Changes

Topics addressed by the book include:

Topics addressed by the book include:

===Fraudulent Ape-Men===

===Fraudulent Ape-Men===

: ''Main Article: [[Transitional_form#Recent_controversies]]''

: ''Main Article: [[Transitional form#Recent controversies]]''

In striking analysis of the discoveries to occur 20 years later, McDowell & Stewart pointed to the growing existence of offshoots, evolutionary dead ends, once believed to be human ancestors. The following examples are given by ''Reasons'' as evidence the scientific community has displayed interpretive preference for evolution that is not truly objective and honest:

In striking analysis of the discoveries to occur 20 years later, McDowell & Stewart pointed to the growing existence of offshoots, evolutionary dead ends, once believed to be human ancestors. The following examples are given by ''Reasons'' as evidence the scientific community has displayed interpretive preference for evolution that is not truly objective and honest:

====Africanus' Co-Existence with Habilis====

====Africanus' Co-Existence with Habilis====

Arguments made in favor of a global flood include:

Arguments made in favor of a global flood include:

===Depositional Rates===

===Depositional Rates===

In the chapter "Is fossilization evidence of a catastrophe?" (pp. 196-198) it is pointed out that "''The process of fossilization is itself an evidence of abnormal deposition.''" Rotting of carcases begins to occur upon death, and then bacteria and scavengers (e.g. vultures), begin recycling the body's material. After this, weathering processes destroy the bones themselves, whether dissolution in the sea or weathering on land. The only way to preserve a carcass is to prevent the effects of both scavengers and weather, burying it deeply enough that the oxygen bacteria need is excluded, and rapidly enough that there is still something left to preserve.  

In the chapter "Is fossilization evidence of a catastrophe?" (pp. 196–198) it is pointed out that "''The process of fossilization is itself an evidence of abnormal deposition.''" Rotting of carcases begins to occur upon death, and then bacteria and scavengers (e.g. vultures), begin recycling the body's material. After this, weathering processes destroy the bones themselves, whether dissolution in the sea or weathering on land. The only way to preserve a carcass is to prevent the effects of both scavengers and weather, burying it deeply enough that the oxygen bacteria need is excluded, and rapidly enough that there is still something left to preserve.  

However, J.B. Birdsell estimates the average rate of deposition during the last geologic epoch (the Pleistocene) was just .024 inches a year, not nearly enough required to preserve fossils.<ref>J.B. Birdsell, ''Human Evolution'', Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972, p. 141.</ref> It is pointed out that major fossil deposits shown around the world (e.g. the Karroo formation with over 800 million fossilized skeletons of vertebrate animals) indicate a tremendous amount of rapid sedimentation for fossilization. Other examples given include the Monterrey shale with over 1 billion fossil fish within 4 square miles, and the Mission Canyon formation and Williston Basin which are estimated to contain over 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates, crinoids being deep sea creatures. ''Reasons'' quotes Clark and Stearn's conclusion, "''How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination.''"<ref>Thomas H. Clark and Colin W. Stearn, ''The Geological Evolution of North America'', New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1960, p. 88.</ref> ''Reasons'' concludes that it is more reasonable to believe a massive Flood rapidly deposited fossils than that slow, gradual depositional rates were responsible.

However, J.B. Birdsell estimates the average rate of deposition during the last geologic epoch (the Pleistocene) was just .024 inches a year, not nearly enough required to preserve fossils.<ref>J.B. Birdsell, ''Human Evolution'', Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972, p. 141.</ref> It is pointed out that major fossil deposits shown around the world (e.g. the Karroo formation with over 800 million fossilized skeletons of vertebrate animals) indicate a tremendous amount of rapid sedimentation for fossilization. Other examples given include the Monterrey shale with over 1 billion fossil fish within 4 square miles, and the Mission Canyon formation and Williston Basin which are estimated to contain over 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates, crinoids being deep sea creatures. ''Reasons'' quotes Clark and Stearn's conclusion, "''How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination.''"<ref>Thomas H. Clark and Colin W. Stearn, ''The Geological Evolution of North America'', New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1960, p. 88.</ref> ''Reasons'' concludes that it is more reasonable to believe a massive Flood rapidly deposited fossils than that slow, gradual depositional rates were responsible.

===Environmentally-Mixed Fossil Deposits===

===Environmentally-Mixed Fossil Deposits===

McDowell & Stewart note in the chapter, "Are the fossil deposits environmentally mixed?" (pp. 199-201), that if the fossil record is truly the result of slow depositional and erosive forces over millions of years, we should not then find animals and plants from very different environmental zones buried together in rock stratum. However, if a global Flood is instead at work, we should see tropical life mixed with those found in temperate and arctic climates, as well other environments. Key quotes made in ''Reasons'' to prove the latter is true include the following: {{cquote|"The Pleistocene marine faunas of California have long attracted attention. Many of them are large: 100 to 350 species of mollusks in one formation.... These fauna show different associations. Some associations include cool-water and warm-water species.... They evidently do not represent the same environment; in fact, they appear to represent notably different environments..."  

McDowell & Stewart note in the chapter, "Are the fossil deposits environmentally mixed?" (pp.&nbsp;199–201), that if the fossil record is truly the result of slow depositional and erosive forces over millions of years, we should not then find animals and plants from very different environmental zones buried together in rock stratum. However, if a global Flood is instead at work, we should see tropical life mixed with those found in temperate and arctic climates, as well other environments. Key quotes made in ''Reasons'' to prove the latter is true include the following: {{cquote|"The Pleistocene marine faunas of California have long attracted attention. Many of them are large: 100 to 350 species of mollusks in one formation.... These fauna show different associations. Some associations include cool-water and warm-water species.... They evidently do not represent the same environment; in fact, they appear to represent notably different environments..."  

-W.P. Woodring, ''Paleocology''<ref>W.P. Woodring, "Marine Pleistocene of California," ''Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleocology'', Vol. 2, ''Paleoecology'', H.S. Ladd editor, Washington: The Geological Society of North America, Memoir 67, 1957, p. 594, 595.</ref>}} {{cquote|"The London Clay flora, or early Eocene age, includes 314 species of seeds and fruits; of this number 234 have been identified whereas the affinities of the remainder are considered doubtful. It is almost exclusively an angiosperm flora, there being but 7 conifers. Of the 100 genera, only 28 are still extant; thus its family relationships will primarily occupy our attention. The present-day distribution of the families which make up the London Clay flora are: 5 are entirely tropical... 14 are almost exclusively tropical... 21 families are equally tropical and extratopical and five are chiefly temperate... there are some obvious inconsistencies which cannot be overlooked. For example, Artocarpus, (breadfruit), Rhamnidium and Tabernae montonae which are tropical genera are associated with temperate climate (hickory, maple, and ash-GRM). This occurrence of climatically divergent elements in a fossil flora is not an uncommon problem..."  

-W.P. Woodring, ''Paleocology''<ref>W.P. Woodring, "Marine Pleistocene of California," ''Treatise on Marine Ecology and Paleocology'', Vol. 2, ''Paleoecology'', H.S. Ladd editor, Washington: The Geological Society of North America, Memoir 67, 1957, p. 594, 595.</ref>}} {{cquote|"The London Clay flora, or early Eocene age, includes 314 species of seeds and fruits; of this number 234 have been identified whereas the affinities of the remainder are considered doubtful. It is almost exclusively an angiosperm flora, there being but 7 conifers. Of the 100 genera, only 28 are still extant; thus its family relationships will primarily occupy our attention. The present-day distribution of the families which make up the London Clay flora are: 5 are entirely tropical... 14 are almost exclusively tropical... 21 families are equally tropical and extratopical and five are chiefly temperate... there are some obvious inconsistencies which cannot be overlooked. For example, Artocarpus, (breadfruit), Rhamnidium and Tabernae montonae which are tropical genera are associated with temperate climate (hickory, maple, and ash-GRM). This occurrence of climatically divergent elements in a fossil flora is not an uncommon problem..."  

-Henry N. Andrews, ''Studies in Paleobotany''<ref>Henry N. Andrews, ''Studies in Paleobotany'', New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1961, pp. 189, 201-202.</ref>}} {{cquote|"Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America... Such mixed strata are well known features of coal measures of all ages... A similar conclusion is drawn from the evidence of the fossil-bearing layers of thelignites of Geiseltal in Germany. Here also is a complete mixture of plants, insects and animals from all climatic zones of the earth capable of supporting life".  

-Henry N. Andrews, ''Studies in Paleobotany''<ref>Henry N. Andrews, ''Studies in Paleobotany'', New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1961, pp. 189, 201-202.</ref>}} {{cquote|"Within the lumps of amber are found insects, snails, coral and small portions of plant life. These are of modern type that are now found in both tropical and cold temperature regions. Pine leaves are present, of the types now growing in Japan and North America... Such mixed strata are well known features of coal measures of all ages... A similar conclusion is drawn from the evidence of the fossil-bearing layers of thelignites of Geiseltal in Germany. Here also is a complete mixture of plants, insects and animals from all climatic zones of the earth capable of supporting life".  

-W.B. Wright, ''The Quarternary Ice Age''<ref>W.B. Wright, ''The Quarternary Ice Age'', p. 111, cited by Immanuel Velikovsky, ''Earth in Upheaval'', Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1955, p. 57, 58.</ref>}} McDowell & Stewart draw particular attention to Francis' observation that it's very difficult to explain coral mixed with insects and pine leaves from two separate continents, as coral grows only in the ocean, and typical explanations of how amber forms do not explain such severe mixing of oceanic content with material from both Japan and North America.

-W.B. Wright, ''The Quarternary Ice Age''<ref>W.B. Wright, ''The Quarternary Ice Age'', p. 111, cited by Immanuel Velikovsky, ''Earth in Upheaval'', Garden City: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1955, p. 57, 58.</ref>}} McDowell & Stewart draw particular attention to Francis' observation that it's very difficult to explain coral mixed with insects and pine leaves from two separate continents, as coral grows only in the ocean, and typical explanations of how amber forms do not explain such severe mixing of oceanic content with material from both Japan and North America.

===Rapid Sedimentation===

===Rapid Sedimentation===

In the chapter "Was the sedimentation rapid?" (pp. 205-207) emphasis is made on whether the fossil record shows evidence of rapid sedimentation, or slow, gradual deposition at a rate of .024 inches a year (Birdsell's estimate). ''Reasons'' quotes the following sources to suggest that deposition was in fact far faster: {{cquote|"In my own collection, I have a lobster from the Solenhofen stone of Germany which was apparently fossilized in the act of catching a small fish."

In the chapter "Was the sedimentation rapid?" (pp.&nbsp;205–207) emphasis is made on whether the fossil record shows evidence of rapid sedimentation, or slow, gradual deposition at a rate of .024 inches a year (Birdsell's estimate). ''Reasons'' quotes the following sources to suggest that deposition was in fact far faster: {{cquote|"In my own collection, I have a lobster from the Solenhofen stone of Germany which was apparently fossilized in the act of catching a small fish."

-Derek Ager, ''Principles of Paleoecology''<ref>Derek Ager, ''Principles of Paleoecology'', San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963, p. 249.</ref>}}

-Derek Ager, ''Principles of Paleoecology''<ref>Derek Ager, ''Principles of Paleoecology'', San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963, p. 249.</ref>}}

{{cquote|"A great slab of Hamilton sandstone, found at Mount Marion, New York, and now in the State Museum at Albany, originally preserved the casts of over 400 starfish, some of which died hovering over clams they were in the act of devouring just as modern starfish eat oysters."

{{cquote|"A great slab of Hamilton sandstone, found at Mount Marion, New York, and now in the State Museum at Albany, originally preserved the casts of over 400 starfish, some of which died hovering over clams they were in the act of devouring just as modern starfish eat oysters."

-William Matthews, ''Fossils''<ref>William H. Matthews III, ''Fossils'', New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962, p. 135.</ref>}}

-William Matthews, ''Fossils''<ref>William H. Matthews III, ''Fossils'', New York: Barnes and Noble, 1962, p. 135.</ref>}}

In analyzing these sources, it is noted in ''Reasons'' that the 2,600 feet of shale in the Green River formation contains 6.5 million bands, each of which is typically believed to have taken one year to deposit, making for a 6.5 million year depositional period. However, the fossil fish are pressed flat between the bands, the flesh outline of the fishes can be seen not just the bones, and the thickness of each band would make it difficult to preserve the fish. ''Reasons'' concludes that (a) the flesh outline indicates the fish were buried so rapidly they hadn't undergone decay, (b) deposition occurred with considerable pressure from above given the compression of fossils between bands, and (c) bands of just 1 mm or 5/1000 of an inch per year would make it virtually impossible to preserve the fish from bacteria and scavengers, and certainly not leave the flesh intact.

In analyzing these sources, it is noted in ''Reasons'' that the 2,600 feet of shale in the Green River formation contains 6.5 million bands, each of which is typically believed to have taken one year to deposit, making for a 6.5 million year depositional period. However, the fossil fish are pressed flat between the bands, the flesh outline of the fishes can be seen not just the bones, and the thickness of each band would make it difficult to preserve the fish. ''Reasons'' concludes that (a) the flesh outline indicates the fish were buried so rapidly they hadn't undergone decay, (b) deposition occurred with considerable pressure from above given the compression of fossils between bands, and (c) bands of just 1&nbsp;mm or 5/1000 of an inch per year would make it virtually impossible to preserve the fish from bacteria and scavengers, and certainly not leave the flesh intact.

===Fossilized Footprints===

===Fossilized Footprints===

In the chapter "Are footprints evidence of the flood?" McDowell & Stewart question how gradual depositional rates can possibly preserve the the numerous footprints found in the fossil record. While in some cases like mud, hardening might be a possible explanation, in others like sandstone where it is sand being hardened, it is difficult to explain how footprints could be fossilized before erosive forces like waves or wind could erase them. The only way to preserve them is to cover them rapidly with another substance from above, perhaps something which will harden rapidly such as lava. Particular emphasis in the chapter is made upon evidence of raindrops seen in footprints which indicate particularly rapid fossilization. Sources provided in the chapter include the following:{{cquote|"Of vertebrates higher than fishes, the only evidence rests upon one foot imprint (thinopus Antiquus) nearly four inches long, which was found near the top of the Upper Devonian of western Pennsylvania. This indicates the presence of a salamander-like animal (stegocephalian) with a probable length of nearly 3 feet. The track is from a marine sandstone of the littoral or beach area over which the animal walked, probably in search of dead marine life. This stratum is associated with others that are ripple-marked and sun-cracked, and bear rain imprints... Lea in 1849 collected a most interesting slab, a little over 5 feet long, with six successive series of foot impressions made by an amphibian (Paleosauropus) with a 13 inch stride. This slab is ripple-marked and has rain imprints, indicating a mud flat of land origin, over which the animal walked when the deposit was yet soft and wet... Fig. 461 - Slab of Trassic sandstone 6 x 3.5 feet, pitted by rain. A large dinosaur (Steropoides diversus) walked over the muddy ground before the storm, and a much smaller one (Argoides minimus) afterwards."

In the chapter "Are footprints evidence of the flood?" McDowell & Stewart question how gradual depositional rates can possibly preserve the the numerous footprints found in the fossil record. While in some cases like mud, hardening might be a possible explanation, in others like sandstone where it is sand being hardened, it is difficult to explain how footprints could be fossilized before erosive forces like waves or wind could erase them. The only way to preserve them is to cover them rapidly with another substance from above, perhaps something which will harden rapidly such as lava. Particular emphasis in the chapter is made upon evidence of raindrops seen in footprints which indicate particularly rapid fossilization. Sources provided in the chapter include the following:{{cquote|"Of vertebrates higher than fishes, the only evidence rests upon one foot imprint (thinopus Antiquus) nearly four inches long, which was found near the top of the Upper Devonian of western Pennsylvania. This indicates the presence of a salamander-like animal (stegocephalian) with a probable length of nearly 3 feet. The track is from a marine sandstone of the littoral or beach area over which the animal walked, probably in search of dead marine life. This stratum is associated with others that are ripple-marked and sun-cracked, and bear rain imprints... Lea in 1849 collected a most interesting slab, a little over 5 feet long, with six successive series of foot impressions made by an amphibian (Paleosauropus) with a 13 inch stride. This slab is ripple-marked and has rain imprints, indicating a mud flat of land origin, over which the animal walked when the deposit was yet soft and wet... Fig. 461 - Slab of Trassic sandstone 6 x 3.5 feet, pitted by rain. A large dinosaur (Steropoides diversus) walked over the muddy ground before the storm, and a much smaller one (Argoides minimus) afterwards."

''Reasons'' further asks why, in the last example, the animals are seen running uphill, and questions whether this could be due to rising Flood waters.

''Reasons'' further asks why, in the last example, the animals are seen running uphill, and questions whether this could be due to rising Flood waters.

==External Links==

==External links==

[http://joshmcdowellmedia.org/FreeBooks/ReasonsSkepticsShouldConsiderChristianity.pdf Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity] at JoshMcDowellMedia.org.

* [http://joshmcdowellmedia.org/FreeBooks/ReasonsSkepticsShouldConsiderChristianity.pdf Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity] at JoshMcDowellMedia.org.

==References==

==References==

{{reflist|2}}

{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Young Earth Creationism]]

[[Category:Young Earth Creationism]]