| previous page: statements 56-84 | Statements 85-110 | next page: statements 111-144 |
| 4. Reverse geology | |||
| 85 | The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust. | True | TRUE |
| 86 | However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest". | Sequences containing deposits from all the geological periods from the pre-Cambrian to recent are preserved in many places. 25 such locations are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geocolumn/ |
FALSE |
| Link - Standard Geologic Column | |||
| 87 | In fact, there is a rock in Arizona that no evolutionist will discuss without resorting to outright lying. | There is a rock in Montana that fits in perfectly with our current theories of plate tectonics. It is called the Lewis Thrust Fault. There are several accounts of it in the geological literature. To substantiate your claim of 'lying', you need to identify the lies. Otherwise it is simply character defamation. | FALSE |
| 88 | This cambrian rock is 35 miles long by 5 mile wide by 7 miles deep. (This statement has been revised on http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/, and now reads correctly as ' This pre-cambrian rock is 350 miles long by 15 miles wide by 7 miles deep. ') | False - it is uppermost Pre-Cambrian (corrected in http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/) | FALSE ( corrected in http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/) |
| 89 | How did it get to the top if it's one of the oldest. Any scientist will tell you it's impossible to move something of this mass through the earth. | Not according to plate tectonics, the most widely (I'm inclined to say universally) accepted theory to account for many and diverse geological phenomena | FALSE |
| Link - The Lewis Thrust Fault | |||
| 90 | Also, there are no "up-thrust" marks anywhere on this rock. | Simply untrue. The web site I list immediately above shows photographs of such marks! | FALSE |
| 91 | In conclusion, there is no geologic table-just a tool for "duping" innocents. | This is quite simply a lie. | FALSE |
| 5. Paraconformity | |||
| 92 | This describes rock layers that are missing. Gaps in the geologic table where one layer of rock is on top of the other with one missing in between - sometimes 100's of millions of years without any of the gullying or weathering generally used as an excuse for this behavior. | A poor description, and the use of the word 'excuse' shows that the intent is to mislead | Misleading |
| Link - Unconformities | |||
| 93 | At several places in the Baltic region, clays of Pleistocene age rest directly on clays of cambrian age fossils - a gap of over 400 million years. | So what? | Irrelevant |
| 94 | Yet, in the same region, layers can hardly be located, so similar are the two clays | So what? | Irrelevant |
| 95 | 6. Oil and coal | ||
| 96 | When the carbon-14 test was young they used to date all sorts of things. | Carbon-14 dating has (to my knowledge) mainly been used to date archeological material. The method is inherently incapable of dating anything more than about 40,000 years old. | FALSE |
| 97 | The main 2 were oil and coal. | This is quite simply untrue! I can find no references to C-14 dating being used on oil and coal outside the creationist literature. | FALSE |
| 98 | Tests of these 2 substances using the carbon-14 method reveal them to be just several thousand (10-14) years old, instead of the millions they were thought to be by evolutionists. | The dating method is inherently incapable of dating anything as millions of years old! | Irrelevant |
| Link - Radiometric Dating Methods | |||
| 99 | After these early dates were found, scientists stopped using it to date these substances as it threw everything out of kilter. | Completely untrue - see my remarks on the limitations of the dating method above. | FALSE |
| 100 | The production rate of C-14 in the atmosphere exceeds the decay rate by about 30% | Untrue - the production rate varies | FALSE |
| 101 | When this non equilibrium data is used instead of the unwarranted evolutionary assumption of equilibrium, computed dates of all the organic materials fall within 10,000 years. | False, as it is based on a false premise. | FALSE |
| 102 | If the atmosphere really were old, by now, these two rates would be in equilibrium. | False, as it is based on a false premise. | FALSE |
| 103 | Thus, the disparity in the two rates confirms a young atmosphere. | As the basic assumption is false, the conclusion is false. | FALSE |
| 104 | Oil, coal, natural gas, and other items evolutionists suppose are very old have been dated by C-14. | I can find no reference to this outside the creationist literature. | FALSE |
| 105 | But, this should not be possible because this dating method is no good past about 50,000 years. | Which is why it isn't used to date such deposits. | Irrelevant |
| 106 | So, the ability to date coal, oil, etc., shows these materials are recent. | Why should the age of the deposits depend on out ability to date them? This is a very strange remark. | False logic |
| 7. Stasis | |||
| 107 | This field of observation studies the fact that most animals have remained the same, despite millions of years of time to evolve. | Stasis is a phenomenon, not a field of study. The statement is in any case untrue. | FALSE |
| 108 | Many fossils from older rocks, when compared to their modern counterparts, are often identical in form. | A few fossils are similar to forms in ancient rocks. Most are not (when did you last see a trilobite, an ammonite or a mosasaur?) | FALSE |
| 109 | Not one type of change into another has ever been recorded, ... | Untrue. There are many examples in the fossil record | FALSE |
| 110 | ...yet evolution is regarded in most circles as fact. | True, but somewhat at odds with your statement I have numbered (2) on page 1 above | TRUE |
| previous page: statements 56-84 | Statements 85-110 | next page: statements 111-144 |
";