Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2 


ONGOING STRATA CONTROVERSIES The strata charts in the textbooks and popular magazines look so very complete and organized. Yet, in truth, it is not so. The problems are so serious that running controversies were carried on for years between feuding strata experts. Because the evidence was so confused, no one knew who was right. Finally, they arbitrarily settled on patterns which are on the charts as we see them today.

For example, here is the Sedgwick-Murchison-la Beche controversy, fought over the Cambrian, Silurian and Devonian strata systems:

"Sedgwick was the first to describe the fossils of the lower Graywacke Strata, which he named the Cambrian system, after an ancient name for Wales. Eventually their studies led them to different levels of the Graywacke, where the mercurial and territorial Murchison claimed much of Sedgwick's domain for his newly founded Silurian system.

"Inevitably, almost all of the members of the Geological Society were drawn into the fray, and, when another geologist of the time, Sir Henry Thomas de la Beche, claimed part of the Graywacke for his Devonian period, the battle lines were drawn. For nearly a decade the Great Devonian Controversy, as it was called, raged on in the scientific journals. The political maneuvering behind the scenes was almost as convoluted as the Graywacke itself." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 401.

Elsewhere, *Milner explains how *Murchison solved the controversy.

"The men were completely unable to agree on where the natural boundaries occurred. Murchison, however, found a way to resolve the dispute. He got himself appointed director of the National Geological Survey and simply ordered that the name "Cambrian" be deleted from all government books and geological maps." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 89.

Later, after both men were dead, part of Murchison's Silurian was renamed "Cambrian."

MIXED-UP FOSSILS Have you ever noticed that, on the standard strata time charts, certain fossils will always be in certain strata? That is another generalization in the evolutionary theory that does not prove to be correct. Fossils are frequently found in the wrong places, especially far below the strata where they are first supposed to have "evolved" into existence.

There are three ways that the experts deal with to this problem: (1) Ignore the evidence. (2) When small numbers of fossils are found in solid rock below their proper strata, they are said to have been "downwashed" through the solid rock into lower strata. That is, they slipped, slid, or fell through solid rock into lower levels. (3) When only a few are located below their theoretical strata, they are said to have "reworked" themselves into the higher strata. More detail on this will be found near the end of this chapter (appendix 14). 

"Fossils frequently occur where they are not 'supposed' to. It is then claimed that either the fauna [animals] or flora [plants] have lived longer than previously known (simple extension of stratigraphic range) or that the fossil has been reworked. In 'reworking,' it is claimed that the fossil has been eroded away from a much older host rock and has thus been incorporated into a rock of more recent age. The reciprocal situation is `downwash,' where it is claimed that an organism has been washed down into rock much older than the time it lived and has become fossilized." John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 209.

 "Reworking" and "downwash" are used to explain a few fossils not in agreement with the theory; "overthrusts," to be discussed shortly, are used to explain much larger numbers of such fossils.

 A related problem concerns the fact that pollen from flowering plants has been found in Cambrian and even Precambrian strata! This, of course, is in total disagreement with evolutionary theory, which maintains that flowering plants did not exist until many millions of years later. This would mean that the "Cambrian explosion" included flowering plants!

Additional quotations dealing with this problem will be found in the chapter appendix referred to below, or the "Cambrian and Precambrian" chapter appendix. For a listing of over 200 out-of-place fossils, see John Woodmorappe, "An Anthology of Matters Significant to Creationism and Diluviology: Report 2," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, pp. 210-214.

 For additional information see the appendix topic, "14 - Problems with Fossils" and "15 - Problems with Pollen and Spores."

Still another problem is skipping in the fossil record. A species will be in a strata, and totally disappear from the next strata or two above that, and then reappear. In some cases a species disappears, never again to be seen until our own time when--there it is--alive and well on planet earth!

 For additional information see the appendix topic, "16 - The Problem of Skipping."

 MIXED-UP STRATA The problems with the "geologic column" of strata and fossils keep getting worse! We have been discussing problems with the fossils, but now we will turn our attention to the strata itself, and we will learn that the situation becomes unmanageable! Evolutionary theory falls helpless in the process of trying to reconcile these insoluble hurdles to its success.

For additional information see quotation supplements, "18 -Rocks Not Now Being Made," and "19 - Mixed Up Strata and Overthrusts. "

 MISSING STRATA Surprising as it may seem, the only evidence for the geologic succession of life is found in the strata charts of the geologists and in their imagination. Nowhere in geological formations can we find (1) all the strata in order, (2) all the strata--even out of order, (3) most of the strata, in order or out of it. Instead we only find little bits here and there, and frequently they are mixed up (out of their theoretical sequence).

Never--anywhere in the world--are all the strata in the theoretical "geologic column" to be found in one complete sandwich. Most of the time only two to eight of the 21 theoretical strata can be found. Even that classic example of rock strata, Grand Canyon, only has about half of them. But the missing strata should be there! How can strata be missing? Yet this is the way it is everywhere on earth. In the Southwest United States, in order to find Precambrian or Paleozoic strata, we would need to go to the Grand Canyon. To find Mesozoic requires a trip to eastern Arizona. To find Tertiary, off we would have to go to New Mexico. Nowhere--anywhere--is the entire geologic column of the evolutionists to be found, for it is an imaginary column. 

"Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called 'geologic column.' In fact, at most places on the continents, over half the 'geologic periods' are missing! Only 15-20 percent of the earth's land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even within the Grand Canyon, over 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious." *Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 15.

The next few quotations contain startling admissions. We do well to carefully consider what they say: 

"If a pile were to be made by using the greatest thickness of sedimentary beds of each geological age, it would be at least 100 miles [161 km] high . . It is of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of this at any one place." *O. Von Engein and *IG Caster, Geology (1952), pp. 417-418.

"Whatever his method of approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts . . There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present . . to reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record. If the complete story of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of thirty volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattered bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words or letters." *H. Brown, *V. Monnett, and *J. Stovall, Introduction to Geology (1958), p. 11.

"We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place." *Derek V. Alter, Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1981), p. 32.

 The proper word for them are "unconformities;" it would not do for scientists to use the phrase "missing strata, "for if they are missing, then where did they go? Did billions of years of life on earth suddenly vanish? 

"Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on." *William R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (1980), p. 219.

How can it be that the geologic column is so incomplete, when evolutionary theory teaches that it was quietly, slowly laid down uniformly over millions of years? The truth is that the rock strata point us back to a terrible worldwide catastrophe--a Flood,--not to millions of years of gradual soil deposits from dead plants and windblown soil.

 THE GRAND CANYON A visitor to the Grand Canyon gazes down upon a major fissure in the earth's surface that is a mile deep. The Colorado River winds its way for 200 miles [322 kg] at the bottom of this canyon. By the time the visitor departs, his head spins with U.S. Park Service lectures, diagrams, and films about names such as Kalbab, Toroweap, Devonian, Permian, and Cambrian, and numbers ranging through millions of years.

 But what the tourists are not told is that the Grand Canyon--which has more strata than most areas--only has FIVE of the TWELVE major strata systems (the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh, with small portions here and there of the fourth; the second, third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth are totally missing!).

We will list below the 12 major strata systems--from top to bottom--as they are given in the school book charts of the so-called "geologic column." Those which are found in the Grand Canyon will be shown in larger italic. The Devonian, which is only found in part here and there in Grand Canyon strata, will be placed in smaller italic: 













 The above, plus other geologic data, makes it clear that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly: 

"The plain fact of the great number of para-conformities found in the Canyon is strong evidence in favor of short-term deposition. If many millions of years separated these various strata, how do evolutionists explain the anomaly of a river (the Colorado) taking 'only a few million' years to cut through some 8,000 feet [2,438 m] of sediments which supposedly took up to 500 million years to be laid down, when those same strata exhibit no sign of erosion themselves.

"The obvious and simplest explanation is that these sediments were laid down in too brief a time span to allow erosion scoured out by a large body of moving water much bigger than the present-day Colorado, and not very long ago." A. W. Mehlert, Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1987, p. 28.

 All in all, the Grand Canyon is an outstanding evidence of the Genesis Flood. 

"One of the most spectacular evidences of what a year-long, worldwide Flood would accomplish may be seen in Grand Canyon of Arizona. This gigantic formation is in some places more than 5,000 feet [1,524 m] deep, 25,000 feet [7,620 m] across, and extends for more than 100 miles [160.9 km] to the east and west." John C. Whitcomb, World that Perished (1988), pp. 74-75.

 The Colorado River lies at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, yet it is a typical winding river--the type found in fairly flat terrain. Winding rivers do not cut deeply! It is the straighter, steeper rivers with swiftly-rushing water, which deeply erode soil and hurl loose rocks along its side downstream. In contrast, the Colorado is a serpentine river in flatter country. It could not possibly have carved out the Grand Canyon, unless: (1) A colossal amount of water was flowing, (2) the sediments comprising the canyon walls through which it was cutting were soft, that is, they had only recently been laid down by flood waters and had not yet solidified into solid rock, and (3) a rather sudden event caused that flowage of water!

These are exactly the conditions which the Flood would have provided. The Colorado River drained an immense area in Utah and eastern Nevada. A lake covered that entire area, and an uplift caused the water to rather suddenly drain out. See chapter 19, Effects of the Flood, for more on events during and just after the Flood.

Notice that the Colorado did little in the way of hurling rocks downstream. This is because the Grand Canyon had not yet hardened into rock when it was cut through. If the Colorado had carved the Grand Canyon out of solid rock, we would find huge tumbled boulders in and alongside of the stream bed. But such is not seen. In contrast, later glacial action, after the rocks had hardened, did move large boulders in other areas; for example, they are to be seen in the Merced River below Yosemite.

 STRATA GAPS We are learning that there are not only fossil gaps, there are strata gaps as well Together, they spell the doom of the evolutionary theory, as it is applied to sedimentary strata and the fossil evidence.

The earth is supposed to have gradually been covered by one after another of the 12 major strata systems, listed above, over a period of millions of years. If that is true, why then are a majority of those systems missing from any given locality in the world? Why then are less than half present in that great classic of them all: the Grand Canyon?

On one hand, if the sedimentary rock strata was slowly formed over millions of years in a uniformitarian manner, then all the strata should be found throughout the world. Keep in mind that evolution teaches that "each strata represents the accumulated sediment from a span of millions of years at a certain earlier epoch in earth's history." If this theory be true, then ALL the strata would have to be found evenly, everywhere on the globe.

The quotation in the next paragraph says, in scientific jargon, what the following sentence says in everyday English: Many of the rifted, folded, and mixed-up fossil strata are theoretically supposed to measure long ages of time, but in reality there is such confusion that it is impossible for such strata to measure anything! 

"Many unconformity bounded units are considered to be chronostratigraphic units in spite of the fact that unconformity surfaces inevitably cut across isochronous horizons and hence cannot be true chronostratigraphic boundaries." -*K. Hong Chang, "Unconformity--Bounded Stiatigraphic Units, " in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, November 1975, p. 1544.

THE EVIDENCE IN THE ROCKS If the Genesis Flood suddenly formed the rock strata, then we would expect to find the strata just as it now is--which is this:

(1) Pockets of certain innundated, covered animals here and others there. (2) Mixed-up and missing strata everywhere we look. (3) Geosynclines (twisted and folded strata) frequently found. (4) Megabreccias (giant boulders) as a regular occurrence in the strata. (5) Upside-down strata. (6) Overthrusts, in which "more recent" strata lie buried deep beneath "older" strata. (7) Vertical tree trunks (polystrate trees) in place, from bottom to top spanning through various "ages" of strata. (8) The slowest marine creatures in the lowest strata, slowest land animals higher up. (9) Birds less frequently found since they could fly to the higher points. (10) Apes very difficult to find, and man almost impossible to find--since both would know how to reach the highest points and cling there. Their bodies would then float and decay without being covered by sediment. (11) Complex life forms would suddenly be found in rich profusion at the very bottom of the fossil-bearing rock strata (the Cambrian "explosion"), with next to nothing beneath it. (12) And, amid all the fossil strata, only the same separate, distinct species we now see on earth and in sea, plus some which have become extinct--with no transitional forms to be found anywhere in the rock strata.

GEOSYNCLINES When, early in the nineteenth century, *Charles Lyell postulated that the sedimentary strata were laid down in peace and quiet over millions of years in the past, he had to imaginatively try to explain away the obvious evidences of massive catastrophe in the strata. (See chapter 29, History of Evolutionary Theory, for more on the part Lyle played in originating and promoting evolutionary theory.) 

In many places, layers of sedimentary rocks have been buckled into folds. Some of these folded rock strata are small, others are massive and cover miles in area (folded mountains). In some places the strata angles itself downward into the earth, or upward, breaking off as the sharp edge of high mountains (fault block mountains).

In still other places it forms a gigantic "U" shape; in still others, an upside down "U." Geologists call the upward, domelike crests of the folds anticlines, and the downward trough-like ones synclines. Rocks are at times bent into right angles by such buckling! 

"It is cause for some wonder that strong brittle rocks be bent into sharp folds." *C.R. Longwell, *A. Knopf, and *R .f: Flint, Outlines of Physical Geology (1950), 2nd ed., p. 246.

In an anticline, the bent, outside layers of rock are in tension but are generally unfractured and in many places not even cracked. It is obvious that immense forces caused this buckling!

(What actually happened was that mud layers, laid down by the Flood, were then bent by convulsive movements of the earth. Then, in their twisted shape, they dried into hard rock.)

Taylor carefully explains what is involved here:

"Lyell and modern geology acknowledge that the rock layers were first formed as flat sediments, which were soft and plastic in their early stages. With time and, it is said, pressure, these sediments crystallize (metamorphose) and become hard, solid rock.

"Lyell required long times, but it is just those long times that worked against his theory by causing the sediment to harden before, or certainly during, bending. He made the a priori [previous to investigation] assumption that the natural laws operating today have not changed, but then because of the obvious problem of bending solid rock, he had to make an appeal to time as a factor that somehow changes the laws by which rocks crack when their tensile strength is exceeded; this is a contradiction of his own principle of uniformitarianism.

"All this difficulty would have been avoided if Lyell's mind-set could have accepted the most obvious explanation: that the rocks were bent in the early stages when the sediments were pliable and before metamorphosis took place. This would easily satisfy all the facts, but would require the pros to have taken place over a short period of time, say a few months; but, of course, it would be difficult to escape the conclusion that a major catastrophe was involved." Ian Taylor, In the Minds of Men (1967), p. 105.

 MEGABRECCIAS These are gigantic-boulders which were moved into place by the waters of an immense flood. On all sides will be found rock strata, with one of these boulders impacted into its midst.

A rock equivalent to one cubic meter may weigh three metric tons, and most megabreccia clasts are larger than this. Yet such gigantic boulders were obviously transported to their present site in the rock strata.

In Peru, blocks weighing up to 5,000 metric tons [11 million lb] occur in Eocene strata far from the place where they originated. Each boulder is 1015 meters [10.9-16.4 m] across. In Texas, rock slabs 30 meters [32.8 m] in diameter are found in Paleozoic mudstones. No rocks of similar composition are to be found nearby. Other examples could be given.

 The strata is caving in on evolutionary theory. But, as they say in the vernacular. "You haven't seen anything yet!" Now look at overthrusts!


 Overthrusts constitute part of the problem of physical strata, yet it is such a major issue that it deserves a section all to itself. When we consider the implications of this astonishing obstacle to evolutionary theory, we wonder why anyone can claim that the rock strata are dating tools, and that each stratum is millions of years "younger" or "older" than another one.

 OVERTHRUSTS This is the most shocking of the evidences disproving one of the most basic of evolutionary theories.

William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839), of England, was one of the very first people in the world to begin analyzing sedimentary rock strata. He was also one of the first to assume that most basic of evolutionary strata theories: "the older strata must be under the younger strata." He called that theory the "doctrine of superposition."

Evolution teaches that some plants and animals are long ages "older" than others and were here on earth millions of years before the "younger" ones evolved into existence. Applying this theory to the rock strata is the means of dating the strata, but it requires that each stratum have an age that is millions of years older than the next stratum above it. 

"The basic chronology of Firth history was established by identifying different strata or layers in geologic formations and relating them to other layers. It is based on the assumption that lower beds were laid down first and are therefore older, while higher (later) beds are younger." *R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 421.

 If the theory is correct, then the OLDER strata should always be BELOW the MORE RECENT strata. If the theory is incorrect, then the two will often be confused--and that is the way it is out in the field.

We go to the mountains to study the strata, for there we find them most clearly exposed. Yet in every mountainous region on every continent on the globe, there are numerous examples of supposedly "old" strata superimposed ON TOP OF "younger" strata! (An extensive listing of such areas is to be found in *Bulletin of Geological Society of America, February 1959, pp. 115-116.)

This contradiction to the evolutionary theory of rock strata and fossils is so common that it has been given a variety of names: overthrust, thrustfault, low-angle fault, nappe, detachment thrust, etc. We will here refer to them by their most common name, overthrusts.

 Rather than admit the truth, evolutionists have worked out a fantastic explanation for overthrusts. At some time in past ages--the lower strata (which are supposedly "older") are supposed to have slid sideways for many miles--and then journeyed up and over (were thrust over) the "younger" strata!



"The only explanation for the [younger] buried strata is that the [older] overlying crystalline rocks were emplaced along a major subhorizontal thrust fault." *F.A. Cook, *L.D. Brown, and *J.E. Oliver, "The Southern Appalachians and the Growth of the Continent," in Scientific American, October 1980, p. 161.

Such an explanation is incredible!

 Many of the great overthrust areas occupy hundreds and even thousands of square miles! In desperation at the problems, men are trying to move mountains in order to support a crumbling theory! 

"We may even demonstrate that strata have turned completely upside down if we can show that fossils in what are the uppermost layers ought properly to lie underneath those in the beds below them." *A. Geikie, Textbook of Geology (1963), p. 387.

"Since their earliest recognition, the existence of large overthrusts has presented a mechanical paradox that has never been satisfactorily resolved." *M.IC Hubbert and *WW. Riley, "Role of Fluid Pressure in Mechanics of Overthrusting Faulting, " in Bulletin of Geological Society of America, February 1959, pp. 115-117.

The evolutionary geologists must maintain the truth of their overthrust theory, for if they do not do so they will lose the foundation proof for evolution: the fossils as datable evidence for long ages of time. Fossils constitute a proof of evolution only because more recent strata are supposed be lying on top of older strata. 

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely separated regions and from continent to continent." *H.D. Hedberg, in Bioscience, September 1979.

 HEART MOUNTAIN Here is one of many examples of an overthrust: The Heart Mountain Thrust in Wyoming is a triangular area, 30 miles [48.2 km] wide by 60 miles [96.5 km] long. One apex presses against the northeast corner of Yellowstone Park. Within this gigantic overthrust are 50 separate blocks of Paleozoic strata (Ordovician, Devonian, and Mississippian). They are resting horizontally and as though they belonged therebut ON TOP OF Eocene beds which are supposed to be 250 million years younger! Photographs of the fault line, separating the Paleozoic strata from the Eocene, reveal it to be perfectly snug and normal. No evidence of massive crushing of rock beneath the fault line is to be seen.

Searching for the area from which this gigantic overthrust horizontally slid, the scientists could not locate it. They could not find any place where it came from! 

"The Heart Mountain thrust has long been structurally perplexing because there are no known structural roots or source from which it could have been derived. Furthermore, there is no known surface fault or fault zone within or adjoining from which the thrust sheet could have been derived." *Op. cit, p. 592

One expert, * Pierce, said the solution was "gravity" (Op. cit., p. 598). But, as with many others, this particular overthrust is an entire mountain! Heart Mountain is a high mountain, not a plain nor a low valley. It is a horizontal bed of hundreds of feet of rock resting high above the Wyoming plains, overlooking them. It would require some special type of gravity to put those billions upon billions of pounds of rock up there and do it all so carefully that it rests there, fitted perfectly together! This 30 x 60 mile (48.896.6 km) triangle of very thick rock is supposed to have wandered there ("gravitated there" is how some experts describe it) in some miraculous way from somewhere else and then climbed up on top of all the other rocks in the plains beneath it! 


 LEWIS OVERTHRUST The Lewis overthrust in Montana is another example of the overthrust problem. It is massive in size! 

"The Lewis overthrust of Montana has a length of approximately 135 miles [217.25 km] and a horizontal displacement of about 15 miles [24 km]. Its fault plane dips to the southwest at an angle of about 3 degrees." *William D. Thornbury, Principles of Geomorphology (1954), p. 268.

 Since Thornbury wrote the above lines, additional research has disclosed that the Lewis thrustblock is 3 miles [4.8279 km] deep, 135 miles [217 km] long, and 35 to 40 miles (56.364.4 km] wide! (See *C.P. Ross and *Richard Rezak, "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier National Park" in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper, 294-K (1959), pp. 422, 424.)

 That is a lot of rock! In order to protect their fossil strata theory, the evolutionists soberly tell us that ALL THAT ROCK moved sideways many miles from somewhere else! This massive overthrust is truly vast in size. On a map of North America, (1) place a penciled "X" on a point a little north of Crows-nest Mountain on Highway 3 on the border of British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, (2) Place a second "X" a little below Cut Bank, Montana. (3) Then go west from that second "X" to the southern border of Glacier National Park, and include all of it to its southwestern border; place a third "X." (4) Now go north and include all of Glacier National Park to its northwest border; place a fourth "X." Now draw lines connecting all the "Xs." All that territory in the Pacific Northwest--with a thickness up to 3 miles [4.8 km] deep--is supposed to have traveled there from somewhere else!

 Not only does the Lewis Overthrust include all of Glacier National Park and Chief Mountain, but what do you think is beneath it? undisturbed shale! That is hardened clay that has never been disturbed. Shale crumbles easily when shattered or placed under grinding sideways pressure. That immense area of nearly horizontal rock is supposed to have slid sideways for a great distance over shale, without ever having disturbed it! 

"The fault plane [as viewed from the Bow Valley] is nearly horizontal and the two formations, viewed from the valley, appear to succeed one another conformably. The cretaceous shales [hardened clay beneath the Lewis overthrust] are bent sharply toward the east in a number of places, but with this exception have suffered little by the sliding of the limestone over them, and their comparatively undisturbed condition seems hardly compatible with the extreme faulting [horizontal sliding] which was necessary to bring them into their presets position." *J.L. Kulp, "Flood Geology, "in Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, January 1950, pp. 1-15, quoting '*R. G. McConnell, a Canadian geologist.

 The Lewis overthrust should have pushed a great mass of broken rock (rubble or breccia) along in front of it and on its sides as it traveled sideways overland. But it did not do this. That in itself is a proof that the Lewis overthrust did not move sideways!

Commenting on the fact that there is an "absence of rubble or breccia" pushed up by the Lewis fault when it supposedly slid sideways for miles, *Ross and *Rezak, two experienced geologists, then express their own doubts: 

"Such a slab moving over ground, as is now believed to have existed, should have scarred and broken the hills and have itself been broken to a greater or less extent, depending on local conditions. No evidence of either of these things has been found." *C.P. Ross and *Richard Rezak, Op. cit., p. 424.

A University of California scientist personally examined the point of contact where the Lewis fault rests on the rock beneath it, and made the following statement. 

"At the actual contact line very thin layers of shale were always present.. A thin band of soft shale sticks to the upper block of Altyn limestone. This seems to clearly indicate that, just before the Altyn limestone was deposited. . a thin wafer-like one-eighth to one-sixteenth inch layer of shale was deposited . . Careful study of the various locations showed no evidence of any grinding or sliding action or slicken-sides such as one would expect to find on the hypothesis of a vast overthrust.

"Another amazing fact was the occurrence of two four-inch layers of Altyn limestone intercalated with [inserted between] Cretaceous shale. . Furthermore these were cemented both to the upper Allyn limestone and shale. Likewise careful study of these intercalations showed not the slightest evidence of abrasive action such as one would expect to find if these were shoved forward in between layers of shale as the overthrust theory demands." Walter E. Lammerts, personal letter dated November 27, 1957 to H.M. Morris, quoted in J.C. Whitcomb and H.M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (1981), pp.189-191.

Fantastically large frictional forces would have to be overcome in sliding these mountainous masses of rock horizontally. No one has figured out how it could have been done. It is far beyond the laws of physics. But, undaunted, some evolutionists said it could happen if its undersurface was wet! One scientist (*Terzaghi) did some testing and found that water would actually Increase frictional drag, not lessen it.

The thickness of the Lewis Overthrust--the six layers of rock which are supposed to have slid sideways over "younger" strata--is surprising. 

"This strata mix-up was first identified by Willis in 1901, who named it the Lewis Overthrust. Let us now consider the overriding rock strata which forms the supposed thrust sheet. Starting at the bottom of the belt strata, the Altyn Limestone has an average thickness of 2300 feet [701 m]. The Appekunny above it is 3000 feet [914 m] thick. This continues on up until the rock column reaches a minimum height of three miles. These overriding rocks form what is called the 'Belt Series.' " John W. Read, Fossils, Strata, and Evolution (1979), p. 30.

The Lewis Overthrust is 135 miles [217 km] long, and its maximum thickness is 3 miles [4.8 km]!

From top to bottom, this is what we find in the "belt strata" of the Lewis Overthrust, as viewed in Glacier National Park: 

Kintla Argillita This is found on some mountaintops.

Shepard Limestone This limestone is 800 feet 1183 m) in thickness.

Siyeh Limestone This second layer of limestone is nearly a mile (1.6 km) thick: generally over 4,000 fear X1,219 mj from top to bottom!

Grinnell Argillite Argil is a type of clay, and argillite is a fragile shale. This strata is over half-a-mile thick: 3,000 feel X914 m].

Appekunny Argillite This second layer of shale is over 3,000 feet (914 m) in thickness.

Altyn Limestone Limestone is composed primarily of calcium carbonate and is not as strong as many other rocks. This layer averages nearly half-a-mile in thickness: 2,300 feet 1701 mJ.

We have provided you with a detailed description of the Lewis Overthrust, in order to demonstrate the impossibility of the overthrust theory. But there are many other overthrusts elsewhere in the world. If the overthrust theory is incorrect--then the entire concept of the "geological column" is wrong, and the rock strata, with their enclosed fossils, were NOT laid down over a period of long ages! 

THE MATTERHORN Everyone has seen photographs of the triangular shaped Matterhorn. It lies in the Pennine Alps, on the border between Valais, Switzerland, and the Piedmont region of Italy. Located 40 miles [64.4 km] east of Mount Blanc, the Matterhorn is one of most spectacular mountains in the world. It looks like a gigantic, steeply-pointed pyramid, and is 14,685 feet [4,476 m] in height.

 Did you know that all of the Matterhorn from bottom to top--is a gigantic overthrust! Evolutionary geologists tell us that the entire mountain moved there--horizontally--from many miles away!

It takes mountain-moving to bolster up the flimsy theory of evolution.

 The Matterhorn is supposed to have pushed its way sideways from some 30 to 60 miles [48.2-96.6 km] away. Traveling overland those long distances (probably stopping once in a while to catch its breath), it successfully arrived without leaving any evidence of the grinding crunch it ought to have left in its wake. Yet the Matterhorn is only one of a number of Swiss mountains that are out of the standard geological order. They all had to be muscled into position from leagues away.

THE MYTHEN Another massive mountain in the Swiss Alps is the Mythen Peak. This one is really a marathon runner. The Mythen ran all the way from Africa into Switzerland) (It probably got wet as it went through the Mediterranean Sea.) In this mountain you will find the Eocene strata (55 million years old) lying under Triassic (225 million), Jurassic (180 million), and Cretaceous (130 million). According to the theory, the Eocene is supposed to be on top of the Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassicbut instead it is under all three!

 THE APPALACHIANS As with many mountain ranges, geologists always thought that the Appalachians (which includes most of the mountains in Eastern America) were upthrust mountains pushed up from below. But then they made a shocking discovery: underneath it all is some supposedly "younger" strata. Well, there is only one answer to that: Now the experts say that the entire Appalachian range ran sideways under the Atlantic Ocean, climbed out onto shore, and journeyed on over to its present location! 

"The Appalachians, which run from Newfoundland to Alabama, were probably formed not by upward thrusting, as previously believed, but by a thick conglomerate of oceanic and continental rock that was shoved horizontally at least 250 kilometers [155.3 mil over existing sediments . . "Beneath that jumble [of the Appalachians] . . lies a younger, flat, thin 1-5 km (.62.1 mil thick layer of sediments that 'no one thought existed.' The unbroken, wide extent of the layer. . and its similarity to sediments found on the East Coast indicate that the mountains 'could not have been pushed up'." *Science News, 1979.

A small but excellent 64-page booklet that is filled with pictures and diagrams that focus on the "mixed-up strata" problem, is Fossils, Strata, and Evolution (1979), by John G. Read.

Walter Lammerts spent years collecting geological articles dealing with the problem of overthrusts. He has published eight lists documenting 198 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. (W. E. Lammerts, "Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States. Part 1-8," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, eight issues between September 1984 and June 1987.)  

OVERTHRUSTS DISPROVED Common sense disproves the evolutionary theory of overthrusts (sideways movement of immense rock masses from miles away), but three researchers decided in 1980 to check it out scientifically. They disproved the entire overthrust theory, as they showed that the terrific lateral pressures involved in moving these great masses of rock sideways would produce so many fractures in the overthrust rock as to entirely crumble it! Such abnormally high pressures would be involved, that the process of sideways movements of these great rock masses would be impossible. Here is how they described the problem in scientific language: 

"If we assume that rocks have no tensile strength . . then when the pore fluid pressure exceeds the least compressive stress, fractures will form normal to that stress direction. These fractures limit pore pressure . . We suggest that pore pressure may never get high enough to allow gravity gliding . . ; the rocks might fail in vertical hydrofracture first." *J.H. Willemin, *P.L Guth, and *K. V. Hodges, "High Fluid Pressure, Isothermal Surfaces, and the Initiation of Nappe Movement," in Geology, September 1980, p. 406.

"It seems mechanically implausible that great sheets of rock could have moved across nearly flat surfaces for appreciable distances." "Philip B. King, "The Anatomy and Habitat of Low-Angle Thrust Faults, " in American Journal of Science, Vol. 258-A, 1960, p. 115.

For additional information see the appendix topic, "19 - Mixed-Up Strata and Overthrusts."


 WHY DO THEY DO IT? In view of such facts, why are evolutionists willing to go to such extremes to defend their beloved strata age theory?


They do it because they are desperate. If they abandon this impossible fossil-strata age dating theory, they have destroyed the bedrock foundation of evolution!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms." *C.O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (1980), p. 47.

 CLINGING TO A CRUMBLING ERROR Reporting on a major evolutionary conference in late 1980, Newsweek magazine reported some of the discussion as men argued among themselves to find some reason for holding on to the foolishness they inherited from Darwin:

"Evidence from fossils now points overwhelmingly away from the classical Darwinism which most Americans learned in high school . . The missing link between man and the apes . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated." Newsweek, November 3, 1980.

Is evolution beginning to look hopeless? It not only is hopeless, it is useless. When *Charles Darwin published his book, Origin of the Species, back in 1859, no one knew what discoveries would be made later. But in our day a vast wealth of knowledge has been amassed, and evolution stands condemned as meaningless and worthless.

For additional information see quotation supplement, " 22 - The Geologic Clock."

 DENTON DENOUNCES IT *Michael Denton, an Australian researcher in molecular genetics, finally became so disgusted with the whole situation that he wrote a book, entitled Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. In the final chapter he summarized some of the problems. His conclusion is well worth repeating here:

"We now know, as a result of discoveries made over the past thirty years, that not only is there a distinct break between animate [living] and inanimate [non-living] worlds, but that it is one of the most dramatic in all nature, absolutely unbridged by any series of transitional forms ["missing links"], and like so many other major gaps of nature, the transitional forms are not only empirically absent but are also conceptually impossible.

"Similarly, the sorts of scenarios conjured up by evolutionary biologists to bridge the great divisions of nature, those strange realms of `proavis' [an imaginary half-bird/half-reptile] or the `proto-cell' [imaginary first organic cell] which are so utterly unrealistic to the skeptic, are often viewed by the believers [in evolution] as further powerful confirmatory evidence of the truth of the paradigm. Evolutionary thought today provides many other instances where the priority of the paradigm [the assumption that evolution is a fact] takes precedence over common sense.

"For the skeptic or indeed to anyone prepared to step out of the circle of Darwinian belief, it is not hard to find inversions of common sense in modern evolutionary thought which are strikingly reminiscent of the mental gymnastics of the phlogiston chemists or the medieval astronomers . . "Contrary to what is widely assumed by evolutionary biologists today, it has always been the anti-evolutionists [the creationists], not the evolutionists, in the scientific community who have stuck rigidly to the facts and adhered to a more strictly empirical [real-life] approach.. It was Darwin the evolutionist who was retreating from the facts. " *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, pp. 351, 353-354.

Many other scientists have come to the same conclusion. They are beginning to speak out more boldly, although most frequently only to the scientific community. The general public continues to hear only the usual "the fossils prove evolution" claims.

Here is how *Mark Ridley, Professor of Zoology at Oxford University, puts it: 

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." *Mark Ridley, "Who Doubts Evolution?" in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 831.

 SOME OF THE PROBLEMS Here are a few of the key problems with the fossils and strata. These problems are serious enough that any one of two of them is enough to overthrow the evolutionary theory in regard to paleontology and stratigraphy:

 (1) Life suddenly appears in the bottom fossil-strata level, the Cambrian, with no precursors.

 (2) When these lowest life forms appear (they are small slow-moving, shallow-sea creatures), they are extremely abundant, numbered in the billions of specimens, and quite complex.

 (3) No transitional species are to be found at the bottom of the strata, the Cambrian.

 (4) Just below the Cambrian, in the Precambrian, there are hardly anyif anyfossil specimens.

(5) No transitional species are to be found below the lowest stratum, in the Precambrian.

 (6) No transitional species are to be found above the bottom stratum, from the Ordovician on up.

 (7) Higher taxa (forms of life) appear just as suddenly in the strata farther up. These higher types (such as beavers, giraffes, etc.) suddenly appear with no hint of transitional life forms leading up to them.

(8) When they appear, vast numbers of these life forms are to be found.

 THE EMPEROR'S NEW CLOTHES Once upon a time, someone wrote a story about a proud king who was fooled by some fly-by-night tailors. They told him they could provide him with the finest of clothing, extremely delicate and sheer. He commissioned them to begin the task of preparing him a new outfit. Upon seeing it, he found it to be so sheer he could not even see it! But since the king is never supposed to be second to any man in understanding of a matter, he dared say nothing.

Finally, the great day came and he paraded through town in his new clothes. Everyone stood silently as he passed in pride and great majesty on his noble stead, clad (according to two variations of the story) only in his long underwear, or less.

No one dared say anything, for surely the king ought to be able to see this delicate clothing better than they. Finally a child spoke up, and said to his mother, "But he has no clothes on!" At this the crowd awakened as from sleep, and word passed from mouth to mouth amid roars of understanding laughter.

 We in the 20th century bow low before the theories of "science," little realizing that a small group maintains a strict control over what will be researched and concluded, while the majority of scientists stand silently aside, fearful to speak up lest they lose their jobs.

We are waiting for a loud voice to cry out: "The emperor has no clothes; evolution is a myth and not science."

 To a great degree, that loud voice will have to come from the common people, for far too many scientists fear to speak up. 

"If we insist on maintaining and supporting the theory of evolution, we are then forced to eliminate and disavow mathematical probability concepts. If we are convinced that mathematics is correct, then we have to discard the present concepts of evolution. The two teachings do not seem to be compatible with each other.

"As objective scientists, which shall we support?

"Remember the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? Not a single vassal dared point out the obvious fact that the emperor was naked; instead they competed with each other to vociferously praise the wonderful tailoring of the new suit. They even described in detail the fine and exquisite stitching to be found in the lower left corner of the imaginary coat. They were all gratified--to their own satisfaction--to hear themselves describe the virtue and beauty of the coat.

"It was left to the simplistic mind of a naive child to exclaim: but this is not so--the Emperor is naked!

"Does this sound familiar?

"History has a way of repeating itself." LL. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (1684), pp. 217-218.

"It is indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they've known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. I view stasis and the trumpeting of stasis to the whole world that the fossil record shows slow, steady, continuous change (as opposed to herky jerky patterns of change) as akin to the `Emperor's new clothes.' Paleontologists have known this for over a hundred years." *Norman Eldredge, "Did Darwin Get It Wrong?" in Nova 816, November, 1, 1981, p. 6.

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: The emperor has no clothes!" *Kenneth Hsu, "Darwin's Three Mistakes, " in Geology 14 (1986), p. 534.

You have just completed