[_ Old Earth _] AIG: Is there any evidence that fossils have formed quickly?

[Khristeeanos]

Q: Is there any evidence that fossils have formed quickly?

A: Evolutionists have taught that the stratified fossil record of dinosaurs and other creatures formed slowly over millions of years. And most people have this idea that it takes millions of years to turn bones into fossils as well.

But creation scientists believe that most of the fossilsâ€â€including most of the dinosaur fossilsâ€â€formed at the time of Noah’s Flood, only about 4,500 years ago. This means that fossils must have formed rather quickly.

So, is there any evidence that fits with this?

A museum in New Zealand showcases a petrified ham, which formed after a volcano covered a village in ash in 1886 (see Tarawera’s night of terror). And a museum in Tasmania features a petrified hat. It was left in a mine, and after fifty years it had changed from being a soft, felt hat into a hard hat! (See ‘Fossil’ hat)


No, it doesn’t take millions of years to make fossils.

Can we know, then, when the fossil record was formed? The answer’s in Genesis: most of the fossils were formed during the Flood of Noah’s day, just a few thousand years ago.

Source: email from Answers In Genesis.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Is there any evidence that fossils have formed quickly?

I'd further like to ask: Is there any evidence that fossils have formed

slowly?

As far as I know, fossils development necessitates quick development

(geologically speaking).

I've got several clam fossils at my parents house from when I was a kid that

have the soft tissue preserved very nicely (reddish/pink color).

Similarly, an obvious indicator of catastrophism is the existence of fossils in the sedimentary rocks. The depositional processes must have been rapid, or fossils could not have been preserved in them.

"To become fossilized, a plant or animal must usually have hard parts, such as bone, shell, or wood. It must be buried quickly to prevent decay and must be undisturbed throughout the long process."5

The importance of this fact is obvious when one realizes that the identification of the geologic "age" of any given sedimentary rock depends solely upon the assemblage of fossils which it contains. The age does not depend on radiometric dating, as is obvious from the fact that the geologic age system had been completely worked out and most major formations dated before radioactivity was even discovered. Neither does the age depend upon the mineralogic or petrologic character of a rock, as is obvious from the fact that rocks of all types of composition, structure, and degree of hardness can be found in any "age". It does not depend upon vertical position in the local geologic strata, since rocks of any "age" may and do rest horizontally and conformably on rocks of any other age. No, a rock is dated solely by its fossils.

"The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geologic events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time-scale for relative age determinations and for world-wide correlation of rocks."6

Thus, the existence and identification of distinctive geologic ages is based on fossils in the sedimentary rocks. On the other hand, the very existence of fossils in sedimentary rocks is prima facie evidence that each such fossiliferous rock was formed by aqueous catastrophism. The one question, therefore, is whether the rocks were formed by a great multiplicity of local catastrophes scattered through many ages, or by a great complex of local catastrophes all conjoined contemporaneously in one single age, terminated by the cataclysm.

The latter is the most likely. Each distinctive stratum was laid down quickly, since it obviously represents a uniform set of water flow conditions, and such uniformity never persists very long. Each set of strata in a given formation must also have been deposited in rapid succession, or there would be evidence of unconformityâ€â€that is, periods of uplift and erosionâ€â€at the various interfaces.

Where unconformity does exist, say at the top of a formation, there may well have been an interval of uplift or tilting, at that location. followed by either sub-aerial or sub-marine erosion for a time. However, since such formations invariably grade laterally into other formations (no unconformity, is worldwide), sooner or later one will come to a location where there is a conformable relationship between this formation and the one above it. Thus, each formation is succeeded somewhere by another one which was deposited rapidly after the first one ... and so on throughout the entire geologic column.

Thus, there is no room anywhere for long ages. Each formation must have been produced rapidly, as evidenced by both its fossils and its depositional characteristics, and each formation must have been followed rapidly by another one, which was also formed rapidly! The whole sequence, therefore, must have been formed rapidly, exactly as the Flood model postulates.

But, then. what about the geologic ages? Remember that the only means of identifying these ages is by fossils and fossils speak of rapid formation. Even assuming a very slow formation of these beds, however, how can fossils tell the age of a rock?

Obviously, fossils could be distinctive time markers only if the various kinds each had lived in different ages. But how can we know which fossils lived in which ages? No scientists were there to observe them, and true science requires observation. Furthermore, by analogy with the present (and uniformitarianism is supposed to be able to decipher the past in terms of the present), many different kinds of plants and animals are living in the present world, including even the "primitive" one-celled organisms with which evolution is supposed to have begun. Why, therefore, isn’t it better to assume that all major kinds also lived together in past ages as well? Some kinds, such as the dinosaurs, have become extinct, but practically all present-day kinds of organisms are also found in the fossil world.

The only reason for thinking that different fossils should represent different ages is the assumption of evolution. If evolution is really true, then of course fossils should provide an excellent means for identifying the various ages, an "unambiguous time-scale," as Schindewolf put it. Hedberg says:

"Fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life on this planet, an amazingly effective key to the relative positioning of strata in widely-separated regions."7

The use of fossils as time-markers thus depends completely on "their record of evolution." But, then, how do we know that evolution is true? Why, because of the fossil record!

"Fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms."8

So the only proof of evolution is based on the assumption of evolution! The system of evolution arranges the fossils, the fossils date the rocks, and the resulting system of fossil-dated rocks proves evolution. Around and around we go.

Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Hydraulic Engineering

Peace



Ephesians 5:8-11

 

[peace4all]

I do not see any relevance in comparing a Felt Hat, To Dinosaur bones. That part makes no sense at all... Especially since that would mean ALL the dinosaurs were burried under water, with some kind of chemical process going on (that didn't kill all of the other fish, but only the dinosaur era fish)

If we were to believe the truth about the ham (yes, I know, look at pompeii, it is known by all that a sudden burying of things by hot ash, will basically, instantly fossilize something) are we also to believe that, at the exact same time 4500 years ago, or whenever, the WHOLE world, was covered in ash (to kill off all o the dinosaurs) and somehow, still allow some vegetatation, aligators, turtles, and some other species to survive?

This Idea is laughable at best.

 

[Khristeeanos]

I do not see any relevance in comparing a Felt Hat, To Dinosaur bones. That part makes no sense at all... Especially since that would mean ALL the dinosaurs were burried under water, with some kind of chemical process going on (that didn't kill all of the other fish, but only the dinosaur era fish)

If we were to believe the truth about the ham (yes, I know, look at pompeii, it is known by all that a sudden burying of things by hot ash, will basically, instantly fossilize something) are we also to believe that, at the exact same time 4500 years ago, or whenever, the WHOLE world, was covered in ash (to kill off all o the dinosaurs) and somehow, still allow some vegetatation, aligators, turtles, and some other species to survive?

This Idea is laughable at best.

Please elaborate. I am confused.

 

[Frost Giant]

Hats and flesh are made from different elements.

 

[reznwerks]

Re: AIG: Is there any evidence that fossils have formed quic

Q: Is there any evidence that fossils have formed quickly?

A: Evolutionists have taught that the stratified fossil record of dinosaurs and other creatures formed slowly over millions of years. And most people have this idea that it takes millions of years to turn bones into fossils as well.

But creation scientists believe that most of the fossilsâ€â€including most of the dinosaur fossilsâ€â€formed at the time of Noah’s Flood, only about 4,500 years ago. This means that fossils must have formed rather quickly.

So, is there any evidence that fits with this?

A museum in New Zealand showcases a petrified ham, which formed after a volcano covered a village in ash in 1886 (see Tarawera’s night of terror). And a museum in Tasmania features a petrified hat. It was left in a mine, and after fifty years it had changed from being a soft, felt hat into a hard hat! (See ‘Fossil’ hat)


No, it doesn’t take millions of years to make fossils.

Can we know, then, when the fossil record was formed? The answer’s in Genesis: most of the fossils were formed during the Flood of Noah’s day, just a few thousand years ago.

Source: email from Answers In Genesis.

You still don't understand what fossils are. If we find fossils of bone we are not actually finding bone in many cases. What is there is the transfer of minerals to the bone mimiking the original bone. You may also find the impression left from a live creature or plant in soft sedimentary stone. That is stone that was not yet formed. Of course its possible and probable that localized calamities created the conditions necessary for the quick creation of fossils. By that I don't mean you could go dig up a certain area in question and find fossils in a thousand years. What is meant by that is the conditions happened quickly enough and given enough time a fossil would be produced. As far as global flood ever happening , the idea falls flat on its face whenever the fact is presented that the geologic strata does not support a global flood. If there were a global flood all the animals would be mixed up as we dug down. That is not what we find. We find animals of the time period in question IN ORDER of accent as to what we would expect following the logic of evoluitionary science. Why would God cause the animals of higher developement to be layered near the top and simpler animals layered at the bottom? In a flood the heavier animals would have sunk first. AIG has a lot of work to do and its readers need to learn how to think a little bit instead of grabbing and accepting anything that might confirm their beliefs at all cost.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

peace4all wrote:

"...Especially since that would mean ALL the dinosaurs were burried under water, with some kind of chemical process going on (that didn't kill all of the other fish, but only the dinosaur era fish)..."

Remember,though, the term "dinosaur" is in itself defined as a reptile that

is now extinct, some having a hole in their hip sockets:

Dinosaur

1. Any of various extinct, often gigantic, carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that were chiefly terrestrial and existed during the Mesozoic Era.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dinosaur

2. Extinct reptile: an extinct, chiefly terrestrial reptile that lived in the Mesozoic Era. Some dinosaurs were the largest known land animals.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18616 ... osaur.html


As you can see from the above definitions, dinosaurs are all extinct only

because they are defined that way. Many other currently living reptiles could

easily be classified as dinosaurs, if the extinct portion of the definition is

dropped: Alligators, Monitor Lizards, etc..

Many of the assumptions about dinosaurs are based on fragmentary fossil

evidence.

A good example is the great Brontosaurus, probably the best known of the

dinosaurs. However, the Brontosaurus never existed! Its fossils were

discovered with the head missing. To complete the skeleton, the scientist

attached a skull found 3-4 miles away, but did not reveal this fact. Recently

it was discovered that the body skeleton belonged to a Diplodocus and the

skull was from an Apatosaurus.

Then you have the list of "living fossils".

For example, Coelacanth fish-fossil coelacanths are believed by

evolutionists to be 340 million years old. Yet they are found today, with

exactly the same skeletal features. The same goes for: Okapi; Alligators

and Crocodiles; Cockroaches; Dragonflys; Horseshoe Crab; Salamanders;

etc...


I believe there are many large species of animals that were wiped out

shortly after the flood, due to the huge change in enviromental conditions

(for some reason the large animals were particularly affected). Some of the

large animals include: Mammoths, Giant Sloths, Giant Beavers, Giant

Reptiles (i.e.-Giant Monitor Lizards/ "Dinosaurs"), Giant Armadillos,

Mastodons, American Lions, Wooly Rhinos, Giant Monitor Lizard, etc...


The statement about only "dinosaur era fish" becoming extinct is circular

reasoning.



Peace



Ephesians 5:8-11

 

[Khristeeanos]

I believe there are many large species of animals that were wiped out

shortly after the flood, due to the huge change in enviromental conditions

(for some reason the large animals were particularly affected). Some of the

large animals include: Mammoths, Giant Sloths, Giant Beavers, Giant

Reptiles (i.e.-Giant Monitor Lizards/ "Dinosaurs"), Giant Armadillos,

Mastodons, American Lions, Wooly Rhinos, Giant Monitor Lizard, etc...

Look at the breathing system of the dinosaurs. They had huge bodies and very small nostrils. It would reason to state that the oxygen percentage and atmospheric pressure would have been higher in the past when dinosaurs roamed the earth in great numbers.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

If there were a global flood all the animals would be mixed up as we dug down. That is not what we find. We find animals of the time period in question IN ORDER of accent as to what we would expect following the logic of evoluitionary science. Why would God cause the animals of higher developement to be layered near the top and simpler animals layered at the bottom? In a flood the heavier animals would have sunk first.

Actually, after deposition, the smallest animals would tend to sift to the

bottom, just like normal hydraulic sediment deposition: clay, silt, sand,

gravel, pebble, cobble and boulder. Of course there would be exceptions,

but in most areas this would be the case.

Peace

 

[cubedbee]

peace4all wrote:

"...Especially since that would mean ALL the dinosaurs were burried under water, with some kind of chemical process going on (that didn't kill all of the other fish, but only the dinosaur era fish)..."

Remember,though, the term "dinosaur" is in itself defined as a reptile that

is now extinct, some having a hole in their hip sockets:

Dinosaur

1. Any of various extinct, often gigantic, carnivorous or herbivorous reptiles of the orders Saurischia and Ornithischia that were chiefly terrestrial and existed during the Mesozoic Era.

http://www.answers.com/topic/dinosaur

2. Extinct reptile: an extinct, chiefly terrestrial reptile that lived in the Mesozoic Era. Some dinosaurs were the largest known land animals.

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_18616 ... osaur.html


As you can see from the above definitions, dinosaurs are all extinct only

because they are defined that way. Many other currently living reptiles could

easily be classified as dinosaurs, if the extinct portion of the definition is

dropped: Alligators, Monitor Lizards, etc..

You are quite mistaken on many counts.

First, the definitions you give are dictionary definitions not scientific definitions. The scientific definition of dinosaur is defined 100% by body features, and has nothing to do with extinction status.

Second, no living reptile would be classified as a dinosaur. Core to the scientific definition of Dinosaur are the pelvis, knee, and ankle structures which change the walking gait of the animal. Modern reptiles all have their legs splayed out to their side and move in a rocking gait--dinosaurs had legs like bird, directly underneath that bent and the knee. If you want to see some details, read here: http://www.txtwriter.com/backgrounders/ ... noBG3.html

Third, serious paleontologists, quite contrary to any of your claims, consider modern living birds to be dinosaurs.

• Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals  just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/dinosaur.html

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

cubedbee wrote:

Dinosaurs are not extinct. Technically. Based on features of the skeleton, most people studying dinosaurs consider birds to be dinosaurs. This shocking realization makes even the smallest hummingbird a legitimate dinosaur. So rather than refer to "dinosaurs" and birds as discrete, separate groups, it is best to refer to the traditional, extinct animals as "non-avian dinosaurs" and birds as, well, birds, or "avian dinosaurs." It is incorrect to say that dinosaurs are extinct, because they have left living descendants in the form of cockatoos, cassowaries, and their pals  just like modern vertebrates are still vertebrates even though their Cambrian ancestors are long extinct.

Wow! A hummingbird is a dinosaur? Seriously...I can go into the details, but

think about what's being espoused here.

One of the best-known ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from

the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds are related to

dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist himself. Feduccia has

this to say regarding the thesis of reptile-bird evolution:

Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of paleontology of the 20th century.

Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of Kansas, also

opposes the theory that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Discussing the

contradiction that evolution falls into on the subject, he states:

To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with
those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.

cubedbee:

Second, no living reptile would be classified as a dinosaur. Core to the scientific definition of Dinosaur are the pelvis, knee, and ankle structures which change the walking gait of the animal. Modern reptiles all have their legs splayed out to their side and move in a rocking gait--dinosaurs had legs like bird, directly underneath that bent and the knee. If you want to see some details, read here:

That's interesting: According to the Berkeley crew, no living reptile would be

classified as a dinosaur, but a hummingbird would be. To me, that

defies common sense.

Peace

 

[cubedbee]

Science often defies common sense, because common sense is often wrong. The fact is, modern day reptiles did not evolve from, modern day birds did. It's indeed a stretch to say "A hummingbird is a dinosaur", because a hummingbird has tons of features that no ancient dinosaur did, but nonetheless, a bird has all the basic structural feautures that scientist use to define what a dinosaur is, and reptiles do not.

As for the two scientists you named, they are only famous because they disagree with all the rest of scientists. Every single artile you read about them will let you know that they are fringe players that go against the orthodox scientific opinion. Pick a topic, and you can find one or two people with a scientific degree that go against the rest of the establishment.

 

[Charlie Hatchett]

Science often defies common sense, because common sense is often wrong. The fact is, modern day reptiles did not evolve from, modern day birds did. It's indeed a stretch to say "A hummingbird is a dinosaur", because a hummingbird has tons of features that no ancient dinosaur did, but nonetheless, a bird has all the basic structural feautures that scientist use to define what a dinosaur is, and reptiles do not.

But according to the theory, it's the lizard type girdled dino that

supposedly evolved into the bird, not the bird type girdled dino. That defies

common sense even more.

Oddly, birds are derived from the "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs and not from the "bird-hipped" ornithischian dinosaurs. The "bird-hipped" condition of a pubis pointing toward the back of the animal occured twice independently, once in the ornithischians and once in the lineage leading to birds, an example of convergent evolution.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/s ... schia.html

Wow...amazing what people will do to rationalize their point at any cost. So,

according to the Berkeley crew, instead of the simple acceptance of the fact

birds and dino's are not related in any way (except they share the same

creator) the theory has to include two completely separate evolutionary

events, resulting in the exact same layout :o .

This is an example of convergent evolution.

Here's a couple of examples of convergent evolution:

1. Wings of the bat, the bird, and the pterodactyl.

2.Anteaters, found in Australia, Africa, and America. Though not closely

related, they all evolved the "tools" necessary to subsist on an ant

diet: a long, sticky tongue, few teeth, a rugged stomach, and large salivary

glands. In each case, evolutionary adaptations allowed them to

exploit a food niche of ants and termites, but the developments occurred

independently.

To me, the concept of convergent evolution is grasping at straws. The odds

of anything, even a single cell, evolving are astronomical. In the case of the

anteaters around the world, we are expected to accept that similar systems

evolved, independently...3 times.

Peace