No it didn't. Here's the closest it came:
If, as they say, the strata tell the story of countless aeons, it is strange that during those countless aeons the trilobite never produced anything but a trilobite
"If, as they say" is at best noncommittal. The author makes no affirmative suggestion (here or elsewhere) that "they" (i.e. geologists, both evolutionist and antievolutionist) say wrong.
Also consider the following passage (emphasis and bracketed comments are mine):
Genesis is admittedly not a scientific history. It is a narrative for mankind to show that this world was made by God for the habitation of man, and was gradually being fitted for God's children. So in a series of successive creative developments from the formless chaos, containing in embryonic condition all elemental constituents, chemical and mechanical, air, earth, fire, and water, the sublime process is recorded, according to the Genesis narrative in the following order:
- The creation by direct Divine act of matter in its gaseous, aqueous, terrestrial and mineral condition successively. (Gen. 1:1-10; cf. Col. 1:16; Heb. 11:3.)
- The emergence by Divine creative power of the lowest forms of sea and land life, (Gen. 1:11-13.)
- The creation by direct Divine act of larger forms of life, aquatic and terrestrial; the great sea monsters and gigantic reptiles (the sheretjim and tanninim). (Dawson, "Origin of the World," p. 213; Gen. 1:20-21.)
- The emergence by Divine creative power of land animals of higher organization, herbivore and smaller mammals and carnivore. (Gen. 1:24-25.)
- And finally the creation by direct Divine act of man. (Gen' 1:26, 27.) Not first but last. The last for which the first was made, as Browning so finely puts it. Herein is the comparability of Genesis and science, for this sublime order is just the order that some of the foremost of the nineteenth and twentieth century scientists have proclaimed. [In the contemporary context *all* of these "foremost" geologists held to the view that the earth is ancient. If you take a young earth view then there would be no point to highlighting this "comparability of Genesis and science".] It is remarkable, too, that the word for absolutely new creation is only used in connection with the introduction of life. (Gen. 1:1, 2, 27.) These three points where the idea of absolute creation is introduced are the three main points at which modern champions of evolution find it impossible to make their connection.
BTW, please do not post full articles in thread like this, unless the whole article is somehow directly relevant! But it is cool to have the link to full text of The Fundamentals online. Thanks. That's the same set I have, the red bound Baker edition.
Again, I remain pretty confident that there is not a single essay in The Fundamentals affirming the young earth position (and absolutely certain that none promote anything like "flood geology"). But feel free to try again.
Actually, no, this is the closest it came::
Three other remarkable features in the first chapters of Genesis deserve a brief reference.
The first is the assertion of the original unity of the language of the human race. (Gen. 11:1.) Max Muller, a foremost ethnologist and philologist, declares that all our languages, in spite of their diversities, must have originated in one common source. (See Saphir, "Divine Unity," p. 206; Dawson, "Origin of the World," p. 286; Guinness, "Divine Programme," p. 75.)
The second is that miracle of ethnological prophecy by Noah in Gen. 9:26, 27, in which we have foretold in v sublime epitome the three great divisions of the human race, and their ultimate historic destinies. The three great divisions, Hamitic, Shemitic, and Japhetic, are the three ethnic groups into which modern science has divided the human race. The facts of history have fulfilled what was foretold in Genesis four thousand years ago. The Hamitic nations, including the Chaldean, Babylonic, and Egyptian, have been degraded, profane, and sensual. The Shemitic have been the religious with the line of the coming Messiah. The japhetic have been the enlarging, and the dominant races, including all the great world monarchies, both of the ancient and modern times, the Grecian, Roman, Gothic, Celtic, Teutonic, British and American, and by recent investigation and discovery, the races of India, China, and Japan. Thus I-lam lost all empire centuries ago; Shem and his race acquired it ethically and spiritually through the Prophet, Priest and King, the Messiah; while Japheth, in world-embracing enlargement and imperial supremacy, has stood for industrial, commercial, and political dominion.
You need to think of that one for a while, it has to do with the origin of races so to speak, where people came from
it involves geneologies, time lines, lines of kings and kingdoms
It also has to do with the life spans of those kings
MEANING, since we can trace back lineage 4000 years to Noah, thatr means NOAH is true, that means Genesis is true, that means Creation is true.
See it yet?