GEOLOGICAL FALLACIES

adapted from articles by

Geoff Chapman

Used with the kind permission of the Creation Science Movement, 50 Brecon Avenue, Cosham, Portsmouth, England, P06 2AW.

The Uniformitarian Presumption

Contemporary geology and evolution theory are closely intertwined. With its long “ages,” geology provides the time that evolution needs to unfold. But such has not always been the case. Most geologists used to believe that the earth's surface features had been shaped by catastrophic means - and most believed the Biblical flood was the main agent of that change. Then, some 150 years ago, geology underwent a revolution. Within a few short years, the doctrine of uniformitarianism replaced catastrophe theory as a framework for understanding the geological past. Late in the eighteenth century, James Hutton first articulated the idea that “the present is the key to the past,” a view popularized by Sir Charles Lyell in the early 1800s. He wrote: “All theories are rejected which involve the assumption of sudden and violent catastrophes.”¹ Uniformitarianism assumes that all sedimentary rock deposits were laid down at a very slow rate - about one foot every 1,000 years. Modern-day geologist Arthur Holmes, among others, claims it is “a matter of ordinary commonsense to apply this principle.”² Is he right? Which provides better explanation for what we see in the rocks: uniformitarianism or catastrophism?

Consider the fossils geologists use to date rocks. Few, if any, fossils are being formed today because animals and plants are only fossilized under very special circumstances.³ One essential criterion is rapid burial, something which is impossible when sediments accumulate gradually. Fossils found projecting through many feet of strata confute the uniformitarian view of sedimentation: polystratic fossils point to a rapid build-up of sediments. In New York State, fossil tree trunks up to fifty feet long are found standing upright, surrounded by sedimentary rock - a whole forest was entombed in situ. A fossil ammonite was found sticking up through rock said to have accumulated over twenty million years!⁴ Rapid burial was necessary to preserve both the ancient trees and the ammonite; otherwise, they would have been destroyed by decomposition or, in the case of the ammonite, perhaps eaten by scavengers.

Fossil graveyards do not conform to uniformitarian ideas either. In the Karroo formation of Africa, there are estimated to be 800 billion skeletons of vertebrate animals! In the Miocene shales of California, more than a billion fossilized fish lie across four square miles of bay bottom. In the Old Red Sandstone of Scotland, geologist Hugh Miller found a “platform of death,” where millions of fish had perished in attitudes of agony and alarm. The jumbled bones of thousands of animals, including rhinoceroses, camels, giant boars, and numerous other exotic animals, lie buried together in Agate Springs, Nebraska. There are dinosaur graveyards as well, such as those in Colorado and Utah, containing the fossilized remains of hundreds of giant reptiles. Is it “a matter of ordinary commonsense” to apply the principle of uniformitarianism to sites that clearly show the catastrophic burial of millions of creatures under massive amounts of sediment?

There is so much geological evidence of past catastrophic events some geologists are beginning to see that uniformitarianism is an inadequate framework for explaining the surface features of earth. One of them, Derek V. Ager, draws attention to rounded boulders up to seventy feet high lying in beds of clay. He opines: “The hurricane, the flood, or the tsunami (tidal wave) may do more in an hour or a day than the ordinary processes of nature have achieved in a thousand years.”⁵ The Bible records the greatest catastrophe of all time, the Genesis flood: “the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water” (2 Peter 3:6, NKJV). Divine judgment left an indelible imprint on the earth. Catastrophism, not uniformitarianism, would seem to be the correct framework to use for interpreting the geological record.

Fossil Dating Folly

It is often claimed that evolution is proved by geological findings. After all, are not the simple life forms found fossilized in the lower rocks, with progressively complex forms of life appearing as one ascends to the modern life forms in the highest rocks? Well, no. The geological column (see front panel) only exists in textbooks: nowhere on earth are the fossils and rocks found in this complete series.

In fact, the geological column is constructed on the assumption that evolution happened: then it is used to “prove” evolution. The rocks are dated by the rocks in which they are found. So-called index fossils are used to correlate sedimentary rock systems worldwide. Rocks on the opposite sides of the earth containing the same index fossils are automatically assigned the same age, irrespective of other considerations (e.g., their mineral content). For instance, rocks are classified as Jurassic (named after the Jura Mountains of Europe) if they contain certain kinds of ammonites. Yet, the ammonites are given a date of about 190 million years because they were found in Jurassic rocks! “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.”⁶

The dating of rocks by the fossils they contain leads to awkward conclusions. Rocks bearing the fossils of trilobites, small sea creatures, are found in Cambrian rocks (named after the Cambrian Mountains in Wales), said to be the “lowest” and therefore the oldest of rock formations - apart from Precambrian “basement” rock. But, at Field in British Columbia, and enormous beds of fossil trilobites and other “primitive” fossils are found at the very highest elevations of the Rocky Mountains! Because of these fossils, the rocks are labelled Cambrian, even though they are situated far above the timber line and are clearly not the lowest rocks of the formation.

In the Baltic region, Pleistocene clays rest directly upon Cambrian clays containing trilobites. Here we have the second “highest” rock system in the geological column resting on the “lowest,” with no trace of intermediate layers having been eroded. Between the two, no less than thirteen geological systems - representing almost 500 million years are missing! Surely those “missing” 500 million years never existed. “How many geologists have pondered the fact that lying on the crystalline basement are found, from place to place, not merely Cambrian, but rocks of all ages?”⁷

Another instance involves palm tree fossils found in Carboniferous coal beds. Evolution theory says that palm trees did not evolve until the Tertiary period, some 200 million years later. Geologists got around the difficulty by arbitrarily reassigning the rocks with the palm tree fossils to the early Tertiary.⁸

But, you may ask, has not radiometric dating confirmed the geological time scale? Not at all. The time scale was decided long before modern dating methods were invented, and radiometric dates that do not “fit” are either discarded or “corrected.” Furthermore, radiometric dating cannot be used directly on sedimentary rocks; it can only be used to date the fossils they contain or rocks of volcanic origin, which are generally nonfossiliferous.

The truth is that rocks of any one geological age may be found resting upon those of any other geological age. The problems and nonsensical results encountered in fossil dating show that the vast time scale of the geological column is highly dubious. By using truly scientific methods of analysis, the millions of years normally associated with the formation of sedimentary rocks making up the geological column could be collapsed into a few millennia.

“Wrong-Order Strata”

One of the basic principles of uniformitarian geology is the law of superposition. It says that the upper sedimentary rocks were laid down more recently than those lower down, unless there has been some rock movement. On the surface this seems to be a reasonable assumption, although recent research indicates this is not the only possible model of sedimentary layering, and may well not be the best one.⁹ In any case, this law has created some serious difficulties for evolutionary geologists. The problem is that there are numerous locations around the globe where, according to fossil dating, “older” rocks are resting on top of “younger” ones, without the slightest sign of the layers of rock having moved relative to each other!

Rock movements known as overthrusts have indeed contributed to shaping some of the geological features of the earth. But where they have occurred there is unmistakable evidence of movement. In fact, there are three tell-tale signs that show that one sheet of rock has moved over another: First, there are fractured rock fragments, known as breccia, often re-cemented together. Second, there alickenside - grooves and scratches caused by the movement of one solid sheet of rock over another. And third, there is gouge - portions of rock that have been ground up between moving sheets of rock, like corn between a pair of millstones. In other words, rock overthrusts produce rubble and scars.

The problem for evolutionary geologists is that most of the earth's alleged overthrusts to not show any evidence of movement; rather, they look as though they were naturally deposited together. For those wedded to the evolutionary tenet that life evolved from the simple to the complex, the fossils are in the “wrong” order! There is, however, no problem for Flood geologists.

Let us look at some examples of problems strata sequences beginning with Glarus in the Alps, where the rock sequence is as illustrated in Figure 1.

According to fossil dating, the Permian rocks at the top are 280 million years old, the Jurassic rocks in the centre are 195 million years old, and the Eocene rocks at the bottom are 55 million years old - the reverse of what evolution would predict! Geologists claim that 21 miles of rock movement occurred to create this situation, yet there is no evidence whatsoever of overthrusting. At least one evolution geologist has admitted that most of the “thrusts” in the Alps lack evidence of movement, being identified as thrusts only by the distribution of fossils.¹⁰

In the Empire Mountains of Arizona, we find “280-million-year-old” Permian rock lying on top of “141-million-year-old” Cretaceous rock (see Figure 2).

Not only is there no evidence of rock movement, but the contact plane between the two layers is undulating, like a sheet of corrugated iron. If the higher rocks had slid over the lower ones, the contact surfaces should have been ground smooth.

Lastly, we will consider one of the most famous “overthrusts” of all: the Lewis Overthrust in the Rocky Mountains (see Figure 3).

Precambrian rock, commonly said to be 1,000 million years old, is resting upon a “141-million-year-old” Cretaceous layer. The allegedly displaced rock is more than 300 miles long, over thirty-five miles wide, and at least three miles deep. To explain the Lewis Overthrust, evolutionary geologists must believe that roughly 12,000 square miles of solid rock slid over another rock layer for forty or fifty miles, without leaving a shred of physical evidence of having done so. This is untenable. There is not even a known mechanism for such massive rock movement.

Surely these sites, and many others like them, do not exhibit overthrusting at all, but instead show the results of sedimentation during the Genesis flood.¹¹ The overthrust interpretations are the fabrications of geologists trying to preserve the theory of evolution.

The Progression of Life

Although it is widely believed that the geological record supports the evolutionary view of the origin of life, this is manifestly untrue. Charles Darwin himself recognized potential problems from the lack of supportive evidence, asking rhetorically, “[W]hy do we not find them [innumerable transitional forms] embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?”¹² He also observed, “Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”¹³ After 130 years of searching, and the discovery of millions of fossils, the links are still missing! Some evolutionists reluctantly acknowledge this fact. When the late Luther Sunderland interviewed five experts from the world's leading fossil museums, not one of them could offer a single, unambiguous example of a transitional fossil.¹⁴

It is generally believed that the organisms fossilized in “ancient” rocks have been superseded in evolution's great “experiment.” Darwin wrote, “we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity.”¹⁵ But there are many examples of living organisms that have not changed at all from the time when some of their ancestors were fossilized. These are the “living fossils.” Consider the following examples:

Blue-green Algae: Fossil stromatolite, built up by mats of blue-green algae, are reckoned to be 2,000 million years old. Yet in Shark Bay, Australia, there are living stromatolites. Has evolution passed them by for 2x10⁹ years? Or is that unimaginable period of time just a figment of the evolutionist's trained imagination! Sea Pens: David Attenborough describes fossils sea pens - a type of jelly-fish - in Australian rocks he claims are 650 million years old, and goes on to say that sea pens are living in the sea less than 100 miles away!¹⁶ Horseshoe Crabs: Horseshoe crabs continue to thrive and look exactly the same as “500-million-year-old” fossils. Insects: Insects are often found preserved in amber (hardened tree resin), and they show no sign of evolutionary change when compared with present-day varieties. Ants that were supposed to have lived 100 million years ago are identical to modern-day ants. And dragonflies, with their wing markings still visible, are found preserved in “300-million-year-old” rocks. They were the same as dragonflies today, except the fossilized ones were larger. Trees: The Cycad tree remains unchanged after the passage of an alleged 350 million years; and the Gingko tree, still thriving, is identical to fossilized Gingkos said to have lived 200 million years ago.

Even more of a problem for evolutionists are those cases where the fossils of an organism are completely missing from the rocks of the intervening geological time. In the plant world, the Metasequoia (a redwood tree) was known only from fossils in rocks supposedly 20 million years old, until some 100-foot tall specimens were discovered living in a remote region of China. The tustara, a strange reptile currently living in New Zealand, was believed to have been extinct for 135 million years, since fossils of it had not been found in any “younger” rocks. The coelacanth is a “bony” fish that was known only from fossils dating back 70 million years or more, until a live specimen was caught in the Indian Ocean in 1938 - and more have been discovered since. One wonders why there no fossilization of Metasequoias, tuataras, coalacanths, or other so-called living fossils for tens of millions of years? We might ask: Did those millions of years really exist?

Evolutionists think it remarkable that such organisms could survive for millions upon millions of years without leaving any trace in the fossil record. Creationists think it remarkable that anyone believes millions of years have passed since the fossilized ancestors of these organisms were alive.

Conclusion

The evidence of the rocks seems clear. The total lack of intermediate species in the fossil record suggests that the intermediates never existed. Some species have remained unchanged since they were created, likely a few thousand years ago; and others have become extinct, probably many of them at the time of the Flood. Both the facts and sound reasoning support the Creation model of origins and the Flood model of mass extinction.

References

1. Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology.
2. Arthur Holmes, Principle of Physical Geology, p. 142.
3. Mark Lambert, Fossils: Kingfisher Guide, p. 10.
4. Gary Parker, Creation: The Facts of Life, p. 124.
5. Derek V. Ager, The Nature of Stratigraphical Record, p.49.
6. J.E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, January, 1976, p. 48.
7. E.M. Spieker, Bulletin, American Association of Petroleum Geologists, August 1956, p. 1805.
8. R. Daly, Earth's Most Challenging Mysteries (Craig Press), p. 189.
9. Guy Berthault, Compte-Rendus Academie Scientific Paris, t303, Serie II, No. 17, 1986, pp. 1569-74, Idem, t306, and Serie II, No. 11, 1988, pp. 717-24.
10. M.P. Billings, Structural Geology, p. 157.
11. For examination of overthrusts, see Creation Resources Trust Filmstrip #2: Fossils, Strata, and Evolution.
12. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Ed. J.W. Burrow (1859; reprint, London: Penguin Classics, 1985), p. 206.
13. Darwin, p. 292.
14. Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, (El Cajon: Master Books, 1984).
15. Darwin, p. 459
16. David Attenborough, Life on Earth (Fontana, 1979), p. 32.