New Fossil Book Won't Showcase Obvious Catastrophe (article)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | June 17, 2013 | Brian Thomas

[fishtank]

New Fossil Book Won't Showcase Obvious Catastrophe by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Not just horses and fish, but—like a whole ancient zoo buried together—lizards, alligators, stingrays, snakes, squirrel varieties, bats, long-tailed turtles, lemur-like primates, birds, frogs, insects, and sycamore, palm, and fern leaves were all fossilized in Wyoming's Green River Formation. A new book showcasing some of the more spectacular fossils provides secularists another opportunity to reinforce their ideas about how these diverse creatures were encased in what became a giant rock formation. Commonsense observations refute their slow-and-gradual scenario, however, and point to a more violent explanation.

Lance Grande collected the stunning fossil images for the book, The Lost World of Fossil Lake: Snapshots from Deep Time. He works as one of the curators at Chicago's Field Museum of Natural History. One of his images shows a now-extinct variety of horse—one with a tiny stature and long hind legs for its size—surrounded by fossil fish. Horses and fish don't usually hang out together, but apparently they died together. How did they end up in the same fossilized bed?

LiveScience featured some of the book's images on its website, including the "Mini-Horse." There, its image caption reads, "Researchers aren't sure how the horse ended up at the bottom of the middle of Fossil Lake but they suspect it drowned, possibly trying to escape a predator."1 Then, supposedly its carcass sank neatly to the bottom without having been scavenged by any of the many fish represented in the formation's fossils.

The horse body's next trick also defied commonsense. According to LiveScience, "Over thousands of years, dead animals rained down into the muck deep below the surface of long-gone Fossil Lake."2 Not only does the slow-and-gradual story require a magic wand to wave off the persistent problem of scavenging, but it calls upon the ancient deep "muck" to do what experiments have shown it cannot do—keep a carcass from rotting away to nothing.

And what strange process preserved these animal bodies so well as they supposedly rested on the lake bed before the slow-settling sediments covered and buried them over the long years? This story defies horse sense. Clearly, they had to have been buried deeply by fast-building sediment in order to preserve at such high quality.

Supposedly, a lack of oxygen preserved the whole carcasses. But God created microbes to function even without readily available oxygen. The problem is that fish and other animal carcasses rot in just a few weeks, even when buried in mud that has very little oxygen.3 What the scavengers don't eat, anoxic microbes quickly consume. That is why today's anoxic lake and ocean bottom muds form no fossils.

Whatever buried the horse did so rapidly and catastrophically. Fast-flowing water mixed with fresh volcanic ash and washed over the diverse assembly of creatures, burying them alive and trapping them in the Green River's series of basins.

The Genesis Flood provides a context for that catastrophe. Some creation geologists suggest that residual catastrophes immediately after the Flood formed Green River Formation, while others propose that it formed when water ran off the continents in the waning Flood months. Either scenario sets a catastrophic-enough stage to trump slow-and-gradual speculations and to bury alligators, horses, lizards, and fish together quickly and completely.

References

Gannon, M. Images: Stingray Sex, Mini-Horses & Other Curiosities of Fossil Lake. LiveScience. Posted on LiveScience.com June 9, 2013, accessed June 10, 2013.

Gannon, M. Lost World Locked in Stone at Fossil Lake. LiveScience. Posted on LiveScience.com June 9, 2013, accessed June 10, 2013.

Donovan, S.K., (Ed.) 1991. The Process of fossilization. New York: Columbia University Press, 120-129.

Image credit: Lance Grande from The Lost World of Fossil Lake: Snapshots from Deep Time, © 2013, the University of Chicago Press. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

Article posted on June 17, 2013.

[0.E.O]

the sixth most abundant element on earth is sodium and it is contained through out the crust.

But USS Johnston was asking how I explain the salt domes under the Great Lakes. My question in return is why large deposits of salt are localized around the earth? Link

[0.E.O]

If you can't answer the question then just say so. There are thousands of fresh water organisms. We're not talking about gradual adaptation. How did they survive the sudden immersion into salt water?

And in the case you mentioned, isn't 'adaptation' another word for 'evolution'?

[0.E.O]

That's not to say fresh water bodies of water were also created in the aftermath of the Great Flood. Fresh water springs emerge out of the ground, don't they?

You mean all the fountains of the great deep that weren't broken up? After that how could there be any fresh water left? And even if there any left wouldn't there have to be a lot to dilute the salt water that had settled there?

As to the salinity of pre and post flood, I have NO idea of the level and degree...

How convenient. If it wasn't about as salty then as now then where did the additional saline come from?

The Bible isn't a science primer, nor is it supposed to be.

Except when it comes to biology, geology, meteorology, physics, astronomy,...

Love your questions. Must have been quite a challenge for them. Thank God for seeds, rain, faith, and a resilient planet.

Not to mention a boatload of miracles, no pun intended. How can one refute that?

[Raycpa]

Your question has at least four assumptions that I have rejected. The first is the assumption that during the flood, the salt levels were as high as they are now in the sea. This is unlikely because the rapid addition of water would not contain salt thereby diluting the existing waters salt level. The second is that all freshwater fish are unable to exist in sea water. The third is an implied assumption that the salt in the flood would be uniform and that variations of salt would be had in layers of water as well as variations throughout the entire world. The fourth is the notion that the fish themselves have to survive. Only the eggs need to survive.

You constructed a two dimensional world with preconceived notions. You are using lazy thinking. You need to be aware of all of your preconceptions when studying a problem.

[USS Johnston]

Not to mention a boatload of miracles, no pun intended. How can one refute that?

ALL LIFE...is a miracle. Btw, Creationism and the Great Flood is no refutation of real and actually science. There just is NO reason the Darwinian Cultists with the halls of scientific academia should be immune from proving their own BS theories and fairy tales regarding "Evolution."

Or do you believe we've "evolved" from Monkeys as well?

[USS Johnston]

Sorry, I missed this earlier. When I asked if there was geological evidence, it was in the context of the area surrounding the salt flats, that you propose underwent this geological event. Surely an event of that magnitude within the last few thousand years would have left behind some geological evidence. It seems incredible that this could happen and simply leave behind those salt deposits and otherwise no trace of it in the surrounding landscape.

No, Tact, I certainly don't have all the answers. And yes, "incredible" would be a word. Though the Great Flood and its aftermath were an incredible events.

At this point we'd merely be speculating (yes even more so). Perhaps some subsequent deluges diluted and washed away salt remnants underground or beyond via long since-gone rivers and streams outlets leading to oceans. Or via glacial melt-off and breaches in inland freshwater seas during the Ice Age.

[Fuzz]

Learning soooooo much.

[USS Johnston]

The fourth is the notion that the fish themselves have to survive. Only the eggs need to survive.

Excellent.

[USS Johnston]

Learning soooooo much.

After three days of heavy tutoring, slide shows, and practice I believe you might master the ancient art of chewing gum and walking AT the same time.

You're welcome, Grasshopper.

[tacticalogic]

Though the Great Flood and its aftermath were an incredible events.

Then you will understand why I don't find them credible.

[USS Johnston]

Then you will understand why I don't find them credible.

Word play aside, the Great Flood is a proven fact my friend. Just because "the lab" can't replicate events you deem unfathomable don't invalidate it.

Q: Can you look at the Grand Canyon without imagining the great torrent of water and magnitude of force it took to carve it out like butter?

[tacticalogic]

Word play aside, the Great Flood is a proven fact my friend.

Interesting. You "set aside" "word play", then claim what no one has objetively verifiable proof of to have been proven.

Q: Can you look at the Grand Canyon without imagining the great torrent of water and magnitude of force it took to carve it out like butter?

I can imagine a great torrent of water creating it, and I can imagine it being created gradually, over millions of years as tectonic forces raise that landscape while the water cuts down through it. Will I be damned for lack of imagination, or having too much?

[0.E.O]

Btw, Creationism and the Great Flood is no refutation of real and actually science.

Of course it isn't.

There just is NO reason the Darwinian Cultists with the halls of scientific academia should be immune from proving their own BS theories and fairy tales regarding "Evolution".

Their theories are tested all the time...by actual scientists. How does one prove Noah's flood?

Or do you believe we've "evolved" from Monkeys as well?

No, and neither does anyone else who knows the first thing about evolution.

[0.E.O]

This is unlikely because the rapid addition of water would not contain salt thereby diluting the existing waters salt level.

If salt water has an average of 3.5 percent salinity and fresh water has an average of 0.5 percent salinity then wouldn't that mean that your geysers of fresh water gushing from the earth would have to be at least 7 times as great as the total amount of salt water?

The second is that all freshwater fish are unable to exist in sea water.

How many do you know can survive a sudden immersion from fresh water to salt? Which ones are they?

level. The second is that all freshwater fish are unable to exist in sea water. The third is an implied assumption that the salt in the flood would be uniform and that variations of salt would be had in layers of water as well as variations throughout the entire world.

There are variations in levels of salinity but at it's best it is still many times as salty as fresh water is.

The fourth is the notion that the fish themselves have to survive. Only the eggs need to survive.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that they did survive they would eventually have to hatch, wouldn't they?

You constructed a two dimensional world with preconceived notions. You are using lazy thinking. You need to be aware of all of your preconceptions when studying a problem.

Of course. Far better to rely on miracles.

[USS Johnston]

over millions of years as tectonic forces raise that landscape while the water cuts down through it.

So you believe the upper reaches of the Grand Canyon have been eroded by a torrent of water -- but evetually? But wouldn't that have meant the entire west would still have been under water at some point in order the gouge out the top of the canyon?

If it took place over millions of years I'd have expected a lots of rounded-off sculpturing of the landscaping of the GC instead of an event of monumental force and gouging that appears relatively recent (and while the strata was still fairly soft.) The several layers of strata are of sandstone and appear laid down at one time. It only could have been created by tremendous quantities of water and with it the incredible amount of sediment carried. At one time it has to have been under water.

Btw -- Is the Canyon located in an earthquake zone? Tectonic plates are fairly far from Arizona. Just sayin'.

Will I be damned for lack of imagination, or having too much?

No, instead I appreciate your honesty, curiosity on the subject, and level of civil discourse.

[USS Johnston]

Their [Scientists] theories are tested all the time...by actual scientists.

But fail miserably on proving any facet of evolution. Unless you can or any scientist have provided even a single instance of provable evolution and species-transmutation from the scientific giants of our time. Different color feathers of a bird don't count.

How does one prove Noah's flood?

Scientists, rock strata, the stories of many cultures shared by races and people living continents apart. Chronological dating and evidence as cited by the Bible. Evidence of sea shells on Mount Everest and fossils of ferns and other plants native to areas of temperate climate at the Poles. Continental shelves. And so forth.

You don't believe man has evolved from ape? That's a relief. But many evolutionists and scientists still do. What THEN do you believe HAS "evolved" -- species-wise?

[tacticalogic]

If it took place over millions of years I'd have expected a lots of rounded-off sculpturing of the landscaping of the GC instead of an event of monumental force and gouging that appears relatively recent (and while the strata was still fairly soft.)

Erosion of the walls manifests as rockfalls that constantly expose new "sharp" surfaces. The assertion that the strata was "soft" is an exercise in begging the question - attempting to establish that as fact without providing any evidence in support of it.

The several layers of strata are of sandstone and appear laid down at one time.

What "appearance" does it have that indicates the layers were all laid down at one time, vs having been laid down over time? Sandstone is created by sand being compressed. If it all happened at once it should be one homogenous layer. As far as I know, sand doesn't sort itself into different colored layers.

It only could have been created by tremendous quantities of water and with it the incredible amount of sediment carried. At one time it has to have been under water.

Agreed. I just don't agree that there is no possible explanation other than that it had to happen all at once, 4000 years ago.

[SunkenCiv]

:’) There are huge fossil beds in Europe, billions of fossil remains of fish, all appear to have died in agony. I’m sure the Great Flood drowned ‘em all. ;’)

[Fred Nerks]

The Boneyards: Excerpts from “Earth in Upheaval”, by Velikovsky ...PAGE 5

“The great problem for geological theories to explain is that amazing phenomenon, the mingling of the remains of animals of different species and climates, discovered in exhaustless quantities in the interior parts of the earth so that the exuviae of those genera which no longer exist at all, are found confusedly mixed together in the soils of the most northerly latitudes. . . . The bones of those animals which can live only in the torrid zone are buried in the frozen soil of the polar regions.

And to quote one more contemporary, George Fairholme, who described similar evidence in Italy from the Arno River Valley:

In this sandy matrix bones were found at every depth from that of a few feet to a hundred feet or more. From the large and more apparent bones of the elephant, the rhinoceros, the megatherium, the elk, the buffalo, the stag, and so forth, naturalists were led by the elaborate studies of Cuvier and other comparative anatomists to the remains of the now living bear, tiger, wolf, hyena, rabbit, and finally the more minute remains even of the water rat and the mouse.

In some places so complete was the confusion . . . that the bones of many different elephants were brought into contact, and on some of them even oyster shells were matted”...... Catastrophe and Reconstitution Doorway Papers, by Arthur Custance

[Fred Nerks]

Agate Spring Quarry - Page 67,

In Sioux county Nebraska, on the south side of the Niobrara River, in Agate Springs Quarry, is a fossil bearing deposit up to twenty inches thick. The state of the bones indicate a long and violent transportation before they reached their final resting place. '...the fossils are in such remarkable profusion, in places, as to form a veritable pavement of interlacing bones, very few of which are in their natural articulation with one another,' says R.S. Lull, director of the Peabody Museum at Yale, in his book on fossils.'

The profusion of bones in Agate Springs Quarry may be judged by a single block now in the American Museum of Natural History in New York, this block contains about a hundred bones to the square foot. There is no way of explaining an aggregation of fossils as a natural death retreat of animals of various genera.