Fossil Fish

[EvoDan]

Just to contribute the experiences of a striped bass fisherman: it is not uncommon for a striped bass to eat (or at least try) a fish that is two thirds or more of its body length/mass.

Out here in Sacramento, on the American River, I've seen 30 lb stripers swimming around with 6 inches of American Shad tail hanging out of their mouths because they couldn't get the whole thing down. Greedy, perhaps, but if it was unsurvivable behaviour for the population, I'm certain it would have been selected out long ago.

[/fish story]

 

[RightWingGirl]

Sorry, I should have posted this before. Two of my pictures came from a creationist website, http://www.creationscience.com/ and the last came from http://www.fieldmuseum.org/ (Evolutionist)

I consider the fossils proof that it was buried quickly.

 

[notto]

I consider the fossils proof that it was buried quickly.

But what you need to show is that they were
1) buried recently
2) buried at the same time
3) buried by a global flood.

Nothing you have said get's you any closer to your goals. Do you really think that fish don't get buried quickly today by natural means that happen every day from floods to hurricanes to tsunamis to mudslides to droughts?

You haven't really brought any revelations to the table, just a seemingly poor understanding of what we already know about things that are fossilized.

We know
1) that many of them were buried quickly
2) that a single fossil doesn't take millions of years to form.

Unfortunately for you, we also know that
1) they weren't all buried at the same time
2) they weren't all buried by flooding
3) the weren't all buried recently.

 

[Jet Black]

I consider the fossils proof that it was buried quickly.

While on one hand I can see your justification for thinking that the fossil is proof that those particular fossils were buried quickly I should raise a couple of issues. First of all, do you know enough about the fossils to conclude that they did not merely die and sink into an anoxic environment? Your earlier claim that all fish float when they die is simply false. We know that many fish sink, and that the bottoms of some lakes are anoxic. Since nothing apart from anaerobic bacteria can live in anoxic environments, there will be no scavanging.

Secondly, even if the fish has died as a result of a sudden incident, on what basis can one conclude a global flood did that, and not just some local event?

 

[Jet Black]

With one peice of evidence? Never has a theory been destroyed with one peice, but several theories have been refuted with small findings....

well the Lumiferous Aether was destroyed with nothing more than the Michelson Morely Experiment, though granted the Lumiferous Aether was more of an hypothesis even at it's height.

 

[rjw]

Sorry, I should have posted this before. Two of my pictures came from a creationist website, http://www.creationscience.com/ and the last came from http://www.fieldmuseum.org/ (Evolutionist)

I consider the fossils proof that it was buried quickly.

Hello RWG,


Correct me if I am wrong, but the very act of fossilization requires that the animal be buried quickly or that it die in an environment where scavengers (big or microscopic) cannot get to it. Therefore a fish inside of fish is relatively unimportant as evidence for quick burial.

There are several ways in which a fish can be buried quickly enough for fossilization e.g. an undersea landslide, death in an anaerobic environment with subsequent covering by debris from a disturbance (storm, strong ocean current).

Landslides, anaerobic environments, storms – these all occurred billions of years ago, thousands of years ago and they still occur today. Therefore, a fish with a fish inside of it could have been buried hundreds of millions of years ago, thousands of years ago or even today.

You weren’t offering your example as some evidence for a young earth were you?


Regards, Roland

 

[comana]

By the by, I was just looking at the link you sent. The crock was fully swallowed by the snake before he was killed by his greed. The fish were still swallowing.
Fish have no legs to stick in the throat, and it would be very hard for a fish to be stuck in another fish's mouth. It did look as though the fish "caught in the act" had most of them already swallowed the other fish most of the way, that is, past the biggest part. (Although some fish hardly have a widest point)

I think the event is more common than you think. Fish in general are not so smart as is evidenced by one of my own (now deceased) fish.

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=52648

 

[RightWingGirl]

Well, there are two problems with your sumation; they need not have fossilzed quickly, and whether they fossilized quick or slow is not evidence of a local flood, let alone a global flood.

Now, based just on the photo you posted and modern comparisons, this was a deepwater predator. Why would a deep water predator be distressed by rain? Underwater events such as landslides can happen, and these can cause some organisms to become burried.

You're right, they need not have fossilized very quickly, although they probably did. Fossilization only takes a very short time. They did need to be buried quickly.



A world-wide flood has more implications besides a lot of rain. It is possible that it was during this time the continents split. A world-wide flood would cause tidal waves, underwater volcanoes, extremely fast currents and vast amounts of sediment being moved around. The “Fountains of the great deep were opened” and water was released from deposits underground. It is almost a miracle that any fish survived.

 

[RightWingGirl]

Some very valid objections have been posted. Those fish could have been buried by a local flood. However, as it was pointed out, one of the photos I gave was of a deepwater predator (Thanks, Dr. GH, I'm afraid I'm not that well up on my fish varieties!) How would a deepwater predator be affected by a mere local flood? How would it come to be buried rapidly, except by such a calamity as a world-wide flood? How did it come to be that so many examples can be found?

 

[Dr.GH]

Some very valid objections have been posted. Those fish could have been buried by a local flood. However, as it was pointed out, one of the photos I gave was of a deepwater predator (Thanks, Dr. GH, I'm afraid I'm not that well up on my fish varieties!) How would a deepwater predator be affected by a mere local flood? How would it come to be buried rapidly, except by such a calamity as a world-wide flood? How did it come to be that so many examples can be found?

You still misunderstand. How would any deepwater marine species be affected by a flood- global or otherwise, let alone one that allows fine grained sedimentation?

Secondly, I could be wrong making a diagnosis simply from a photograph. I mean- remember poor braindead Terry, and Bill Frist's braindead video diagnosis.

 

[notto]

Some very valid objections have been posted. Those fish could have been buried by a local flood. However, as it was pointed out, one of the photos I gave was of a deepwater predator (Thanks, Dr. GH, I'm afraid I'm not that well up on my fish varieties!) How would a deepwater predator be affected by a mere local flood? How would it come to be buried rapidly, except by such a calamity as a world-wide flood? How did it come to be that so many examples can be found?

Do you remember what caused the Tsunami that occurred recently?

Landslides and shifting occur in deep water as well. The Tsuanmi happened rapidly, affected deep water. Lots of stuff does. Nothing denotes a world wide flood in any of the specemins you cite. Lots of stuff points away from it such as them not all being found in a single event.

How can so many examples be found? How many do you think would be reasonable over the course of a few million years? Why do you think the number we find is high? You seem to be suggesting that we shouldn't find the high number of examples? Why? Do you have some data to suggest we shouldn't? A record of landslides and other events on which to base it?

On what basis do you suggest the things you do?

What suggests (and be specific as to why) that these specimins:
1) were buried by the same event (you haven't addressed this)
2) were buried recently (you haven't addressed this)
3) were buried by something other than common events that we can witness today. (including deep water landslides and other ocean events that we know happen)

You are jumping to a conclusion that isn't warranted by the evidence.

 

[RightWingGirl]

What suggests (and be specific as to why) that these specimins:
1) were buried by the same event (you haven't addressed this)
2) were buried recently (you haven't addressed this)
3) were buried by something other than common events that we can witness today. (including deep water landslides and other ocean events that we know happen)

You are jumping to a conclusion that isn't warranted by the evidence.

What we have so far is a fossil of a deep-ocean fish that was buried very quickly, by a catastrophe of great magnitude.



1) were buried by the same event Let us for the sake of debate assume that the fossils were buried by the same event. How would we tell?



2) were buried recently Of course this to could not be proved without a doubt. However, how would you suggest this could be proved, if it was buried recently?



3) were buried by something other than common events that we can witness today

Again, this could not be proved. What we can prove is that it was killed by an event great magnitude that such as would have occurred during a world-wide flood.


How does Evolution account for the numerous fossils of sea life at high elevations and on top of mountains?

 

[TeddyKGB]

What we have so far is a fossil of a deep-ocean fish that was buried very quickly, by a catastrophe of great magnitude.

There is no evidence that the burial event in question was "a catastrophe of great magnitude."

 

[RightWingGirl]

There is no evidence that the burial event in question was "a catastrophe of great magnitude."

Sir, what else would bury a deep-ocean fish so quickly?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Sir, what else would bury a deep-ocean fish so quickly?

A minor underwater cave-in?

 

[nvxplorer]

Or a major underwater cave-in, like an earthquake.

 

[RightWingGirl]

It could have been a small cave-in, but it is much more likely that a healthy fish in the act of eating would not succumb to something that small.
Almost anything is possible but most things are not probable.




How does Evolution account for the numerous fossils of sea life at high elevations and on top of mountains?

 

[RightWingGirl]

Or a major underwater cave-in, like an earthquake.

Yes, which would be one of the results of a world-wide flood, "The fountains of the great deep were opened" which implies disruptions in the earth

 

[RightWingGirl]

TeddyKGB-- How would you account for the numerous fossils of sea life at high elevations and on top of mountains?

 

[Grengor]

I believe it's called geological uplift.