==* MORRIS SCICRELIE WHITCOMB Article 26281 of talk.origins: Subject: Hey, Morris and Whit
==* MORRIS SCICRE_LIE WHITCOMB
Article 26281 of talk.origins:
From: email@example.com (Robert G Zuber)
Subject: Hey, Morris and Whitcomb, God is looking! :)
Date: 24 May 92 13:06:34 GMT
Organization: HAC - Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore
In article <18037@plains.NoDak.edu> ortmann@plains.NoDak.edu (Daniel Ortmann)
>"do it right" be sure you have evidence. We are talking of high caliber
>scientists, who happen to be Christians and creationists. These people
>(also myself) have great moral accountability to be honest and
>*guileless*. Any Christian who tries to falsify evidence has to face
>God. Even when no one else is looking, God is.
Incredible! As you said, 'Any Christian who tries to falsify
evidence has to face God'. Will you accept the following as 'falsifying
I'm quoting a second-hand source, so flame me if you will. I
will, however, at least list the primary sources so you can check
yourself. The point here is about creationist misquoting, nothing else.
The following is from source  (the second-hand one).
QUESTION: According to creationists, there are plenty of places
where the fossils are in the wrong order for evolution. This must mean
geologists have to assume evolution so as to arrange the geological time
scale so as to date the fossils so as to erect an evolutionary sequence
so as to prove evolution, thereby reasoning in a vicious circle. When
the fossils are in the wrong order, geologists apparently assume the
"older" rocks were shoved on top of the younger ones (thrust faulting),
or else that the strata were overturned (recumbent folds), even though
there is no physical evidence for these processes. In particular,
Whitcomb and Morris  maintain the physical evidence proves the Lewis
Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust never slid an inch. How do you
ANSWER: Whitcomb and Morris, again, quote their sources badly
out of context. There is plenty of physical evidence having nothing to
do with fossils or evolution that show thrust faulting to be very real.
Let us consider the Lewis Overthrust and Heart Mountain Overthrust [I've
deleted the Heart Mountain bit] in some detail.
The Lewis Overthrust of Glacier National Park, Montana, consists
of the deformed Precambrian limestones of the Belt Formation that were
shoved along a horizontal thrust fault on top of much younger (but
viciously crumpled) Cretaceous shales. ...[deletion]... Ross and Rezak
 wrote in their article about the Lewis Overthrust that the rocks
along the thrust fault are badly crumpled, but Whitcomb and Morris (p.
187) lift the following words from this article:
"Most visitors, especially those who stay on the roads, get the
impression that the Belt strata are undisturbed and lie almost as flat
today as they did when deposited in the sea which vanished so many
million years ago."
But if we read the rest of Ross's and Rezak's paragraph, we find that
Whitcomb and Morris quoted it out of context:
".... so many million years ago. Actually, they are folded, and
in certain places, they are intensely so. From the points on and near
the trails in the park, it is possible to observe places where the Belt
series, as revealed in outcrops on ridges, cliffs, and canyon walls, are
folded and crumpled almost as intricately as the soft younger strata in
the mountains south of the park and in the Great Plains adjoining the
park to the east."
Ross and Rezak repeatedly show how "crushed and crumpled" the rocks in
the thrust fault are:
"The intricate crumpling and crushing in the immediate vicinity
of the main overthrust, visible in localities like that near Marias
Pass, shown in figure 139, must have taken place when the heavy
overthrust slab was forced over the soft rocks beneath......"
[Two more quotations deleted]
Now it certainly *appears* that Whitcomb and Morris have
*completely* misrepresented the Ross and Rezak paper. It seems they
quoted to the effect that there was *no* evidence of overthrusting, even
though that paper appears to forcefully say the *exact* opposite! Now
it's fine if creationists want to disagree with certain conclusions if
they can back it up with evidence, but why in hell quote from a paper
that completely contradicts your view? [because they are liars.]
 Weber, Christopher Gregory "Common Creationist Attacks on Geology".
_Creation/Evolution_, Issue II, Fall 1980, pp. 21-22.
 Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris. _Genesis Flood_.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.: Philadelphia, PA, 1961.
 Ross, C. P., and Richard Rezak. "The Rocks and Fossils of Glacier
National Monument". _U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper_ 294-K
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank