixed-up index fossils—
when “index fossils” from different levels are found
430 The Evolution Cruncher
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! Here is how they do it:
Darwinists theorize which animals came first—and
when they appeared on the scene. And then they date
the rocks according to their theory—not according to
the wide mixture of fossil creatures in it—but by assigning
dates—based on their theory—to certain “index”
fossils.
—That is a gigantic, circular-reasoning hoax!
“Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence
that life has evolved from simpler to more and more
complex forms.”—*Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology,
2nd edition (1960), p. 47.
The conclusions about which fossils came first are
based on the assumptions of evolution. Rock strata are studied,
a few index fossils are located (when they can be found
at all), and each stratum is then given a name. Since the
strata are above, below, and in-between one another,
with most of the strata missing in any one location,—
just how can the theorists possibly “date” each stratum?
They do it by applying evolutionary speculation
to what they imagine those dates should be.
This type of activity classifies as interesting fiction,
but it surely should not be regarded as science. The truth
is this: It was the evolutionary theory that was used to
date the fossils; it was not the strata and it was not
“index fossils.”
“Vertebrate paleontologists have relied upon ‘stage
of evolution’ as the criterion for determining the
chronologic relationships of faunas. Before establishment
Fossils and Strata 431
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 cor-
432 The Evolution Cruncher
relation—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
Fossils and Strata 433
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.
434 The Evolution Cruncher
The curator of zoological collections at Oxford University
wrote this:
“A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record
in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect
the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory.
Well, it would, wouldn’t it?”—*Tom Kemp, “A Fresh
Look at the Fossil Record,” New Scientist 108, December
5, 1985, p. 66.
A DOUBLE CIRCLE—Circular reasoning is the basis,
not only of the fossil theory,—but of the whole
theory of evolution!
First, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the “evidence”
that evolution has occurred in the past. (The fossils are
dated by the theory of strata dating; the strata are then
dated by the fossils).
Second, reasoning in a circle is the basis of the “mechanism”
by which evolution is supposed to occurred any time.
(The survivors survive. The fittest survive because they
are fittest,—yet, according to that, all they do is survive!
not evolve into something better!) (See chapter 9, Natural
Selection).
Throughout this book, we shall find many other examples
of strange logic on the part of the evolutionists:
(1) Matter had to come from something, therefore it
somehow came from nothing (chapter 2, The Big Bang
and Stellar Evolution). (2) Living creatures had to
come from something, therefore they somehow came
from dirt that is not alive (chapter 7, The Primitive Environment).
By the use of circular reasoning, evolutionary
theory attempts to separate itself from the laws of nature!
Limiting factors of chemical, biological, and physical
law forbid matter or living creatures from originating
or evolving.
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
Fossils and Strata 435
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) 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.
3 - COMPLEXITY AT THE BEGINNING
SIMPLEST JUST AS COMPLEX—Because the waters
of the Flood first covered the creatures which were
not able to rapidly escape to higher ground, some of
the “simplest animals” are found in the lowest of the
sedimentary strata. Yet those creatures have complicated
internal structures.
One of the most common creatures found in the lowest—
the Cambrian—strata, are the trilobites. These were
436 The Evolution Cruncher
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
Fossils and Strata 437
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
438 The Evolution Cruncher
enormous numbers of complex trilobites in the Cambrian
strata, yet below the Cambrian there is hardly anything
that resembles a fossil. As mentioned above, these little
creatures had marvelously complicated eyes. But they
also had other very advanced features: (1) Jointed legs
and appendages, which indicate that they had a complex
system of muscles. (2) Chitinous exoskeleton (horny substance
as their outer covering), which indicates that they
grew by periodic ecdysis, a very complicated process of
molting. (3) Compound eyes and antennae, which indicate
a complex nervous system. (4) Special respiratory organs,
which indicate a blood circulation system. (5) Complex
mouth parts, which indicate specialized food requirements.
(Another of the many types of creatures, found in great
numbers in the Cambrian strata, are segmented marine
worms. As with trilobites, we find that they also had a
complex musculature, specialized food habits and requirements,
blood circulatory system, and advanced nervous
system.)
NOT SIMPLE TO COMPLEX—The evolutionists
maintain that the fossil record goes from the simple to
the complex. But researchers have discovered that the
simple creatures were also complex. In fact, there are
actually few examples in the fossil record of anything
like “from simple to complex” progression. This is partly
due to the fact that the fossils suddenly appear in great
numbers and variety,—too much so for much simple-tocomplex
progression to be sorted out.
Included here are complex organs, such as intestines,
stomachs, bristles and spines. Eyes and feelers show the
presence of nervous systems. For example, consider the
specialized sting cells (nematocysts) in the bodies of jellyfish,
with their coiled, thread-like harpoons which are
explosively triggered. How could this evolve?
Let no one say that the Cambrian level only has
“simple, primitive,” or “half-formed” creatures.
Fossils and Strata 439
Every phylum in the Cambrian
511
EVERY PHYLUM IN THE CAMBRIAN—The
startling fact is that every phylum is represented
in the lowest sedementary strata of all: the Cambrian.
The “Cambrian explosion” is, for evolutionary
theory, a catastrophe from which it will
never recover.
440 The Evolution Cruncher

4 - SUDDEN APPEARANCE OF LIFE
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
Fossils and Strata 441
no vertebrates (animals with backbones) appeared until the
Lower Ordovician (just above the Cambrian). But in 1977
that belief was shattered, when fully developed fish
(heterostracan vertebrate fish fossils) were discovered in
the Upper Cambrian strata of Wyoming. Reported in Science
magazine for May 5, 1978,—this discovery
placed every major animal phylum group in the Cambrian
rocks! Although never discussed in school textbooks,
this news came as a distinct shock to the professional
world. For evolutionists, the situation continues to get worse.
With the “Cambrian Explosion” suddenly appears every
major type of living thing. This fact totally devastates
the basis of evolutionary theory. Plants and every type
of animal have been found in the Cambrian strata. Although
evolutionists prefer not to discuss it, the truth is
that at least one representative of EVERY PHYLUM has
been found in the Cambrian!
“Until recently, the oldest fish fossils known were from
the Middle Ordovician Harding Sandstone of Colorado.
These were of ‘primitive’ heterostracan fishes (Class
Agnatha) which are jawless. The Vertebrates were the
only major animal group not found as fossils in Cambrian
rocks.
“[The 1976 discovery of heterostracan fish fossils in
Cambrian is discussed in detail] . . This discovery of fishes
(vertebrates) in the Cambrian is without question the most
significant fossil discovery in the period 1958-1979. The
evidence is now complete that all of the major categories
of animal and plant life are found in the Cambrian.”—
Marvin L. Lubenow, “Significant Fossil Discoveries
Since 1958,” in Creation Research Society Quarterly,
December 1980, p. 157.
Not only complex animal life, but complex plant life
is represented in the Cambrian! Flowering plants are generally
considered to be one of the most advanced forms
of life in the plant kingdom. Spores from flowering
plants have also been found in Cambrian strata.
“Spores attributed to terrestrial plants have been found
442 The Evolution Cruncher
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.

http://www.bible-tube.com

5 - NO LIFE BELOW THE CAMBRIAN
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 lifeforms.
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
Fossils and Strata 443
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 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!
The “3.8 billion-year-old” Isua outcrop in Greenland
was previously believed to contain the oldest evidence of
life. Then in 1981 it was discovered that the evidence was
nothing more than weathered crystals of calcium magnesium
carbonates:
“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
444 The Evolution Cruncher
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.
6 - NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES
THE GAP PROBLEM—(*#8/55 No Transitions, Only
Gaps*) In this section we will deal with four 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 evolu-
Fossils and Strata 445
tion.”—*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
446 The Evolution Cruncher
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 (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 to-
Fossils and Strata 447
day.
MISSING LINKS—(*#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 al-
448 The Evolution Cruncher
most 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!
7 - ABRUPT APPEARANCE
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.
“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
Fseatures 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
Fossils and Strata 449
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.
8 - STASIS
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! 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 Natu-
450 The Evolution Cruncher
ral History, May 1977, p. 14.
9 - NO CHANGE FROM PAST TO PRESENT
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!
10 - NOT ENOUGH SPECIES
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
Fossils and Strata 451
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—Just now 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.
452 The Evolution Cruncher
“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, Animal and Plant 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 doublenamed
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
Fossils and Strata 453
Leidy name and the Cope and Marsh names.”—*Milner,
Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 272-273.

http://www.bible-tube.com

11 - LARGER ANCIENTLY THAN TODAY
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
454 The Evolution Cruncher
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: ( 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 woolly
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)
Fossils and Strata 455
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].
12 - REVIEWING THE BASIC FOSSIL EVIDENCE
THE MISSING TREE—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 impres-
456 The Evolution Cruncher
sive 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.
Fossils and Strata 457
“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 nonjuxtaposed
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
458 The Evolution Cruncher
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 Societ

http://www.bible-tube.com

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
Fossils and Strata 459
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:
460 The Evolution Cruncher
“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.
Fossils and Strata 461
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
462 The Evolution Cruncher
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 wellknown
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 been 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
Fossils and Strata 463
knew the truth of the situation. But the textbooks
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! 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.
464 The Evolution Cruncher
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 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.
( When they appear, vast numbers of these lifeforms
are to be found.

http://www.bible-tube.com

13 - THE FOSSILS
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-
466 The Evolution Cruncher
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 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 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
Fossils and Strata 467
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!
468 The Evolution Cruncher
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 lifeforms
were suddenly flattened out. Sharks have been
found flattened to ¼ inch [1.27 cm] 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
Fossils and Strata 469
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
[15.24-20.32 cm] 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:
470 The Evolution Cruncher
(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!
You will find further data and charts on the Brand and
Florence article referenced 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,
Fossils and Strata 471
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
472 The Evolution Cruncher
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
Fossils and Strata 473
Polystrate trees
671
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.
474 The Evolution Cruncher

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.
“These went further [than merely including fossil
bones]—with the outline of the body, even the soft
internal organs were often traceable like miniature Xray
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
Fossils and Strata

http://www.bible-tube.com

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.
“These went further [than merely including fossil
bones]—with the outline of the body, even the soft
internal organs were often traceable like miniature Xray
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
Fossils and Strata 475
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 . . . . . . . . claims, 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, “Mixedup
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!
476 The Evolution Cruncher
Here are some of the thousands of creatures alive
today that are totally identical to what they supposedly
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
Fossils and Strata 477
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.
478 The Evolution Cruncher
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
“one hundred years per inch” 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
Fossils and Strata 479
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 extinct; there are no facts related
to dinosaurs which prove evolution (species change)
480 The Evolution Cruncher
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 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 sel-
Fossils and Strata 481
dom 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
482 The Evolution Cruncher
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 life span 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
Fossils and Strata 483
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.
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.
Modern men and women are supposed to have existed
on this earth for only the past 2 million years,
whereas the great majority of the sedimentary strata
are supposed to extend from 25 million to 570 million
484 The Evolution Cruncher
years in the past. But there are evidences that people
were alive at the time when those strata were laid
down. This would either mean that people are billions
of years old or that the strata is quite young.
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 supposedly
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
Fossils and Strata 485
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 thick-
486 The Evolution Cruncher
ness, 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).
Fossils and Strata 487
(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.)
( Coal is found in layers, called cyclothem. Between
488 The Evolution Cruncher
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.
Fossils and Strata 489
15 - PROBLEMS WITH THE PHYSICAL STRATA
The sedimentary rock strata are frequently not arranged
as they ought to be—if they had been quietly laid
down over millions of years.
Five primary problems are (1) fossils in wrong
places, (2) missing strata, (3) geosynclines, (4)
megabreccias, and (5) overthrusts. We will discuss all
five in this concluding section.
ONGOING STRATA CONTROVERSIES—The strata
charts in the textbooks and popular magazines look so very
complete and organized. Yet, in truth, it is not so. The
problems are so serious that running controversies were
carried on for years between feuding strata experts.
Because the evidence was so confused, no one knew who
was right. Finally, they arbitrarily settled on patterns
which are on the strata charts as we see them today.
For example, there is the Sedgwick-Murchison-la
Beche controversy, which was fought over the Cambrian,
Silurian and Devonian strata systems:
“Sedgwick was the first to describe the fossils of the
lower Graywacke Strata, which he named the Cambrian
system, after an ancient name for Wales. Eventually their
studies led them to different levels of the Graywacke,
where the mercurial and territorial Murchison claimed much
of Sedgwick’s domain for his newly founded Silurian system.
“Inevitably, almost all of the members of the Geological
Society were drawn into the fray, and, when another
geologist of the time, Sir Henry Thomas de la
Boche, claimed part of the Graywacke for his Devonian
period, the battle lines were drawn. For nearly a decade
the Great Devonian Controversy, as it was called, raged
on in the scientific journals. The political maneuvering
behind the scenes was almost as convoluted as the
Graywacke itself.”—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution
(1990), p. 401.
490 The Evolution Cruncher
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? 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 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 up through 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
Fossils and Strata 491
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
492 The Evolution Cruncher
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 socalled
‘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
Fossils and Strata 493
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.
494 The Evolution Cruncher
“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.

http://www.bible-tube.com

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
Fossils and Strata 495
there of the fourth). Totally missing are the second,
third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth!
Listed below are the 12 major strata systems—from
top to bottom—as they are given in the schoolbook charts
of the so-called “geologic column.” Those strata which
are found in the Grand Canyon are shown in larger
type. The Devonian, which is only found in part here
and there in Grand Canyon strata, is in smaller italic:
12 — QUATERNARY
11 — TERTIARY
10 — CRETACEOUS
9 — JURASSIC
8 — TRISSSIC
7 — PERMIAN
6 — PENNSYLVANIAN
5 — MISSISSIPPIAN
4 — DEVONIAN
3 — SILURIAN
2 — ORDOVICIAN
1 — CAMBRIAN
The Grand Canyon was formed rapidly:
“The plain fact of the great number of para-conformities
found in the Canyon is strong evidence in favor of
short-term deposition. If many millions of years separated
these various strata, how do evolutionists explain
the anomaly of a river [the Colorado] taking ‘only a few
million’ years to cut through some 8,000 feet [2,438 m]
of sediments which supposedly took up to 500 million
years to be laid down, when those same strata exhibit no
sign of erosion themselves.
“The obvious and simplest explanation is that these
sediments were laid down in too brief a time span to allow
erosion, and then scoured out by a large body of moving
water much bigger than the present-day Colorado,
and not very long ago.”—A.W. Mehlert, Creation Re-
496 The Evolution Cruncher
search 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 moun-
Fossils and Strata 497
tains.
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! 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?
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.
498 The Evolution Cruncher
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 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. ( 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 moun-
Fossils and Strata 499
Matterhorn and Folded Mountains
537
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).
500 The Evolution Cruncher

tains).
In still other places it forms a gigantic “U” shape; in still
others, an upside down “U.” Geologists call the upward,
dome-like crests of the folds anticlines, and the downward
trough-like ones synclines. Rocks are at times bent into right
angles by such buckling!
“It is cause for some wonder that strong brittle rocks
can be bent into sharp folds.”—*C.R. Longwell, *A.
Kropf, and *R.F. Flint, Outlines of Physical Geology
(1950), 2nd ed., p. 246.
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 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
Fossils and Strata 501
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!”—

http://www.bible-tube.com

Now look at overthrusts!
16 - 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
502 The Evolution Cruncher
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!
Fossils and Strata 503
HEART MOUNTAIN—Here is a sketch of part of
this massive “older” 30 x 60 mile formation which,
the evolutionists explain, traveled hundreds of
miles—and climbed up on top of “younger” strata.
504 The Evolution Cruncher
HEART MOUNTAIN—Heart Mountain is a prominent mountain located in the Pacific Northwest. Yet all of
it is said to be geologically “older” than the so-called “younger” rock it rests upon! When men must
move mountains in order to salvage a theory, it is time to reexamine the theory itself.

“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.
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).
Fossils and Strata 505
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 *Ri-
506 The Evolution Cruncher
chard 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 posi-
Fossils and Strata 507
tion.”—*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 fourinch
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
508 The Evolution Cruncher
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 frag-
Fossils and Strata 509
ile 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.
Did you know that all of the Matterhorn—from bottom
to top—is a gigantic overthrust! Evolutionary geologists
tell us that the entire mountain moved there—
horizontally—from many miles away!
Enormous mountains have to be moved in order to
bolster up the flimsy theory of evolution.
The Matterhorn is supposed to have pushed its way
sideways from some 30 to 60 miles [48.2-96.6 km] away.
Traveling overland those long distances (probably stopping
once in a while to catch its breath), it successfully
arrived without leaving any evidence of the grinding crunch
it ought to have left in its wake. Yet the Matterhorn is only
one of a number of Swiss mountains that are out of the
510 The Evolution Cruncher
standard geological order. They all had to be muscled into
position from leagues away.
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 upthrust 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
Fossils and Strata 511
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!
Such abnormally high pressures would be involved,
that the process of sideways movements of these great
rock masses would be impossible. In scientific language,
here is how they described the problem:
“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
512 The Evolution Cruncher
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.
http://www.bible-tube.com

17 - CONCLUSION
WHY DO THEY DO IT?—ln view of such facts, why
are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes to defend
their beloved strata age theory?
They do it because they are desperate. The fossil-
strata age dating theory is the bedrock foundation
of evolution!
“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 *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.
Fossils and Strata 513
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
514 The Evolution Cruncher
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.
Fossils and Strata 515
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.’
516 The Evolution Cruncher
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.
Fossils and Strata 517
————————————————————
EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS
Eels from North American and European

http://www.bible-tube.com