Misconceptions About The Geologic Column

It’s obvious that evolution and creation propose two different views, and one of the ways we can see this is through the earth’s geologic features.

Evolution dictates that over millions of years the earth has experienced change – most modern evolutionists now accept the theory of punctuated equilibrium, or change/growth/mutations in quick spurts.

Interestingly enough, geology has only been seen as a science for a short time in human history. Many early geologists worked from a creationist view of the universe, contrary to today’s historical-scientific realm which is dominated by atheistic agendas and viewpoints.

It’s well-known that the study of rock strata is a common evolutionary tool. And the ten strata systems that geologists use are:

1. Cambrian
2. Ordovician
 
3. Silurian
 
4. Devonian
5. Carboniferous
6. Permian
7. Triassic
8. Jurassic
9. Cretaceous
10. Tertiary

This composes the "standard geologic column" and is claimed by many to contain substantial, if not the primary proof for evolutionary theory.

The systems are used today to indentify supposed general time periods in the earth’s history. The systems are named either for geographical locations where they were first identified, or for a specific physical characteristic.  

Originally, these systems didn’t refer to time periods, but were intended to merely classify different types of strata. It is actually a misconception that the column refers to different ages – instead, it is referencing varying geographical areas.

There are many other misconceptions about the geologic column. Let’s examine a few major ones.

Contrary to popular belief, the geologic column wasn’t devised by atheistic evolutionists. The system was created by researchers who believed that life was created, and that the earth had been formed through catastrophic processes. This took place before 1860.

Another misconception is that the rock strata compass the entire earth in uniform layers.  In actuality, the only place where this is found is on the geologists’ diagrams! Only a very few locations on earth have shown the complete succession of the ten ages in physical, real form. And even here, scientists agree that the evidence is obsolete – the individual systems are found incomplete.

Many claim that the earth’s crust is similar to an "onion skin", with successive layers containing all strata systems distributed on a global scale. However, this doesn’t align with the facts. Strata layers do not occur uniformly across the planet, and in many places are they found out of place or not in the alignment that the geologic column suggests.

“Data from continents and ocean basins show that:

• Approximately 77% of the earth's surface area on land and under the sea is missing seven or more (70+%) of the strata systems.
• 94% of the earth's surface has three or more missing systems, and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system.^2”

This alone is pretty substantial evidence that the modern implications of the geologic column are faulty and pseudo-scientific, is is not?

When it comes to dating the column’s time eras and the new strata which is uncovered, many resort to using fossils to assign strata to their appropriate layers. However, this is not a solid means of dating strata – it’s circular reasoning. We can’t know for certain where the fossil originally deviated from, or how much structural events such as erosion, faulting and overturning have pushed it from one “layer” to another. Although some fossils appear to be distinctive of certain systems, it doesn’t mean that we can instantly assume this to be true - it doesn’t mean that the fossils came from those systems, necessarily.

Up until recently, most geologists believed that sedimentary lamina (layers) pointed to being formed over millions of years. But now it has been discovered that lamina form quickly over river floodplains during floods, in shallow marine areas during storms, and in deep water by turbidity currents. The evidence of rapid sedimentation is now easily recognized, and more and more scientists are recognizing catastrophism to be true.

The Creationistic, Biblical viewpoint supports the geologic evidence far better than the evolutionistic framework. A worldwide flood would require massive catastrophic events. The geologic record of the earth’s crust as observed naturally points to a past that could easily fit such an event, and even points to one. The flood of Noah’s day was not a mere drizzle, but a torrential downpour which would employ massive amounts of erosion and crustal disturbances. As the “fountains of the great deep” burst forth, intense tectonic activity beneath the surface would move, overturn and rupture the earth, creating violent, out-of-order layers of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock. What do we see in modern rock strata? Disheveled, out-of-order layers of igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary rock.

Radiometric dating is typically employed to determine strata age, but it often contradictory. It doesn’t automatically confirm long ages. And often, it cannot be trusted with rock and fossils as old as evolutionary diagrams dictates – radiometric dating has been seen to bring faulty/contradictory results with rocks/fossils over a certain age, and most rocks would fall under that category.

In essence, I believe the earth’s geologic structure to fit best with the Biblical account of a worldwide flood.