Replies

I have a reference in hand.....not the actual reference I was referring to, but one that refers to the position now taken by many evolutionists. As a geologist, you'll 'get it' much more than I do.

This is from Creation: Facts of Life, by Gary Parker who says, "because of the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, many evolutionists are now calling themselves neo-catastrophists......they agree that most layers of fossil -bearing rock were produced rapidly and broadly by flooding on a catastrophic scale, what Derek Ager compared to 'short periods of terror' in the life of a soldiers.

It's these short periods of terror, it seems that caught plants and animals off guard, buried them too deeply and quickly for them to escape or be obliterated by scavengers, and turned them into fossils.....At Grand Canyon as around the world, the first and deepest layer to contain an abundance of fossil remains is called the Cambrian geologic system....."

This text goes on to say that the Cambrian level is seen at the Grand Canyon (evolution stage 1), but that the next level is Redwall, Mississipian or lower Carboniferous (are you getting all this? :o) .....or evolutionary stage 5.... Stages 2, 3 and 4 (Ordovician, Silurian and Devonian) are missing.

Evolutionists call these 'paraconformities'......meaning, as I understand it, that the other evidence in their view for evolution is so strong that these 'glitches' are nothing more than that......minor irregularities in their theory.

The author's point is that, while there is nothing wrong with drawing that conclusion, it is an act of faith to believe that millions of years of evolution can be seen in the Grand Canyon, because at least 1.5 million years are missing.

There's lots more.....but does that help? I can look for more references because I've heard it from several different scholarly sources (we have a number of books on the subject). These scientists all purport that a catastrophic, universal flood as described in Scripture was powerful enough to have caused the Grand Canyon, the Rocky Mountains, and the separation of continents. It's a theory, of course, but, in my view it jives more consistently with the Bible than evolution in any form.

Let me know if I should keep looking......

Newsmax.com, ^

Posted on 10/17/2002 11:08 AM Central by Retired Chemist

Another – unnamed – federal law enforcement officer tells me the inside scuttlebutt in the FBI and other police agencies is that comments made by Ari Fleischer may have sparked a terrorist wave.

On Oct. 1, Fleischer told the White House press corps that "one bullet" into Saddam's head – "if Iraqi people take it on themselves" – would be an easy way to avoid a war with the U.S.

On Oct. 2, the day after Fleischer made this sensational comment advocating Saddam's assassination, the sniper first struck, killing James D. Martin as he crossed a supermarket parking lot in Wheaton, Md.

Since then, the shootings around Washington have had a terrorizing effect, paralyzing economic and social life around the Beltway.

Still, the police and government officials have been loath to mention the "T" word.

Here is a cross section of an unconformity:

In geology, one operates from the premise that in almost all cases, the bottom layer of rock was deposited first (in much the same way you make lasagna). In these two diagrams, the geologic history would have been that the lower folded or tilted layers were deposited first as sedimentary beds, then the layers were uplifted and folded, then a period of erosion rather than deposition occured (creating the broken line which cuts through the folded layers, then the area subsided and deposition began again, creating the horizontal layers on top. Unconformities represent a period of erosion.

In Central Indiana and Ohio, because the glaciers came through here, the earlier deposited layers of Pennsylvanian, Missippian, and Ordovician rock are not present, although they are in the hilly southern parts of our states where the glaciers did not reach.

The presence of an unconformity in the Grand Canyon is actually a rather common geologic occurence, since it is very unusual to find a place with an unbroken history of deposition with no erosion. The writer cites the lack of deposition for a geologic time period as proof that evolution didn't happen, if I am reading this correctly. That is not true. It doeosn't prove that evolution DID happen either. It simply is a place with some missing rock record.

Prior to the Ice Age, the rocks in Indiana indicated that at one time Indianapolis sat under an inland sea. Those rocks were carried to the south by the glaciers, and deposited in moraines south of my house. The rock record in southern Indiana still shows the evidence. Just because the evidence has been removed from where I sit typing this does not mean that for 2 billion years Indiana was a fertile glacial plain.

I hope I am explaining this correctly.

More on neo-catastrophists later...the author is misinterpreting their position.