Posted on 06/20/2013 6:51:51 AM PDT by 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.
in fairness, prehistoric taxology is difficult at best!
...How many--how many "kinds" are represented among the cat family? Which ones go in which kind? How do you know?.."
no one know s how many, it is a best guess. But I start with the premise God is right and tells the truth.
But if you seriously want to know I recommend; noah's ark feasibility study john woodmorappe
There are some cat species that may not share certain characteristics (genetics), so two or three (+) kinds of cats may have been on ark. (these may have been younger) some cat species may not have survive the flood at all. since God directed the animals to come to Noah, to be saved.
also, by some evolutions (humanist)admissions....
“.....I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, day care, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all of its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism (Dunphy, 1983, 43[1]:26).
....”
Dunphy, J. (1983), “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist, 43[1]:26, January-February.
Okay. But do you agree that however many kinds of cats were on the ark, if the number is smaller than the number of extant cat species, that means multiple cat species have developed from a single example of the cat kind? Which means, in other words, that multiple species share a common ancestor?
also, by some evolutions (humanist)admissions....
There's loonies in every group.
Excellent point! Some Creatures were divinely directed to the Ark; Others didn't make the cut. Whatever The Creator's reasons were are good enough for me...
Pre-Flood cats that didn't survive:
http://alltheworldanimals.blogspot.com/2011/12/10-giant-prehistoric-cats.html
Who claimed neither were on the ark at the same time?
Just FYI, standard theory has it taking millions of years to get from the earliest canids to wolves...
Now hold on, Speedy -- "standard theory" as defined by WHOM?? FWI, "standard theory" is JUST theory and not "fact." And why the arbitrary "millions of years"?
Please continue...
...then up to 30+ thousand years to get from wolves to all current breeds of dogs.
Again -- here you are presuming again. Lemme guess: "Standard Theory"?? Dogs and wolves ARE very similar in many respects BUT different animals. Btw -- NO "evolution" involved. Do you like seafood? FWIW did you know Flounder is different than Sole? Who "evolved" from who? And how long did IT take? They're both "flatfish" and have different characteristics, aka different animals.
yet you want to get from one pair of Felidae to dozens of species (not to mention breeds) of cats in only 4,000 years! That's evolution at a rate no evolutionist would dare suggest.
WHO claimed a mere single pair of house-cats were brought aboard the Ark? Secondly, the interbreeding of cats does NOT constitute "evolution." Thirdly, the selective domestic breeding of some "different cats and dogs" have been created within mere hundreds of years.
I haven't been talking about pre-Flood cats, just about the 37 species that are around now.
Kimtom posted the suggestion that there weren't two of every cat, just two of the cat "kind." That has since been revised to the suggestion that there may have been two or three or more kinds. I just chose lions and domestic shorthairs as examples. Maybe those were two of the kinds on the Ark, I don't know and it doesn't matter. The point is, if there were fewer cat kinds on the Ark than there are species today, all the species we have today came from those [however many] kinds, sorta by definition, right?
Now hold on, Speedy -- "standard theory" as defined by WHOM?? FWI, "standard theory" is JUST theory and not "fact." And why the arbitrary "millions of years"?
Um, standard theory as defined by scientists, who else? And the millions of years is hardly arbitrary, it's based on analysis of fossils, the rocks they're found in, DNA, and lots of other factors. Are you arguing that standard scientific theory doesn't say it took millions of years? Millions, hundreds of thousands, I don't care: the point is, scientists say it took evolution a looong time to accomplish something that those who would posit a single cat kind on the Ark say took only 4,000 years.
Lemme guess: "Standard Theory"??
Uh, yeah, it's the same sentence as before, and "standard theory" is still the subject. No guessing required.
Dogs and wolves ARE very similar in many respects BUT different animals. Btw -- NO "evolution" involved. Do you like seafood? FWIW did you know Flounder is different than Sole?
What is your point? I know they're different animals. Are you saying dogs didn't come from wolves?
Secondly, the interbreeding of cats does NOT constitute "evolution."
I've been avoiding the word "evolution," because I know some people have a kneejerk reaction to it. I'm just exploring the implications of the Ark story. Either all 37 extant species of cats were represented on the Ark, or some lower number of "kinds" were. If the latter, then it necessarily follows that multiple species descended from the same common ancestor. (That is, unless you want to regroup the 37 species recognized by science into larger groups, by kind and shared ancestor. In which case I'll ask you how you know which ones go together.) And that kind of negates the claim that there's some kind of "species barrier" that organisms can't cross.
Like I said, these just seem to me to be the necessary implications of the Ark story as presented.
If, as you claim, the continents relocated themselves by thousands of kilometers after the flood waters receded in a very short period of time, how did both marine and terrestial life survive the unimaginable vulcanism, earthquakes, tsunamis and atmosphere changing gases?
What is it about the water barrier that alllowed them to get to their destination but doesn’t allow a return trip?
“...kind of “species barrier” that organisms can’t cross..”
a lot of words.....
your point???
“...What is it about the water barrier that alllowed them to get to their destination but doesn’t allow a return trip?...”
I will wait for a sincere question
“..Which means, in other words, that multiple species share a common ancestor?...”
yes, having a common ancestor to which they descended is not example of evolution, but the variety of encoded genetics within each animal (that is already there...case: dog varieties)
“Darrell Huff correctly observed: “People can be wrong in the mass, just as they can individually” (1959, p. 122). If something is true, stating it a million times does not make it any truer. Similarly, if something is false, stating it a million times does not make it true. And the prestige of a position’s advocates has nothing to do with whether or not the fact is true or false. It is incorrect (to use one example) to suggest that because a Nobel laureate states something it is true by definition. Were that the case, when Nobel laureate W.B. Shockley suggested that highly intelligent women be artificially inseminated using spermatozoa from Nobel Prize winners to produce superintelligent offspring, we should have taken him up on his suggestion. Of course, such an idea was based on nothing more than the narcissistic dreamings of an over-inflated ego. As Taylor has commented: “Status in the field of science is no guarantee of the truth” (1984, p. 226). Factual knowledge is not based on: (a) the number of people supporting the claim; or (b) the importance of the one(s) making that claim.”
Huff, Darrell (1959), How to Take a Chance (New York: W.W. Norton).
Taylor, Ian (1984), In the Minds of Men (Toronto, Canada: TFE Publishing).
Bert Thompson, Ph.D.-Apologetics Press,
“... get to their destination but doesn’t allow a return trip?..”
land bridges that disappear..........
“...if there were fewer cat kinds on the Ark than there are species today, all the species we have today came from those [however many] kinds, sorta by definition, right?....”
According to Daniel Criswell, the definition of species is different for many scientists and is not a standardized term. Many scientists define species as a population of animals that are reproductively isolated from other similar species. Reproductive isolation can occur in a number of ways and result in speciation from one kind of animal through events that isolate one variation (species) from another. Many of these isolation events have been identified and are described as behavioral isolation, ecological isolation, and geographical isolation, to name a few.
Geographical isolation is one of the best understood events and likely the most common. Geographical isolation results when two variations of the same kind of animal migrate and become separated by a geographical barrier preventing the two animal variations (species) from having contact and interbreeding. Once completely separated, the two populations of animals possess variations of some genes, resulting in two “species” that differ in appearance (color, size, etc.) and behavior.
Criswell, D. 2009. Speciation and the Animals on the Ark. Acts & Facts. 38 (4): 10.
What’s the evidence for a land bridge between the Americas and Europe that has sunk beneath the oceans in the last 4,000 years?
“...evidence for a land bridge..”
example below (water levels changed globally) in response, however I reject long dates, because they don’t have to be long ago...radio-carbon dating is so full of fallacy. (contaminated sampling as with radio-isotope)
“...The sharing of animal and plant species between Australia-New Guinea and nearby Indonesian islands is another consequence of the early land bridges, which closed when sea levels rose with the end of the last glacial period. The sea level stabilized to near its present levels about 6000 years ago, flooding the land bridge between Australia and New Guinea.”
“”Archaeological evidence indicates human habitation at the upper Swan River, Western Australia by about 40,000 years ago. Tasmania, which was connected to the continent by a land bridge, was inhabited at least 30,000 years ago...”
Wade, Nicholas (8 May 2007). “From DNA Analysis, Clues to a Single Australian Migration”. The New York Times.
But evolutionist are terrible in estimating time, because of the methods use. So the land bridge would have disappeared after the last “supposed ice age”.
Eight words is a lot of words? I can see why you're having trouble following my point.
your point???
The assertion has been made (specifically by the other person I addressed that last post to, but not only by him) that species are fixed and unchangeable--that one species cannot possibly develop change into another. On the other hand, a scenario has been proposed by which 37 species of cats have developed from a much smaller "cat-kind" sample on the Ark. If the second thing happened, then the first assertion is false. Clear?
How do you know this? Has anyone found the genetic code already present in a wolf that can create a chihuahua? This isn't the first time I've heard this particular creationist claim, and it's always seemed to me that creation scientists should be working to isolate all that pre-existing genetic code, if only to see what new dog varieties might already be encoded for. As far as I know, no one's pursuing that tack. By contrast, scientists have found the differences in genetic code that determine, say, whether a dog is in a large breed or a small breed. That actually fits the evolution model quite well.
Regarding your quote: the idea that most people can be wrong is always a good thing to keep in mind, but it's in no way an argument that you're right. It's the reason scientists keep checking and rechecking the theory, trying to poke holes in it.
By contrast, scientists have found the differences in genetic code that determine, say, whether a dog is in a large breed or a small breed. That actually fits the evolution model quite well.
I am more of a believer in devolution where we are losing genetic information. Can you even imagine the genetic information “programed” in earlier times we have lost. Some will argue with me and say it is not lost, only hidden. They might be right.
Do you get up in the morning look at your computer and say, Man, I’m glad that computer evolved for me. Get a thinking cap.
yawn.......
thanks,
the last word is yours
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.