Evolution and Geologic Evidence

In a previous article I discussed a conversation I had with an evolutionist, and when I challenged her to make a case for evolution, she directed me to an article titled, “What is the evidence for evolution?” Interestingly, it contained no evidence that could be substantiated by the scientific method to support evolution. Rather, the only empirical evidence cited favored biblical creation.

I refuted the examples presented, such as speciation, but now I will consider some of the other evidence featured in the article, such as geologic evidence. This is a big one, as many people are intimidated into accepting long ages, believing it to be proven. Yet scientists tell us that science isn’t about proving anything, but about providing the best explanation based on the evidence available. So lets’ take a look and see what we have.

The author states his case, “One of the most compelling lines of evidence for evolution in general and the system of geologic dates in particular is the fact that the various geological eras, as identified by the fossils they contain, always appear in the same order (except in a few cases where there is clear evidence of overthrusting) and always yield the same geological dates, no matter where they are unearthed.”

I’m glad the author provides an exception to his claim, as understanding the exceptions is helpful in refuting his claim. But even though he lists only one exception, there are many anomalies evolutionists must explain.

To make his case, the author points to radiometric dating, explains how it works, and touts how it has been scrutinized and refined over the last 70 years and is so reliable. He then mocks creationists for rejecting these claims, scolding us for not believing 70 years of peer-reviewed studies.

However, complaints like this demonstrate how little evolutionists know about creation science, or science as a whole. There are two competing worldviews, and the author is wedded to his, and ignorant of the other. That’s a major flaw in evolutionary theory. Evolutionists are often incapable of unbiased examination of the evidence. Rather, they are influenced by their own biases, then promote them to win support for their belief system. In essence, they’ve built a straw man to knock down.

If it could be demonstrated that radiometric dating techniques are unreliable to some degree, or if there are flaws in the peer review process, then the geologic evidence touted by evolutionists crumbles, and that’s exactly what I’ll demonstrate.

According to secular science, radiocarbon dating isn’t used to date anything older than about 50,000 years because carbon-14 decays quickly. Nonetheless, there’s measurable amounts of radiocarbon in fossil wood many millions of years old. This should not be the case if dating techniques are as reliable as evolutionists contend. Evolutionists predict there would be no carbon-14 in samples over 100,000 years old. Therefore, since examples abound, their theory has been thoroughly refuted.

As for radiometric dating– a process used to date rocks and fossils, evolutionists face many of the same problems. Scientists have found measurements of specific elements (helium in zircons) where none should exist if the samples were truly millions or billions of years old.

Another valuable piece of evidence demonstrating that radiometric dating techniques are unreliable lies in the rocks of Mount St. Helens, which erupted in 1980. According to radiometric dating, these rocks didn’t form during our lifetime, but between 340,000 and 2.8 million years ago. Of course, we know that’s not true since it was a well-documented event in recent human history. Therefore, it’s fair to conclude that such dating techniques are not as reliable as we’re told. This is often the case any time dating methods are used on rocks of known ages.

Further, in 1982, two years after the eruption of Mount St. Helens, a mudflow carved channels into the 1980 deposits and layers, demonstrating that it doesn’t take millions of years to form geologic layers. All this is evidence against millions and billions of years, and this is why dating techniques are NOT compelling evidence for evolution and long ages. Simply put, when evolutionists claim a rock or fossils are so many millions of years old, they can’t substantiate it with direct, observational evidence. They must use indirect evidence that can’t be corroborated, accept it by faith, and demand everyone else do the same. And that’s exactly what the author has done.

To address another one of the author’s claims, the peer review process cannot rescue them. Peer review is a human process, so it has flaws. Humans are biased, and incorrect assumptions abound. Sadly, those incorrect assumptions are often accepted by the scientific community as true. We know this because there are many examples of peer reviewed studies being overturned or removed after being exposed as false. The issue is there may be many false studies that may never be exposed, so embracing a flawed process is not evidence for evolution. Further, the secular peer review process is composed of evolution believers; so it’s not surprising that they publish studies promoting evolution, even when the studies are flawed. That’s to be expected.

Going back to the author’s main argument, there are many examples of out-of-order fossils. The author would like his audience to believe these are all cases of overthrusting (older strata pushed over younger strata at an angle less than 45 degrees), but not all of them are. In some cases, such as the Lewis overthrust in Montana and Alberta, it is assumed in favor of evolutionary theory, which is another example of bias being used as evidence. Other anomalous fossils have to be explained away by geologic processes too, like reworking and downwashing.

Finally, here’s an article demonstrating numerous times when the initial dating was incorrect and had to be revised years later. How is this possible if dating techniques are so accurate? I think the correct conclusion is that dating techniques aren’t as reliable as evolutionists lead us to believe.

In short, there is nothing compelling about the geologic evidence to favor evolution. At least not when evidence is examined in an unbiased way and properly understood. The evidence is always consistent with a young earth and catastrophic processes, such as the global flood described in Genesis. That’s why we find so many organisms buried together that look like they were buried very rapidly by layers of sediment.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s