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.
Ah, that explains it. Thanks.
I'm familiar with that theory. It's just not "lots of water". It's "lots of water, moving fast enough to hydroplane and move the tectonic plates". You reject one theory saying it's inadequate because it doesn't exlain the mechanism and energy source, and accept another without imposing that same requirement.
I disagree respectfully.
There IS a theory that DOES explain the mechanisms, energy source, and especially THE catalyst of the massive cataclysmic and sudden world-wide catastrophy: The Great Flood.
“In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened” (Genesis 7:11).
I can't presume that you believe in Biblical events or this scripture of Genesis when its claimed, "All the fountains of the great deep broken up," but if you do, it explains the epic regurgitation of the earth's innards -- including its vast subterranean waters, planetary volcanic residue, gases, and lava, the epic activity of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge of volcanoes, world-wide fractures and earthquake faults, and realignment of new continents, permanent atmospheric pressure changes -- as well as polar regions whose climate were once previously temperate.
You’re welcome. Here’s a cookie.
Theological dogma is not physical evidence. In order to accept that as valid scientific theory you have to give equal credence to the creation stories of every religion, or start putting requirements on what religion beliefs a scientist is allowed to have.
But the Great Flood is a proven phenomenon. Theological accounts of history actually back science. For instance, if you examine the Grand Canyon, it's obvious great forces of water created both the sandstone formations and then carved out its landscape.
There are multiple theories that attribute the creation of that landscape to erosion by water. You claim one of them (and only one) is proven. Where is that proof?
I recall reading in Genesis that there were two rivers flowing out of Eden named Tigris and Euphrates, and these same rivers exist in Iraq today. The Flood apparently didn’t erase them.
Yup. The Tigris and Euphrates remain. I'd read where FOUR rivers existed in Eden (check out the link.) Yes, I suppose when the waters receded, some areas retained some of their former geological characteristics while others were....obliterated and/or epically altered forever after.
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates." ~ (Genesis 2:10-14 KJV)
If you're interested: Link that discusses the possible location of Eden and it's rivers:
http://www.kjvbible.org/rivers_of_the_garden_of_eden.html
Are you claiming that the aerial photo of the Grand Canyon's topography doesn't provide "proof" of a cataclysmic Flood by an epically colossal force of water?
It's by far THE best scientific explanation available.
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.
Bears repeating. Excellent provocative find and post that evokes and helps consolidate both scientific theory and the Biblical event of the Great Flood for many. Thanks.
It is evidence of erosion by a large quantity of water, with any time reference to how long it took to apply that quantity of water. You seem to move transparently between a piece of information being evidence and being proof, dismissing it in one case as not proving anything and holding it up in another as having done so.
Well, no, because the Great Flood isn't proven to have happened. The Flood is a good example of a one-off explanation that requires other one-off explanations on top of it. Why are there sea shells on top of mountains? The Flood put them there! Why aren't there horse bones mixed in? Uhh...they swam away, that's the ticket! Why are there all these fossils mixed together in this lake bed? The Flood! Why aren't there any dinosaur bones mixed in too? Uhh...
CHALLENGE: Please provide a single provable instance of "standard evolution."
Like what? What would you accept?
You are confusing what we know with what you believe. And the fact that I can't prove your belief wrong (assuming I can't) doesn't mean your belief is correct. You can't prove the world wasn't created last Thursday, either.
Run out of asking relevant, sane questions already?
It was absolutely a relevant question. You don't seem to understand that your beliefs/"theories" have implications that can't be swept aside--at least not if you want to call them "scientific." The claim was that Noah only took one pair of each kind on the Ark. That means that all the species of cats we see today developed from that one example of the cat kind. But earlier, you wrote that "Creatures simply cannot nor have not remade themselves into another species." How did we get lions and domestic shorthairs from a single pair of cats, then?
Just FYI, standard theory has it taking millions of years to get from the earliest canids to wolves, and then up to 30+ thousand years to get from wolves to all current breeds of dogs. And 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.
What information is out of date??? It is an explanation....
"...So, why haven’t any of them made the journey back since then?..."
I imagine the water barrier has something to do with that. Those that did,c annot compete with predators on mainland.
You are using modern “family” names to make a point.
This is an explanation about the numbers that may have survived on ark.
some cat family species are not related. And it is proven fact that some family groups loose the ability to cross breed. (as time goes on more will “loose” the genetic ability..)
Loss of info...follows Law of Thermodynamics.
replied like your namesake.....
,
Thanks!
You're the one who posted a quote suggesting that the "kinds" brought on the Ark might correspond to what we call "families." I'm just exploring that idea further.
some cat family species are not related.
At all? So that would require multiple pairs of "cat" kinds on the Ark, one for each group of related species. How many--how many "kinds" are represented among the cat family? Which ones go in which kind? How do you know?
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.