Conventional wisdom tells us that to be considered scientific, a theory cannot violate any of the known facts of science. It's my contention that consensus accounts of fossils commonly commit just this error. I look at one example of this below.
Quotes and comments;
A. 'The standard dinosaur fossilization story holds that the reptiles were crossing a stream and got caught in a rising river. But no rising streams today deposit fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- This rather typical account of fossilization goes against what we know; this means that it's not a scientific theory. (I've read many times that a 'theory' that goes against what we know cannot be considered a scientific theory... even if one day it turns out to be true. i.e. all theories to be considered scientific must extrapolate from known observations.) If you deny a known observation in your theory it cannot be considered scientific.
In this case the evolutionary account of dinosaur fossils seeks to evade the truth (of the Flood) by inventing a story that goes contrary to known observations. e.g. we don't see massive fossilized 'bonebeds' formed by tropical storms do we? Therefore, we have good reason to reject this as a scientific theory.
B. 'Tropical storms, however, are known to drive water ashore and devastate landscapes, washing over whatever animals lie in their paths. The tropical storm model may be an improvement over the flooded stream scenario, but it is equally true that today's hurricane storm surges don't produce fossil graveyards either! [1.]
C. 'Eberth cited hurricanes as the reason why dinosaur fossils "are often found preserved so exquisitely."2 And yet "exquisite" fossil preservation is not a byproduct of even the most powerful of today's hurricanes. A more catastrophic event is needed that could carry much more sediment to deeply bury the remains and keep them from decaying. None of today's natural processes are adequate to explain the centrosaur and other fossil graveyards.' [1.]
- What we see here are evolutionists who refuse to make the obvious conclusion. They avoid talking of massive floods because they want (at all costs) to avoid mention of Noah's flood; i.e. of a worldwide catastrophe. Darwinism was born in the gentle world of Lyellian gradualism and Uniformitarianism. It was a self-conscious repudiation of the catastrophic model of Genesis. Now that the data demand a return to the catastrophic model, Darwinists are loathe to take the plunge. They fear giving comfort to the hated fundamentalist and biblical creationist. Fearing the truth, they take refuge in stories they know very well can't be true. Reality is something (in this case) they can't face. We might say that true science is something they can't face.
We see something similar in the refusal of evolutionists to deal with the implications of genetic code. They know very well that only intelligent agents are capable of writing code, but they can't face the implications, so they invent stories to account for the code that they know aren't true.) As the Eliot said, ''man cannot bear too much reality." The atheist likes to charge the theist with this accusation, but he needs to take a look in the mirror as well. (I think all men cringe from various aspects of reality.)
Summary;
Everyone knows that the so called fossil layers don't get laid down gradually, but yet Darwinists claim that this is who they were formed. The theory contradicts everything we actually observe. We don't see animal fossils being formed gradually. In my opinion the consensus view of the fossil layers should not be considered scientific. We don't see this happening today, but we're supposed to believe it happened in the past. When we do see rock layers laid down we see it being done catastrophically.
M. Johnson
Notes;
1. Canadian 'Mega' Dinosaur Bonebed Formed by Watery Catastrophe - by Brian Thomas
2. 'It makes more sense to interpret this fossil graveyard as a result of one of the many tsunami-like waves that gradually pulsed over the continents during the course of the year-long Flood event.' [above]