This is the second time in 2 days that you posted something I did not
say...
GR>You said that nothing could remain for long without
GR>decaying.
Actually my comments on what goes on in marshes say the exact opposite.
Back to marshes...
GR>The same phenomena allows organic remains to avoid decay long enough for
GR>fossilization to occur!
GR>Marshes do fossilize things, just not rapidly. As the marshes fill with
GR>sediment, and are subsequently covered by other sediments, the objects which
GR>had not decayed in the marsh become fossils.
But it is no longer a marsh, it becomes a stratum. I'll admit that it
occurs, but the marsh does not do it. It is the subsequent mechanisms
after mineral sedimentation.
PD>>Marshes are excellent preservers. They do not fossilize. Lay down enough
PD>>mineral sediments and weight on top of them and they help to make
PD>>excellent fossils.
<snipped reference>
GR>What this article discusses is evidence they found for microbial mats in
GR>Jurassic fossils. This should answer Whitcomb and Morris' question.
That reference actually gets closer to answering the original question.
In my original post, I felt that the question about lakes had not been
sufficiently answered on the list. Generally speaking though, we still
do not observe the widespread preservation in modern lakes that precede
the necessary sedimentation. We observe mechanisms in swamps and in some
anoxic benthic environments. I think that the broader context of Morris
and Whitcomb is fairly acceptable in light of today's observations and
if applied correctly.
BTW, as I said, it may have been a poor argument for the Green River
formation. That one you can quote me on. ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------
"Through presumption comes nothing but strife..."
Proverbs 13:10
Paul Durham
Oakland, Maryland
NOTE NEW ADDRESS
pdd@garrett.ncin.com
---------------------------------------------------------
to: IN:GRMorton@gnn.com
cc: IN:evolution@calvin.edu