Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 12)
Message-ID: <447@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-May-85 15:57:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: psivax.447
Posted: Mon May 13 15:57:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 20:19:42 EDT
References: <349@iham1.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Distribution: net
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 51

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    B.  ALL  ARGUMENTS  FOR  EVOLUTION  ARE  OUTDATED,  ILLOGICAL,  OR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].

	Horse*shoe* shaped?!?! This is horribly ambiguous! I would
expect actual horse prints to be horse *hoof* shaped not horse*shoe*
shaped, and there is a slight difference. Also, as has already been
pointed out, tracks are in general poor evidence without associated
skeletal remains, since prints made by differtent organisms are often
quite similar.

	Truly validated out-of-sequence fossils may indicate one of
several things. If the "error" is not too great it may only mean that
some specific evolutionary sequence was deduced incorrectly. Only if
it is a really large error is it really evidence against evolution.
There is however another danger here, with trace fossils and
fragmentary fossils it is *very* easy to become confused as to the
true nature of the fossil, especially if one has some preconcieved
notion about what to expect. This is why reports of this kind must be
closely reviewed by several workers before they can be accepted.
>
>       23.  The  vast  majority  of  the   sediments,   which   encase
>            practically all fossils, were laid down through water.

	So what! I see no significance to this statement.
>
>       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.
>
	This is totally false. The type of sedimentation seen in a
flood is well known and fully characterized by geologists. The type
of sedimentation seen in most sedimentary rocks does not even come
close to matching the flood pattern. In order for a flood to have
produced the kinds of sediments actually seen in the geological
column the laws of physics would have to have been *radically*
changed. In fact there *are* a number of recognized fossil flood
remnants which show the typical flood sedimentation pattern, but
they are *far* from being universal in extent.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen