>Allen, could you take a look at the essay on my web page, "Entire Geologic
>Column in North Dakota" and explain in detail how what is in the column
>could be accomplished by a global flood? I would like a detailed explanation
>of each event.
>
>thank you.
>
Regarding the geologic column, it seems to me that there is an easy test to
distinguish the Flood and evolutionary hypotheses. That is, the
examination of microscopic fossils of pollen grains. Under an evolutionary
hypothesis, we would expect to see a particular species present in some
layers and absolutely absent in others. Under a young-earth Flood geology
hypothesis, we would expect to see a mixture of these fine, lightweight
particles dispersed throughout the column. To diagram these:
Time -->
Evolutionary:
Species 1: - - - - - --------- - -- - - -
Species 2: - - - - - - ---------------------
Species 3: - - - - ----- -- -
Flood:
Species 1: - - - - - --- - -- - - - - - -- - -- - --
-
Species 2: - - -- - - - - - --- - - - - ---- -
------ - -
Species 3: - - - - -- - ------ - -- --- - - - - ------
The evolutionary hypothesis (*) predicts that some strata will be
absolutely free of some species, barring contamination. Under the
creationist Flood hypothesis, all of the pre-existing species were alive at
the same time. Therefore the soil, air and water could contain any pollen
from anywhere, with a finite probability. Once these are mixed, there is
nothing that a flood, or any series of floods could do to separate them.
The resulting geologic column would show a more or less continuous mixture
of all species.
These are distinct predictions. Which hypothesis agrees most closely with
the findings of paleontologists? I'll leave that for Glenn Morton and
others more acquainted with the data.
(*) I could widen this to include progressive creationism, intelligent
design and all kinds of other alternatives to Flood geology.
Paul Arveson, Code 724, Signatures Directorate, NSWC
arveson@oasys.dt.navy.mil bridges@his.com
(301) 227-3831 (301) 227-4511 (FAX)