Dialogue – The Hoax of Geology Part 4

In our previous post, we made the following assertion:

If the relative position of the strata in question does not conform to the dictates of evolution, it is ignored.

In other words, whenever supposedly "older" beds are found on top of "younger" beds in contradiction to evolutionary theory, the physical evidence is explained away by appealing to a fantastic (and thus far unobserved) mechanism called "overthrusting". Here are some quotes in the published scientific literature which shed some light on this issue.

Sir Archibald Giekie was one of the great geologists of the early twentieth century. His textbooks were still being reprinted as late as the 1970’s. He struggled with the idea that "older" beds were routinely found atop "younger" beds but eventually came to accept this evolutionary "fact of life". His comment is interesting.

Had these sections (meaning the ones that contain fossils in the "wrong" order and therefore must be understood as having been displaced) been planned for the purpose of deception, they could not have been more skillfully devised… and no one coming to this ground would suspect what appears to be a normal stratigraphical sequence is not really so. (R. K. Stevens, Department of Geology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Newfoundland - Sir William Logan and the Taconic Problem, History of Canadian Geology – 1974, available online here)

When the famous Swiss geologist Albert Heim was challenged with the following question "But all such incredible movements of the strata are necessitated by the simple fact that the fossiliferous strata happen to be found in the wrong order" he responded as follows:

the most incredible mechanical explanation is more probable than that the evolution or organic nature should have been inverted in one country, as compared with another (ibid)

Amazing! The most incredible mechanical explanation is preferable to admitting that the evolutionary succession might be wrong.

It may even be said that in any case where there should appear to be a clear and decisive discordance between the physical evidence and the paleontological evidence [i.e. the evolutionary claims of simple to complex--sc], it is the former that is to be distrusted rather than the latter. (H. Alleyne Nicholson, Ancient Life-History of Earth, Kessinger Publishing, 2007, p. 40 (first published in 1900)

So, physical evidence is actually discarded in favor of evolutionary theory! This is the nonsense which Rabbi Slifkin invests all of his trust in.

The thrust-planes are difficult to be distinguished from ordinary stratification planes… One almost refuses to believe that the … summit (of the mountain) does not lie normally on the rocks below it, but on a nearly horizontal fault by which it has been moved into its place. (A. Giekie, Nature, November 13, 1884 pp. 29-35, available online here)

If one is not overwhelmed by evolutionary dogma, one actually has the reasonable option of disbelieving the mechanics of overthrusting…

The problem of the overhrust is one of our greatest difficulties, and all explanations hitherto proposed are so hopelessly inadequate that we have sometimes felt compelled to doubt whether the facts really are as stated… Any real doubt as to the facts is out of the question, and we must still look for some adequate method by which the ovrerthrusting could have been brought about (W. W. Watts, Annual Report 1925, Smithsonian Institute)

So, a problem of the greatest difficulty is simply swept aside by invoking the materialistic counterpart of an "ani ma’amin"; the writer simply asserts that "any real doubt as to the facts of evolution is out of the question…"

The upper rocks of the thrust-plate are only 1500 feet thick, and thus are too thin to stand being pushed from behind at a distance of 28 or 30 miles, as the local conditions would demand…a detailed study of this locality fails to disclose proof of the mechanics of thrusting or of the direction of the thrust mass (E. H. Stevens, Journal of Geology Vol. 44, p. 729-736)

If they fail to disclose proof, this indicates disproof!

At Ust-Waga on the Dvina, late Tertiary beds are found in absolute conformable superposition on the horizontal Permian sediments (Professor Edward Suess, Face of the Earth, Volume 2 p. 543)

What happened to the beds in the middle (Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous)?

I have many more quotes from the published scientific literature but all of them say the same thing.

I specifically made a point of choosing scientific quotations from Rav Avigdor Miller ztz’l. Every single quote above, without exception, appears in the written works of Rabbi Miller or can be heard on his recorded lectures. Rabbi Miller began his battle against evolution over 70 years ago so most of the quotes are garnered from early to mid twentieth century sources but all of the material quoted is still entirely relevant today.

This concludes our treatment of Assertion #1. Our next post will address Assertion #2 bi’ezras Hashem…

To be continued shortly…