>Seriously, I presume the majority of fossils formed by being rapidly
>covered by mud or sand. McDowell & Stewart (ghost-written by Glenn) say:
>
It is not a good idea to cite an author who has changed his mind as radically
as I have changed my mind about what I formerly believed. It has a tendency
to undercut the validity of what you are citing.
You wrote of my discussing the Green River formation:
.Thus it can be seen that the mere presence of a fossil indicates
deposition of sediments had to have been thousands of times faster
than the normal estimated rates of deposition in order for a fossil to
be preserved. If you wished to cover a dead fish with two and one-
half inches of sediment, hoping that would be enough to preserve
him, you would need a 100 year supply of sediment. And it is
uncertain whether two and one-half inches would be deep enough
since worms can easily reach that depth and bring the bacteria and
oxygen which cause decay. When you look at the major fossil
deposits in the world, it becomes obvious that tremendous quantities
of sediment were required to preserve them."
(McDowell J. & Stewart D., "Reasons Why We Should Consider
Christianity", 1981, Scripture Press, pp191-192)
Since I wrote that piece, I have learned a few things. You yourself say that
the Flood was local and lay between Ararat and Babylon. And you seem to
believe that the earth is old. So why would you care how long it takes for a
fish to be covered? I was using this to implicitly argue for a global flood.
If there is no Global Flood, as you believe, then it matters not the rapidity
with which fossils are formed. Your argument can't be used in the fashion you
are trying to.
To answer the question of how the Green River fish could be preserved, I have
learned the following since I wrote that erroneous piece in Josh's book.
Highly saline waters, which Lake Gosuite had, are capable of preserving lots
of organic material. Flamingoes which only live along saline lakes, lived
along Lake Gosuite (see McGrew and Feduccia "A Preliminary Report on a Nesting
Colongy of Eocene birds, 25th Field Conf. Wyoming Geological Assoc. Guidebook,
1973, p 162ff)
Elder and Smith, observing modern evironments, note of the preservation of
fish:
"He noted that these episodes of mass death may be recorded in the fossil
record if nearby runoff is sufficiently strong to cause sedimentation or if
low temperatures and strong salinities retard decay."~R.L. Elder and G.R.
Smith, "Fish Taphonomy and Environmental Inference in Paleolimnology",
Paleogeography, Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 62(1988), p. 577-592, p. 581
They go ont to say that the mass death of fish are "the result of change in
alkalinity/salinity conditions with zones barren fo fish interpreted as
indicating extreme conditions." (ibid p. 583
and
"But the limited evidence for scavenging, of either the mass death layers of
Knightia or of Astephus, indicates limited oxygen conditions or bottom waters
too saline or therwise toxic to support scavenger populations. Coprolites,
not necessarily of Astephus need only be evidence of surface water
populations." (Ibid. p. 583)
The fact is that I was wrong when I wrote what I did in Josh McDowell's book.
I would suggest that you be careful (maybe check with me) before you use it as
an authoritative source.
glenn
Foundation,Fall and Flood
http://members.gnn.com/GRMorton/dmd.htm