CRSQ Archive

Copyright © 1972, 2000 by the Creation Research Society. All rights reserved.


Volume 8, Number 4
March, 1972

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.

Overthrust 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 action.

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 exists.

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 divine intervention.

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.

Theistic Evolution

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.


Read 211 times Last modified on Sunday, 16 March 2014 14:54