The Geologic Column
(by Bob Pulliam)
I'm sure you've seen the large pictorial representation of the earth's past (geologic column). At the bottom, you see the earth "billions of years ago", and as you move up the chart you get closer to the present. Represented on the chart are the various layers of the earth's crust. You get the impression that if you dug down anywhere in the earth, you would dig through those layers. In fact, no place on earth has all of those layers for your digging pleasure. The geologic column, depicted in those charts, is pieced together from various parts of the earth. One section may be from the ocean floor, another from China, and still another from your backyard. "Because we cannot find sedimentary rocks representing all of earth time neatly in one convenient area, we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to locality." (Leet, L. Don and Judson, Sheldon, Physical Geology, p181) The point is, this chart is what the evolutionary scientist wishes he could find at any place he dug on earth.
So if you can't dig anywhere and find a ready made column, how was it created. Science had already determined what fossil forms they believed to be oldest all the way down to the most recent. They identified the rocks in which they found these by the age they believed the fossil to be. Then they turn around and verify the ages of fossils by the rocks in which they are found. It's a circular argument! "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" (Kemp, Tom, Time Frames, Oxford, 1985, p52)
Now, when we look at the fossil record, does it show the orderly progression that the evolutionist would have us believe? No, it doesn't. In fact, some creationists have swallowed this column and tried to make the chart fit the Bible. The fact is, the chart is pure fantasy. "A large number of well-trained scientists outside of evolutionary biology and paleontology have unfortunately gotten the idea that the fossil record is far more Darwinian than it is. This probably comes from the oversimplification inevitable in secondary sources: low-level textbooks, semi-popular articles, and so on. Also, there is probably some wishful thinking involved. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found — yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks." (Raup, David M., New Scientist, 1981, Vol 90, p832) To add insult to this terrible injury, every species shown is found fully formed and functioning in it's "layer". There are never any transitional forms (missing links), indicating that one species was evolving into another kind. What we do find is exactly what a creationist would expect: everything fully formed and filling it's place.
The bottom line is this: There is no evolutionary chain. The scientific community has tried to piece a picture together of every creature being a link in a giant chain. We are the end-link of the "chain". One celled creatures are the beginning-links in the "chain". The truth is, all of these links are separated (not a chain), and have no ties, other than in the imaginations of men. No links have been found to connect the links of this great chain; yet it is taught as a fact (a chain), and the Bible is ridiculed. (See "Where's the Proof?" (coming soon))