Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 12)
Message-ID: <520@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-May-85 12:20:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.520
Posted: Tue May  7 12:20:53 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 10-May-85 20:39:36 EDT
References: <349@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Distribution: net
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 69

In article <349@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes:
> 
>B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR
>    WISHFUL THINKING.
>
>   22.  The vertical sequencing of fossils is  frequently  not  in
>        the  assumed  evolutionary order [a-d]. For example in the
>        Soviet Union, 86 horse-shoe shaped tracks  were  found  in
>        rocks dating back to the dinosaurs [e].
>        a)  Walter  E.  Lammerts   has   published   three   lists
>            documenting  69  wrong-order  formations,  just in the
>            United States:  ''Recorded  Instances  of  Wrong-Order
>            Formations  or  Presumed  Overthrusts  in  the  United
>            States:  Parts  I-III,''  CREATION  RESEARCH   SOCIETY
>            QUARTERLY, Volume 21; September 1984, p.  88, December
>            1984, p. 150, and March 1985, p. 200.

Here we have some fascinating creationist thinking.  

Overthrusts satisfactorily explain wrong-order formations.  There are
numerous examples in the literature where overthrusts are supported by
slippage planes of damaged rock, and have clearly delineated beginnings
and ends.  If creationists can present evidence that a wrong-order
formation is not an overthrust, where is it?

How do creationists explain wrong-order formations in terms of hydraulic
sorting and their other proposed mechanisms?

>        b)  A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, ''Occurrence of Microflora in
>            the  Salt  Pseudomorph  Beds,  Salt  Range,  Punjab,''
>            NATURE, Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796-797.
>        c)  A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, ''Spores and  Tracheids  from
>            the  Cambrian  of Kashmir,'' NATURE, Vol. 169, 21 June
>            1952, pp. 1056-1057.
>        d)  J. Coates ET. AL., ''Age of the Saline Series  in  the
>            Punjab  Salt  Range,''  NATURE, Vol.155, 3 March 1945,
>            pp. 266-267.

And what do these say?

>        e)  Yu. Kruzhilin and V.  Ovcharov,  ''A  Horse  from  the
>            Dinosaur  Epoch?'', MOSKOVSKAYA PRAVDA (Moscow Truth),
>            5 February 1984.

No, no, the National Enquirer's space aliens made the footprints!

Seriously, newspaper's are not reliable sources for scientific information.
It is also quite possible that there was a dinosaur that left hoof-like
footprints.  Let's see some followup on this in scientific journals before
taking it too seriously.

>   23.  The  vast  majority  of  the   sediments,   which   encase
>        practically all fossils, were laid down through water.

As is the case today.  So?

>   24.  The worldwide fossil record is evidence of the rapid death
>        and  burial  of  animal  and  plant life by a catastrophic
>        flood; it is not evidence of slow change.

If this was true, the ark wouldn't have needed a flood to float: it could
have floated on the layer of animals, plants, etc. that would have to have
covered the earth to explain the numbers of fossils.  Not to mention that
the earth must have had soil thousands of feet thick, and the flood waters
must have had the consistency of mud to generate all the fossil bearing
sedimentary rock in the world today.
-- 

Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh