This is a followup to an earlier posting that examined the first part of this posting by somebody who calls himself Sirius Knott. Creationists tend to make bold claims that attempt to rubbish the consensus of biologists, geologists and paleontologists, reveal their ignorance of the field, and wonder why nobody takes them seriously. Sirius seems to follow the same pattern.
Sirius titles his next section “The Fossil Record Itself Shows That Rapid Burial and Preservation are Key Factors in Fossilization.” Of course he’s right, this is why fossils are pretty rare.
We have fish that died in the act of eating another fish…We have animals which died in the middle of giving birth…We have large animals [which is a “sizeable” argument for rapid burial in and of itself!] which died seemingly in the midst of struggle…We have huge, mass graves where dinosaur fossils are jumbled together like so much flotsam after a flood — and little wonder if the Biblical account is true! We even have soft-bodied animals and delicate structures such as dragonfly wings which were buried quickly enough to imprint themselves in mud before the decay made that impossible.
Woe there. Those statements are mostly correct, but where did this flood thing come from?
This suggestion is basically CH561.2. Fossils are sorted hydrologically or possibly CH561.3. Fossils are sorted by the ability to escape. Maybe even CH561.4. Fossils are sorted by a combination of these factors.
Moreover fossilization in amber does pose a problem for the Young Earth view. See CC361. Fossils can form quickly. Amber can take millions of years to form.
And on animals apparently involved in struggle, see a caution at CC361.3. Contorted positions of fossil animals indicate rapid burial.
Sirius then asks:
We even have trilobite tracks preseved in stone. How did that escape erasure if stone takes millions of years to form out of mud?
And so to polystrates:
Add to this the puzzle [for darwinists] of polystratic fossils, tree fossils which run vertically through several strata of rock.
On an empirical level, the Mount Saint Helens eruption gave us a tangible example of how polystratic fossils might form.
Certainly this is the case. No problem for uniformitarian geology there. Catastrophic events do occur, but catastrophism cannot account for all of the geological record.
These are anamolies [mass burials all over the Earth, evidence of sudden burial of living creatures and polystrate fossils] created by the Old Earth uniformitarian assumptions, but which are easily accounted for by the Young Earth Biblical Catastrophic model.
Unfortunately for the catastrophist model, whilst uniformitarianism can easily accommodate catastrophic formations, catastrophism without uniform deposition cannot account for the geological column (which is why Sirius tries to argue that the column doesn’t exist ealier in his posting).
In fact, the debate is not that flooding and rapid burial are critical elements in fossilization; the debate is now whether there were hundreds [or thousands] of small, local flood events or a single global flood such as the Bible records.
Like all creationists, Sirius either believes or wants others to believe that there is a serious debate going on here. There is not. There are scientists, and there are religious people. The scientists cannot lose because the religious people are wedded to dogma and have to force a large amount of evidence through the tiny constraints of the biblical models. They have had no scientific credibility for well over a century.
Filed under: science | Tagged: Answers In Genesis, Bias, Bible, Cambrian explosion, Catastrophism, Charles Darwin, christianity, creationism, Darwin's Dyke, Dinosaurs, evolution, Fossil record, Polystrates, Punctuated Equilibrium, Punk Eek, Sirius Knott, Stephen Jay Gould, Transitional Forms, Trilobites |