R
reznwerks
Guest
Fossil Foolishness
Here's another gem from Answers in Genesis via their "WEEKLY NEWS" e-mail series. This one is dated 10 August 2001 and is roundly refuted below.
Q: How long does it take to make a fossil?
A: Most people think it takes millions of years, because they're so indoctrinated by evolutionary ideas. There is an evolutionist's book that explains how fish fossils form. There's a picture of a fish in a pond, then the fish dies, and then it sinks to the bottom. Slowly over long periods of time it's covered by mud, and then turns into a fish fossil.
But there are billions of fish fossils in the Earth today and they're beautifully preserved. If fact, many of them indicate the fish hadn't rotted at all.
Actually, if you've observed what happens when a fish dies in an aquarium, it doesn't sink, it floats. And then, when it starts to sink, it's rotting and falling apart. This process would not result in beautifully formed fish fossils such as the ones we observe in the ground today. No, these must've formed quickly, catastrophically. How do we learn about fossil formation? It wasn't millions of years. Noah's Flood, a few thousand years ago, buried billions of creatures that turned into fossils.
A Response
Let's take the points raised in AiG's "Weekly News" one at a time.
AiG Q: How long does it take to make a fossil?
A: Most people think it takes millions of years, because they're so indoctrinated by evolutionary ideas.
Actually the opposite is true. People who have no problem accepting the mountains of evidence for evolution don't believe that it necessarily takes millions of years for fossils to form. Scientists recognise that fossils can form very quickly, indeed, it's pretty much a requirement.
AiG - There is an evolutionist's book that explains how fish fossils form. There's a picture of a fish in a pond, then the fish dies, and then it sinks to the bottom. Slowly over long periods of time it's covered by mud, and then turns into a fish fossil. But there are billions of fish fossils in the Earth today and they're beautifully preserved. If fact, many of them indicate the fish hadn't rotted at all.
Fossils which show no rotting are very, very rare.
AiG - Actually, if you've observed what happens when a fish dies in an aquarium, it doesn't sink, it floats. And then, when it starts to sink, it's rotting and falling apart.
This assumes that dead fish float until they rot. If dead creatures floated for that length of time the surfaces of the oceans would be covered by dead creatures. Observation shows that dead creatures soon sink to the bottom, unless of course they're eaten beforehand. This is also the reason why there are few fossilised creatures - most dead creatures get eaten. Special circumstances are required for most of the beautiful preservation described, which is why it happens so rarely.
Further, most fossil layers containing fish fossils form from the burial of live fish, so they don't have time to float to the surface. I guarantee that if I filled my aquarium with dirt, most of the fish will die and not float to the surface. In slow layers, where fish would be expected to float and then sink, fossils are rarely if ever found intact. More often you get bits and pieces, most of which are unidentifiable - a tooth here, a rib here, a bit of skull over here.
AiG - This process would not result in beautifully formed fish fossils such as the ones we observe in the ground today. No, these must've formed quickly, catastrophically.
Notice the lie here and note how creationists have to ignore the details to make their lie appear to work.
They ignore the fact that scientists are well aware that catastrophes happen, and indeed do use catastrophes to explain the "problems" noted above.
Fossil layers with complete fossils are almost invariably catastrophic in some way. If you've got a wide sampling of intact species and trace fossils, then you've got some kind of wide event preserving them. This can be something like a flood (for intact animals, not trace fossils so much) a mudslide or landslide, a layer of volcanic ash, etc.
Creationists want to turn evidence that many floods and other non-flood catastrophes have happened and in the process buried fish, into evidence purporting to support one particular world wide flood.
AiG - How do we learn about fossil formation? It wasn't millions of years. Noah's Flood, a few thousand years ago, buried billions of creatures that turned into fossils.
What a clever flood to not only drop mud on fish and wildlife, but also to bury them in volcanic ash! It was also very clever of the flood to manage to preserve delicate structures like footprints and burrows without washing them away.
Or maybe, there was no one flood? Maybe? Could be?
If I were to write a précis of AiG's assertions it would read something like: "If we lie about what science claims, we can refute the lie and put another lie in it's place and hope our followers are ignorant enough to believe it!"
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/foss ... shness.htm
Here's another gem from Answers in Genesis via their "WEEKLY NEWS" e-mail series. This one is dated 10 August 2001 and is roundly refuted below.
Q: How long does it take to make a fossil?
A: Most people think it takes millions of years, because they're so indoctrinated by evolutionary ideas. There is an evolutionist's book that explains how fish fossils form. There's a picture of a fish in a pond, then the fish dies, and then it sinks to the bottom. Slowly over long periods of time it's covered by mud, and then turns into a fish fossil.
But there are billions of fish fossils in the Earth today and they're beautifully preserved. If fact, many of them indicate the fish hadn't rotted at all.
Actually, if you've observed what happens when a fish dies in an aquarium, it doesn't sink, it floats. And then, when it starts to sink, it's rotting and falling apart. This process would not result in beautifully formed fish fossils such as the ones we observe in the ground today. No, these must've formed quickly, catastrophically. How do we learn about fossil formation? It wasn't millions of years. Noah's Flood, a few thousand years ago, buried billions of creatures that turned into fossils.
A Response
Let's take the points raised in AiG's "Weekly News" one at a time.
AiG Q: How long does it take to make a fossil?
A: Most people think it takes millions of years, because they're so indoctrinated by evolutionary ideas.
Actually the opposite is true. People who have no problem accepting the mountains of evidence for evolution don't believe that it necessarily takes millions of years for fossils to form. Scientists recognise that fossils can form very quickly, indeed, it's pretty much a requirement.
AiG - There is an evolutionist's book that explains how fish fossils form. There's a picture of a fish in a pond, then the fish dies, and then it sinks to the bottom. Slowly over long periods of time it's covered by mud, and then turns into a fish fossil. But there are billions of fish fossils in the Earth today and they're beautifully preserved. If fact, many of them indicate the fish hadn't rotted at all.
Fossils which show no rotting are very, very rare.
AiG - Actually, if you've observed what happens when a fish dies in an aquarium, it doesn't sink, it floats. And then, when it starts to sink, it's rotting and falling apart.
This assumes that dead fish float until they rot. If dead creatures floated for that length of time the surfaces of the oceans would be covered by dead creatures. Observation shows that dead creatures soon sink to the bottom, unless of course they're eaten beforehand. This is also the reason why there are few fossilised creatures - most dead creatures get eaten. Special circumstances are required for most of the beautiful preservation described, which is why it happens so rarely.
Further, most fossil layers containing fish fossils form from the burial of live fish, so they don't have time to float to the surface. I guarantee that if I filled my aquarium with dirt, most of the fish will die and not float to the surface. In slow layers, where fish would be expected to float and then sink, fossils are rarely if ever found intact. More often you get bits and pieces, most of which are unidentifiable - a tooth here, a rib here, a bit of skull over here.
AiG - This process would not result in beautifully formed fish fossils such as the ones we observe in the ground today. No, these must've formed quickly, catastrophically.
Notice the lie here and note how creationists have to ignore the details to make their lie appear to work.
They ignore the fact that scientists are well aware that catastrophes happen, and indeed do use catastrophes to explain the "problems" noted above.
Fossil layers with complete fossils are almost invariably catastrophic in some way. If you've got a wide sampling of intact species and trace fossils, then you've got some kind of wide event preserving them. This can be something like a flood (for intact animals, not trace fossils so much) a mudslide or landslide, a layer of volcanic ash, etc.
Creationists want to turn evidence that many floods and other non-flood catastrophes have happened and in the process buried fish, into evidence purporting to support one particular world wide flood.
AiG - How do we learn about fossil formation? It wasn't millions of years. Noah's Flood, a few thousand years ago, buried billions of creatures that turned into fossils.
What a clever flood to not only drop mud on fish and wildlife, but also to bury them in volcanic ash! It was also very clever of the flood to manage to preserve delicate structures like footprints and burrows without washing them away.
Or maybe, there was no one flood? Maybe? Could be?
If I were to write a précis of AiG's assertions it would read something like: "If we lie about what science claims, we can refute the lie and put another lie in it's place and hope our followers are ignorant enough to believe it!"
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/foss ... shness.htm
