Copyright © 1972,
2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.
Volume 8, Number 4
Is The Capitan Limestone A Fossil Reef?
Stuart E. Nevins, M.S.
The occurrence of alleged
fossil "reefs" in various portions of the geologic column
is recognized by many observers to be a very difficult problem to reconcile
with Biblical chronology. It accumulated at approximately the same rate
as modern reefs, a single fossil "reef" would take thousands
of years to form, and, therefore, could negate the Genesis implication
of a young earth and also seriously question the role of the Noachian
Flood in earth history.
The famous Capitan Limestone
in the Guadalupe Mountains of southeastern New Mexico and western Texas
is alleged by many geologists to be a classic example of a fossil "barrier
reef". Study of the strata cast doubt on the various depositional
and ecologic environments alleged to be associated with "Capitan
Reef." So-called "backreef lagoon" and "forereef
talus" deposits were not contemporaneous with "reef"
accumulation. Furthermore, the Capitan lacks large, in situ, organically
bound frameworks and deposits of broken debris which can be shown to
be derived from an organic framework.
The Capitan is composed
primarily of broken fossil fragments in a fine-grained matrix of lime
silt and sand which were not wave-resistant when deposited. The fossil
flora and fauna of "Capitan Reef" represent a shallow water
assemblage which was not especially adapted to a wave or strong current
environment. Reef-forming organisms which could bind sediments and build
frameworks are either altogether absent or largely inconspicuous.
The available data certainly
do not require many thousands of years for the Capitan to accumulate,
and, therefore, seem to present little problem for Biblical chronology.
Instead the lack of large organically-bound structures, which would
grow during thousands of years, suggests that the deposition was very
rapid. It is proposed that the Capitan Limestone accumulated either
during the last stages of the Noachian Flood or shortly thereafter.
The Glarus Overthrust
Walter E. Lammerts, Ph.D.
In June of 1970 it was my
privilege to spend several days studying the classical Lochseite of
the Glarus overthrust near Schwanden, Switzerland. Before going there
I had an interview with K. J. Hsu of Zurich, who recently published
a study of his interpretation of how this overthrust of Jurassic limestone
on Eocene rock occurred. In this article a resume of Hsu's observations
and conclusions will be given first, followed by my own observations
and experiments. A discussion of how this series of stratified rocks
may be interpreted in terms of flood geology will then be given. A comparison
of this overthrust with the far more extensive wrong order formation
known as the Lewis overthrust, and recently observed small overthrusts
resulting from the earthquake in the Newhall area described by Dr. George
How in this issue will also be made.
Evidence As Observed At Faults Caused By The San Fernando Earthquake
George F. Howe, Ph.D.
Creation geologists have
shown that where overthrust faulting has taken place, there is considerable
evidence to support such action. Uniformitarian geologists assert that
overthrust faulting must have taken place in order to explain vast rock
sequences that are "out of order" with respect to the evolutionary
geologic column. In some of these supposed instances of overthrusting,
there are none of the usual physical evidences to support overthrust
Overthrust activity has
been observed on a small scale along various fault escarpments of the
San Fernando earthquake of February 9, 1971. In each case, the small
overthrust manifested one or more of the expected evidences for overthrusting.
This evidence supports the creation geologists in rejecting the overthrust
hypothesis wherever physical evidence is lacking, despite the fact that
large rock sequences are indeed out of order with the geologic column.
It is asserted that the Flood view is a more natural view in that is
does not demand a certain preconceived ordering of the fossils, and
hence does not require postulating overthrusts where no physical evidence
The Implications Of The
Two Laws Of Thermodynamics In The Origin And Destiny Of The Universe
David Penny, Th.M.
The first two laws of thermodynamics
are explained and illustrated. According to the second law of thermodynamics,
the universe is destined to a slow and irreversible heat-death outside
The two thermodynamics laws
are shown to be at odds with any naturalistic scheme of origins but
in good keeping with special creationism. The only escape from some
possible heat-death is seen in a transformation of the cosmos as a consequence
and fulfillment of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.
Evidence is amassed to demonstrate
that theistic evolutionism is objectionable from the standpoints of
biblical exegesis and systematic theology. In addition, the concept
of "progressive creationism" is identified and discussed.
It is asserted that progressive creationism is farther out of keeping
with the nature of God than is theistic evolutionism.
© Copyright 2001-2013, Creation
Research Society. All rights reserved.
Copyright & Permissions