Dr. Jackson's Rebuttal

EIAF chose the topic "Geology Shows Fauna Succession." So, let’s stick to that only. It took two sentences for EIAF to argue the geologic Law of Superposition. That’s easy. Sediments do settle into rock layers from bottom to top. It took 1800 words for him to argue the “law” of faunal succession (evolution of animals). EIAF claims “there is evidence” a lot, but just saying it isn’t enough. Even his few examples are only opinion and interpretation, as we will see.

Worm to fish to amphibian, chordates live at different depths -- in the same order as the fossils left from Noah’s Flood – simple to understand. Turbidity currents (undersea mudslides) today do bury and kill all bottom sea life in its path, next the deep fish, then shallow fish. EIAF denies this observation by scientists. The global turbidity current of the Flood, made fossilization and extinction of many ocean species a must – not an impossibility, as EIAF tries to say.

Read EIAF’s geology discussions. You will see that everything he gives as proof of evolution really comes from this – he does not believe in a global flood on Earth. So why does he believe in a global flood on Mars? (And if he does not, then he’s against those he says he trusts.) 100% of Mars is a desert. 75% of Earth is two miles deep in water. Figure it out. Earth looks like it just had a Flood. EIAF’s denial of the obvious Flood is the foundation for his arguments. His emperor has no clothes.

What proof did EIAF actually give?

He says, “it's clear birds evolved from reptiles” because he thinks Archaeoptryx is the dino-bird missing link. But every “link fossil” that supposedly led up to Archaeoptryx is from the layers above it -- out of sync with evolution theory order (National Geographic, 7/98, p91 & whole article). The Chair of Biology at UNC-Chapel Hill says it is not a link. “It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of ‘paleobabble’ is going to change that.” (Science, 2/5/93). Dead birds float, so that’s why their fossils are only in upper sediments – not because they took eons to evolve. Geology disqualifies Archaeoptryx as the bird missing link and confirms the mud layers coordinate with the sequence of events during Noah’s Flood.

EIAF names three missing links between land mammals and whales. Pakicetus was disqualified in 2001 when new fossils showed it was "no more amphibious than a tapir" (Nature, 9/20/01, p277-81). Certain bones that made Ambulocetus look like the missing link were actually in rock 16 feet above the fossil, so they’re not even part of it. Basilosaurus was ten times longer than Ambulocetus – way too big for the next link. Whale expert Phillip Gingerich says the rear “legs” of Basilosaurus were used in mating (The Press Enterprise, 7/1/90, A-15). EIAF says they were “useless” vestiges from when whales used to walk on land. And there is no model for how nostrils could move gradually through the brain, to the back of the head to make the whale blowhole. Think about it.

EIAF hints snake fossils with legs go against creation theory. But the Bible says snakes did once walk on legs (unlike whales) – no problem. “Legs” on boas and pythons mentioned by EIAF are really only spurs, which are used in mating. Ask someone with a pet boa if they have legs.

EIAF names five ape-man links. Four of those were disqualified as of this year (Newsweek, 3/19/07, p56). Evolution theorists no longer use them. Some say erectus and ergaster are the same thing (National Geographic, 2/97, p78-91). So, this leaves only antecessor … which will likely soon join Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal and EIAF’s other four links – as disqualified.

Only out of date textbooks say there are missing links for birds, whales, or humans. Don’t stand on opinion or theory. Real science uses facts, evidence, and data. Evolution uses urban myths, uncertainties, and outdated models like the ones EIAF has put in print as true and I have documented as false. Let’s continue.

EIAF says our coccyx is a useless “tail” vestige. Muscles for childbirth, rectum control, lower back, and rear abdomen are anchored there. And we sit on it. You’re using yours now. That’s not useless. His textbook is out of date.
He says “vestigial” 18-year molars prove evolution. Until modern dental care, wisdom teeth were needed to replace the ones lost by age 18. That’s not useless. All “vestigial” arguments are out of date, uninformed, and shamefully unprofessional. Let’s continue.

EIAF says a mammal fossil out of sync would disprove evolution. They say only small mouse-sized mammals evolved in the dino days. So how about one big enough to eat small dinosaurs? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/01/0112_050112_dino_eater.html (“Discovery contradicts evolution theory,” Longview News-Journal, 1/13/05) How bad does it have to get to convince an evolutionist? I call out EIAF to surrender to the data.

EIAF agrees floods cause “rapid sedimentation”. And the bigger the Flood, the more rapid. But fossils can’t crosscut as EIAF claims. Only magma, quakes, intrusions, or erosion can crosscut rock layers. So polystrate tree and animal fossils disqualify evolution theory geology.

Australia-limited marsupials (like kangaroos) are a mystery to all scientists. Marsupial fossils are common except in Southeast Asia, where evolutionists and creationists agree they had to migrate to cross the old land bridge to Australia. Migration from Noah’s Ark to Australia followed that same path.
Dino extinction is also not just a creationist problem. Why do other reptiles survive today, but none from Order Dinosauria? Nobody has solved this yet. EIAF surely hasn't.

Acanthostega and Ichthyostega are not “excellent examples” of fish-amphibian missing links. They had eight and seven bones in their fins “instead of having five digits – which was assumed to be the ancestral pattern among tetrapods” and “could not have managed to do much more than flop around on land … The limbs are pretty much paddles” (Science News, 5/22/90, p328). They are disqualified by the data.

All land animals survived the Flood (including reptiles and scorpions, to answer EIAF’s question) by getting onto the Ark – simple. EIAF has failed to prove even one “discrepancy” or “contradiction” in creation geology. They should be straightforward, easily understood, and easy to prove.

Does geology show animal evolution? EIAF can believe it does if he wants … but not for any of the reasons he gave on this forum. Perhaps he knows more and will tell us. If not, then I call for EIAF to concede there is no proof that “geology shows faunal succession.” The question has been called. Dr J