Fossil Fish

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

The photo below is the fossil of a fish that died recently after having eaten another fish. This fish must have been fossilized rapidly after swallowing the smaller fish. And I say recently, because of the speed of digestion and the speed of decay.

There are also many fossils of fish that died in the act of swallowing another fish and were so fossilized. Now some say that these died because they attempted to swallow a fish larger than they were able, but this is a bit odd. It argues to a very stupid fish with an amazing amount of cupidity.

Now there are hundreds, some say thousands, of such fish, and very few animals make it to fossilization, making a large ratio of these disturbing greedy fish, most of whom look just like those of today. I wonder can anyone find an example of such greedy fish today?

Also, and this may be the strongest point, when a fish dies it floats, not sinks, and would not be slowly buried, but what with other fish feeding off of it, currents and such, the body would not remain in one piece for a neat fossil. The sum of these objections is this; These remains were fossilized quickly, not during millions of years, but by a world-wide flood.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
The photo below is the fossil of a fish that died recently after having eaten another fish. This fish must have been fossilized rapidly after swallowing the smaller fish. And I say recently, because of the speed of digestion and the speed of decay.

It didn't have to fossilize very fast to avoid decay. Just die in an anoxic environment.

There are also many fossils of fish that died in the act of swallowing another fish and were so fossilized. Now some say that these died because they attempted to swallow a fish larger than they were able, but this is a bit odd. It argues to a very stupid fish with an amazing amount of cupidity.

It happens sometimes.

Now there are hundreds, some say thousands, of such fish, and very few animals make it to fossilization, making a large ratio of these disturbing greedy fish, most of whom look just like those of today. I wonder can anyone find an example of such greedy fish today?

This isn't really remarkable unless you actually crunch the statistics for it.

Also, and this may be the strongest point, when a fish dies it floats, not sinks, and would not be slowly buried, but what with other fish feeding off of it, currents and such, the body would not remain in one piece for a neat fossil. The sum of these objections is this; These remains were fossilized quickly, not during millions of years, but by a world-wide flood.

It entirely depends. Fish can sink when they die (I have an aquarium, I can attest to that). And they can die in environments that are not prone to scavenging or immediate decay. So no, there's no reason to jump to the rather silly conclusion that it was a world-wide flood.

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
It didn't have to fossilize very fast to avoid decay. Just die in an anoxic environment.

And they can die in environments that are not prone to scavenging or immediate decay. So no, there's no reason to jump to the rather silly conclusion that it was a world-wide flood.

I should think an environment that had fish living in it would have scavenging, as it is done partly by fish. And, as fish do use oxygen, it would be hard to have one fish live, (which argues more than one), in an anoxic environment

Maynard Keenan · Oct 19, 2005

Um....why would a lot of water solve the problem of floating not sinking and how would just a bunch of water make a fossil. Your assertion makes no sense.

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

Also, the link appears to be of an incident involving a snake and croc. Prahaps it is the wrong link? I'm always having problems with links like that.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Also, the link appears to be of an incident involving a snake and croc. Prahaps it is the wrong link? I'm always having problems with links like that.

No, it was just an example of an animal chomping something too big for it.

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

Maynard Keenan said:
Um....why would a lot of water solve the problem of floating not sinking and how would just a bunch of water make a fossil. Your assertion makes no sense.

A world wide flood would not result in a standing body of water, but would have fast currents, volcanoes, and disturbances in the plates, bringing huge amounts of dirt and debris and laying down layers in a matter of hours.

nvxplorer · Oct 19, 2005

Since when do floods cause rapid fossilization?

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

Muddy sediments and rapid burial can easily create fossils. Fossils can form in a very short time, sometimes only a hundred years or so.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
I should think an environment that had fish living in it would have scavenging, as it is done partly by fish. And, as fish do use oxygen, it would be hard to have one fish live, (which argues more than one), in an anoxic environment

It's possible for anoxic environments to form, for example by covering the fish in a microbial mat (remember, we're not talking the whole environment, just where the fish is actually sitting).

It's also possible for fish to get buried under localized sediment.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
A world wide flood would not result in a standing body of water, but would have fast currents, volcanoes, and disturbances in the plates, bringing huge amounts of dirt and debris and laying down layers in a matter of hours.

The problem is you're fighting the host of evidence against the world-wide flood. You can't simply invoke a world-wide flood for a specific piece of evidence. You have to show that it is consistant with all the evidence, and is not falsified. But that's not the case for the world-wide flood, which is why no geologist thinks that actually happened today (well, except for a couple of Christian fundamentalists).

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

Almost anything is possible, just most things aren't probable.

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

Pete Harcoff said:
The problem is you're fighting the host of evidence against the world-wide flood. You can't simply invoke a world-wide flood for a specific piece of evidence. You have to show that it is consistant with all the evidence, and is not falsified. But that's not the case for the world-wide flood, which is why no geologist thinks that actually happened today (well, except for a couple of Christian fundamentalists).

Can a scientific hypothesis be destroyed with one piece of evidence?

All of the evidence as pertains to these fossil fish point to rapid burial by swift-moving water.

nvxplorer · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Can a scientific hypothesis be destroyed with one piece of evidence?

All of the evidence as pertains to these fossil fish point to rapid burial by swift-moving water.

Where are the rapidly fossilized biblical kinds? Are there any fossilized cattle alongside these fish? Oxen? Birds?

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

Do you think that these fossil are such that if supported with other evidence this would be proof for the flood?

RightWingGirl · Oct 19, 2005

nvxplorer said:
Where are the rapidly fossilized biblical kinds? Are there any fossilized cattle alongside these fish? Oxen? Birds?

If you are interested in this, please read http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp

Asimis · Oct 19, 2005

Dear RWG,

You may find this link useful to obtain info about the flood and young earth.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p82.htm

The flood in The Bible was local and not global.

As.

Pete Harcoff · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Can a scientific hypothesis be destroyed with one piece of evidence?

It's not just one piece of evidence. It's a whole lot of evidence.

All of the evidence as pertains to these fossil fish point to rapid burial by swift-moving water.

First of all, you've provided no evidence besides a single picture of a fossil. Second, so what? Rapid burial does not imply a global flood. Especially since there are things in the fossil record (like Tufa crusts, stromatolites, etc) that point to slow deposition.

It all depends on the specifics of whichever fossil you are looking at and what you can infer from the environment in which it occurred.

TeddyKGB · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Can a scientific hypothesis be destroyed with one piece of evidence?

Of course.

All of the evidence as pertains to these fossil fish point to rapid burial by swift-moving water.

Or it would if Harcoff had not already provided a plausible non-flood fossilization scenario.

And in any case, you have missed his point. Let me explain what your argument looks like:

1) A worldwide flood is contradicted by virtually all geological evidence.
2) This fossil could have been caused by a worldwide flood.
3) Therefore, a worldwide flood is plausible.

See the problem?

Pete Harcoff · Oct 19, 2005

RightWingGirl said:
Do you think that these fossil are such that if supported with other evidence this would be proof for the flood?

No, because it's not a matter of finding evidence for the flood, it's that there exists evidence which falsifies the flood. As long as there exists evidence that should not exist if the flood were true, then the flood is false.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Fossil Fish

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency