The "geologic column" is a very important proof of evolution.  It would appear that evolution is so presented as to validate the geologic column, and the geologic column is so presented as to validate evolution.  Therefore, they are like twins, giving witness to each other.  However, it is important to look at this concept carefully.  It would be foolish not to recognize that the earth does have layers, as the picture of Horseshoe Canyon above shows.  However, it is the interpretation of these things that become questionable.

Geologists basically picture the earth as having multiple layers like an onion.  Based on uniformitarian assumptions, they reconstruct the history of the earth with each layer of these onion skins.  However, such presentations are misleading in that they cause the learner to assume that these layers are the same all over the earth.  However, that would be a completely inaccurate conclusion.

John Woodmorappe, a creation scientist with an MA in Geology, has written a review of this subject in which he has gathered data regarding the geologic column from nearly 100 references in the literature.1  In his short abstract, among other things he writes the following:

Calculations have been performed to measure successional tendencies of geologic period over the earth.  For example, it has been found that two-thirds of the earth's land surface has 5 or fewer of the 10 geologic periods in place, and only 12-15% of the earth's land surface has even 3 geologic periods appearing in "correct" consecutive order.2

The 10 geologic periods in the geologic column are built on the Pre-Cambrian Basement as follows:

10  Tertiary
Cretaceous
8 Jurassic
7 Triassic
6 Permian
5 Carboniferous
4 Devonian
3 Silurian
2 Ordovician
1 Cambrian
0 Pre-Cambrian Basement

Less than 1% of the earth's land surface has all 10 periods simultaneously in place.  However, the sequence as shown above often fails to be seen: i.e., they are often are out of order.  Woodmorappe examined the data from those sites where the geologic column is thought to be complete, and found significant concerns with the validity of some of these conclusions.  However, he does acknowledge that the all 10 geologic periods are represented in the Swiety Krzys Mountains of south-central Poland.3

It is disturbing to find that such a small land surface area contains the famous geologic column that supposedly describes all the "onion skins" of the earth.  Clearly, there are no onion skins, for if the geologic column was such a uniformitarian occurrence, then we ought to be able to find it in all parts of the world.  Rather, 4.39% of the Tertiary Period sits directly on the Pre-Cambrian Basement!4  What could possibly have happened to completely remove all layers and untold millions of years of earth history and leave only the most recent sitting directly on the most ancient?

This data causes even greater concerns when one realizes that vast ocean basins are younger than the Triassic period.5  If this land mass were included in the total data for dry land masses, it is clear that far less than 1% of the earth's land surface would contain all 10 periods simultaneously in place.

It would appear that geologists who are strongly convinced by uniformitarian principles have jumped to illogical conclusions here.  How can one make the exception into the rule?  I am not convinced that there is a geological table that represents the whole earth.  Any scientist proposing a theory must account for those factors that are completely counter to the theory.  The mass of evidence should support the conclusion.  But here the exception becomes the rule, and what is overwhelming in nature is hidden from the eyes of the unsuspecting.

The uniformitarian geologic column representing the whole earth is a myth.

ENDNOTES:
  1. Woodmorappe, J. "The Essential Nonexistence of the Evolutionary-Uniformitarian Geologic Column: A Quantitative Assessment," in Studies in Flood Geology: A Compilation of Research Studies Supporting Creation and the Flood, ©1999 by the Institute for Creation Research, second Edition, pp 105-130.
  2. Woodmorappe, J, ibid., p 106.
  3. Woodmorappe, J, ibid., p 126.
  4. Woodmorappe, J, ibid., p 127.
  5. Woodmorappe, J, ibid., p 127.