On Sat, 14 Sep 1996 15:48:38, Glenn Morton wrote:
GM>Stephen cites a book I ghost wrote:
SJ>Seriously, I presume the majority of fossils formed by being
>rapidly covered by mud or sand. McDowell & Stewart (ghost-written
>by Glenn) say:
GM>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.
Only if the "author who has changed his mind" did so for the better!
:-) Besides, Glenn privately gave me permission to quote his book on
the Reflector.
GM>You wrote of my discussing the Green River formation:
I said nothing about any "Green River formation". The book does not
mention it, and in any event I was speaking generally. Here is the
quotes I posted:
"The process of fossilization is itself an evidence of abnormal
deposition. Today, when an animal dies, whether on land or sea, the
body immediately begins to rot. The scavengers, such as vultures,
usually eat the carcass. These two agencies, bacteria and scavengers,
are very efficient at recycling the material contained in the body. The
bones of the animal will dissolve in the sea or be weathered away on
land, so not even the bones are sure to be preserved. Thus, there are
two agencies which tend to prevent the fossilization of any animal-
biological scavengers and weather. (Charles Schuchert and Carl O.
Dunbar, Textbook of Geology, Pt. 2, New York: John Wiley and
Sons, 1933, p13).
The only manner in which a carcass can be preserved is to remove it
from these two agencies. This means that for an animal to be
preserved, it must be buried deep enough so scavengers can't get to it
and deep enough so oxygen, which bacteria need, is excluded. This
implies, however, that the animal must be buried shortly after its
death or there will be nothing left to preserve. As Beerbower states:
`In general, the more rapidly an organism is buried and the tighter the
seal of its sedimentary tomb, the better the chance of preservation.'
(James R. Berbower, Search for the Past, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1968, p39)
..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)
SJ>..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)
GM>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.
Not necessarily. I would think it would have been somewhere in that
general area, since they are two place names use in proximity with
the Flood story (Gn 8:4 "And the ark rested...upon the mountains of
Ararat); and (Gn 10:9-10 "Nimrod...The first centers of his kingdom
were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar.").
GM>And you seem to believe that the earth is old.
Is this a cross-examination? Is this attorney Jim Bell, or even
worse, Phil Johnson in disguise? :-) Yes, I am almost convinced
(quite contrary to the position I started with) that "the earth is"
(it is like confessing a murder) "old"! (with apologies to Chuck D.)
GM>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.
In fact Glenn was arguing this *explicitly* for a "Global Flood":
"With these and other examples, is it really reasonable to believe
slow deposition preserved these fossils? How much more reasonable to
assume they were deposited rapidly in a worldwide flood such as
described by the Bible." (McDowell J. & Stewart D., "Reasons Why We
Should Consider Christianity", 1981, Scripture Press, p193).
But I was just answering Glenn's question "How did the fossils form?"
GM>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)
As I said, I said nothing about 'the Green River". The books has no
index, so I can't tell if and where it is mentioned. Besides, Glenn's
question was general and so was my answer: "..I presume the majority
of fossils formed by being rapidly covered by mud or sand." Is this
not correct?
GM>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
Glenn's original question said nothing about "episodes of mass
death...in the fossil record". He simply aksed, "How did the fossils
form?" New Reflectorites will note Glenn's (perhaps unconscious)
technique of changing the subject! :-)
GM>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)
Again very interesting, but not relevant to Glenn's original
question.
GM>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.
That's exactly what I did! :-) Glenn's off-tangent reply has tended
to confirm that what he originally wrote (as quoted above) is still
true. :-)
God bless.
Steve
-------------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen E (Steve) Jones ,--_|\ sejones@ibm.net |
| 3 Hawker Avenue / Oz \ Steve.Jones@health.wa.gov.au |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ Phone +61 9 448 7439 (These are |
| Perth, West Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
-------------------------------------------------------------------