Old Earth Geology Part 3 (Green River Formation)

[Job 33:6]

I've been wanting to make this post for awhile after being inspired by other discussions here in Christian Forums.

In continuation of part 1:
Old Earth Geology
And part 2:
Old Earth Geology Part 2 (The Grand Canyon)

I wanted to make a brief post about the green River formation.

As most of you know, the green River formation consists of roughly 5 million varves.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...r-Basin-by-Fred-McLaughlin-and_fig9_269202365

https://www.researchgate.net/figure...-Green-River-Formation-showing_fig2_234238517

varves - Google Search
And within these varves there is evidence of rapid burial such as when entire schools of fish were buried:
An Incredible Fossil Contains a Whole School of 259 Fish

As well as gradual burial, in which we have foot tracks and resting traces, displaying the passage of time needed for life to casually walk around in sediment:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure...entral-Utah-Soldier-Summit-and_fig2_281823202

With uniformitarianism and an old earth, this formation is sensible. Varves are observed in the present day to form as annual deposits, and this formation is roughly 5 million years of age.

Changing seasons result in the melting of glaciers which increases energy in meltwater, thereby moving heavier sediment. Winter comes around and glaciers reform, energy in the flow of melt water decreases, and so too does the size of sediment carried by flow of lower energy. The cycle repeats over and over, year after year, thereby producing varves, 5 million in number.
Varve - Wikipedia

Within some varves, fish can be rapidly buried by well known and common occurances such landslides, avalanches, rock falls, topple, rock slides etc.
avalanche rock slide topple - Google Search


Otherwise deposits can take an extended period of time, allowing for life to walk around in shallow portions of the lake between seasons.

An additional point on fossilization: stratigraphy shows us that the lake was anaerobic in it's deepest central portions. Anaerobic environments are ideal for fossil preservation, as this removes the possibility of aerobic bacterial decay and scavenging by animals that otherwise need oxygen to breathe.

But what do we get when we analyze this formation from a young earth perspective?

Propositions that a global flood produced the formation some 5,000 years ago?

Well, let's do the math. 5,000,000 varves / 5,000 years = 1,000 varves per year, every single year to the present day. Well, that doesn't make any sense. Aside from the fact that flood waters cannot produce repeating sequences of rock, a thousand times over in a single year...one would have to wonder how deposits stopped forming the moment we decided to look at the formation.

There simply are known physics that could be used to explain how a flood could deposit such a massive collection of varves in such a brief period of time.

But perhaps more than 1,000 varves formed in a single year. Maybe 2,000 formed per year for 2,500 straight years? Well of course this is even more rediculous than the prior suggestion.

Perhaps the global flood deposited all 5,000,000 varves in a single year? Well, that would suggest the deposition of some 13,000-14,000 varves every single day for 365 straight days. Of course this doesn't make any sense either and is more physically ludicrous than the prior two proposals. No physics known to man could ever explain such a thing.

Could a flood make cyclothems? Well it could make one cyclothem of a grade of varying layers. But it couldn't make hundreds, let alone thousands, let alone millions of repeating sequences of strata. Such an idea defies all known physics. Especially when the layers have foot tracks going through them which demonstrate the passage of time.

But what makes matters even worse for young earthers is that, as we see in the cross section at the beginning of this post, the green River formation makes up just a small sliver of an overall far more expansive geologic column. The green River formation might only be around 2,000 feet in thickness, while the geologic column at large, spans some 25,000.

So young earthers really can't explain even the smallest fraction of the geologic column.

But further, sections of the green River formation are also shaped like lakes. In that it's lithology changes from the outside of lakes, to the inside.

Fossil Butte

These basins arent even shaped as if they were deposited by a flood. And the fossils of them,
further identify with shallow lacustrine fresh water environments.

Now, some creationists make the claim that fossils have been found to cross cut multiple varves, thereby suggesting that varves were instantaneously deposited.

Aside from instantaneous deposit of varves contradicting known physics, it is known that varves may vary in thickness. And while varves may vary in thickness, we do not find fossils which cross cut multiple varves. The discussion can be ended by simply asking them to present evidence for their claims.

Additional comment: sometimes creationists will argue that multiple varves may form in a single year. Regardless of the question of if they can justify this, unless they can make a case for how 1,000 varves can form per year, for 4,000 straight years, then their response is somewhat meaningless.

In every aspect of examination, the green River formation strongly indicates an ancient earth, millions of years old.

I will continue to edit and update this post, but for now this can be a draft. I actually have a part 4 in mind too, but one at a time.

 

[Job 33:6]

Legitimate suggestions for updates are also welcome as I update the draft.

 

[-57]

Each wave could produce a varve.

Polystrate fossils show rapid deposits.

Bioturbatation would have destroyed the varves...

Original sin refutes the varves.

 

[Job 33:6]

Each wave could produce a varve.

Polystrate fossils show rapid deposits.

Bioturbatation would have destroyed the varves...

Original sin refutes the varves.

Care to elaborate on how waves would produce what we see? Feel free to take my post point by point.

Here are some key points from the original post:
1. The quantity of varves
2. The timing of deposition of the varves (5 million in one year? 500,000 every year for 10 years? Etc.)
3. How the varves are deposited (what causes energy to cycle, thereby changing the sediment deposited from heavy to light, such as changing seasons and glaciation)
4. The source of sediment (in uniformitarianism, it's being eroded by glaciers and carried by glacial melt)
5. Foot tracks between varves
6. Strictly fresh water Marine fossils of the carve (no salt water fish or Marine life)
7. The radial stratigraphic symmetry (formations are shaped in circles as are the shapes of lakes and the stratigraphy changes as we get closer to the center of the formation as a lake would change as we go deeper and toward it's center. )
8. The fact that fossils do not cross cut carved

One thing I'd be curious to hear is how would waves form oval shaped deposits that are stratigraphically sorted with radial symmetry?

Last I checked, waves do not flow in an outward direction from a central point.

And what would be the controlling factor which would change the waves from high energy to low energy and back and forth to deposit heavy sediment and light sediment respectively?

And further, how was there such a drastic transition in the concentration of oxygen (radially) if all the water simply washed in collectively in waves?

 

[RTP76]

Each wave could produce a varve.

Polystrate fossils show rapid deposits.

Bioturbatation would have destroyed the varves...

Original sin refutes the varves.

Hi 57. I agree that the conclusions from an old earth framework do have interpretive challenges, of which you pointed out several.

Another major challenge is nobody really knows the exact details of the flood--the Biblical account gives a high-level synopsis and the purpose/outcome of the judgment and a general sense of the events and fairly accurate timeline but that is about it. Often times arguments against it are based upon a set of preconceived ideas and assumptions that may or may not be true.

Yet another challenge is we do not know to what extent or how God triggered this judgment... we know it affected the physical earth and all life on land. Did He do it by only using known geological processes as of 12/13/2019 to trigger the flood as a series of very unfortunate events (in other words, he set the 'trap' during creation to trigger or 'spring' at just the right time), or did He intervene supernaturally in light of His evaluation of a continously evil/wicked humanity? I tend never exclude the possibility of God's supernatural intervention that results in defying known physical laws (such as Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, spitting into dirt and wiping on eyes to restore sight to the blind, dividing a few loaves and fish to feed thousands, bringing Lazarus back from the dead, bringing oneself back from the dead, etc...).

I'm not a geologist, but the documented research of the Green River formation has also shown that there are many well-preserved fossilized fish (not something that would preserve well if just dying under normal conditions and gradually sinking to the bottom. To your point, numerous fossils from the Green River formation are polystrate and illustrate many laminations being laid down before scavengers and aerobic/anaerobic decay could take effect. As well, there are a variety of fossils in the area also well preserved such as reptiles, tropical & subtropical plants, insects, marine invertebrates, etc...

What this seems to suggest is a multitude of environments and rapid burial with the appearance of many varves--these are minimal conclusions that can be drawn without really having to rely or build upon on assumptions, inferences, or biases. If we follow the Genesis account of the flood as it is written in its historic narrative, coupled with what little can actually be known from observational science regarding the Green River formation and the process of fossilization, we would naturally expect the flood to have been catastrophic and with evidence of many well-preserved fossils, from multiple environments.

Certainly not all of the geological aspects of the Green River formation have been researched / explained under a catastrophic / flood framework; however, keeping to a general view of what is observable and what it written in the flood account, in my layman's opinion fits the flood account narrative well.

@KomatiiteBIF
While I don't think I've really provided much in the way of constructive feedback (and your know my bias is to God's word and the narrative it contains regarding creation and the flood in this case) I do want to comment that in your usual fashion, this draft is well-written, clearly articulated and very nicely illustrated.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi 57. I agree that the conclusions from an old earth framework do have interpretive challenges, of which you pointed out several.

Another major challenge is nobody really knows the exact details of the flood--the Biblical account gives a high-level synopsis and the purpose/outcome of the judgment and a general sense of the events and fairly accurate timeline but that is about it. Often times arguments against it are based upon a set of preconceived ideas and assumptions that may or may not be true.

Yet another challenge is we do not know to what extent or how God triggered this judgment... we know it affected the physical earth and all life on land. Did He do it by only using known geological processes as of 12/13/2019 to trigger the flood as a series of very unfortunate events (in other words, he set the 'trap' during creation to trigger or 'spring' at just the right time), or did He intervene supernaturally in light of His evaluation of a continously evil/wicked humanity? I tend never exclude the possibility of God's supernatural intervention that results in defying known physical laws (such as Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, spitting into dirt and wiping on eyes to restore sight to the blind, dividing a few loaves and fish to feed thousands, bringing Lazarus back from the dead, bringing oneself back from the dead, etc...).

I'm not a geologist, but the documented research of the Green River formation has also shown that there are many well-preserved fossilized fish (not something that would preserve well if just dying under normal conditions and gradually sinking to the bottom. To your point, numerous fossils from the Green River formation are polystrate and illustrate many laminations being laid down before scavengers and aerobic/anaerobic decay could take effect. As well, there are a variety of fossils in the area also well preserved such as reptiles, tropical & subtropical plants, insects, marine invertebrates, etc...

What this seems to suggest is a multitude of environments and rapid burial with the appearance of many varves--these are minimal conclusions that can be drawn without really having to rely or build upon on assumptions, inferences, or biases. If we follow the Genesis account of the flood as it is written in its historic narrative, coupled with what little can actually be known from observational science regarding the Green River formation and the process of fossilization, we would naturally expect the flood to have been catastrophic and with evidence of many well-preserved fossils, from multiple environments.

Certainly not all of the geological aspects of the Green River formation have been researched / explained under a catastrophic / flood framework; however, keeping to a general view of what is observable and what it written in the flood account, in my layman's opinion fits the flood account narrative well.

@KomatiiteBIF
While I don't think I've really provided much in the way of constructive feedback (and your know my bias is to God's word and the narrative it contains regarding creation and the flood in this case) I do want to comment that in your usual fashion, this draft is well-written, clearly articulated and very nicely illustrated.

Feel free to read the original post. Check language regarding anaerobic stratigraphy as it pertains to fossil preservation as well as my commentary on mass wasting. Also, feel free to respond to commentary of post #4.

I don't mind that people have alternative beliefs, but the least people could do is elaborate on how those beliefs address the points of the original post.

I have updated some of the language thank you for reminding me if some of the opposing beliefs.

 

[Job 33:6]

To elaborate further, the original post already makes note of occurrences of rapid burial as a product of mass wasting. Which are things like avalanches mudslides rockslides topple rockfall etc.

In cases of slow burial, as mentioned in post number for and then updated in the original post, stratigraphy of fossiliferous basins in the formation indicate that the base of these prehistoric lakes were anaerobic, in which case anaerobic environments with expedited wrapping burial from glacial melt can produce an ideal location for fossil preservation. This is because scavengers cannot scavenge if there is no oxygen. and of course sediment deposited by glacial melt increases the rate of deposition producing what is in uniformitarian terms "rapid" burial.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also, there are no polystrate fossils of this formation. I don't know where people get this idea that perhaps there's a vertical fish cutting through multiple varves but I've certainly never heard of or seen such a thing. At best maybe a flat lying fish had a body thick enough that might poke through a seasonal half of a varve. But certainly nothing that would suggest that these varves where deposited by rapidly occurring waves.

 

[Job 33:6]

Also thank you for the feedback RTP.

I've been wanting to make this place for a while but never quite found the time. I would like to expand on it more maybe when I have more time. The first two parts regarding the geology of New York and the Grand canyon I think I have a bit more detailed and interesting. But I like this case because it's simple and straightforward.

 

[Job 33:6]

Hi 57. I agree that the conclusions from an old earth framework do have interpretive challenges, of which you pointed out several.

Another major challenge is nobody really knows the exact details of the flood--the Biblical account gives a high-level synopsis and the purpose/outcome of the judgment and a general sense of the events and fairly accurate timeline but that is about it. Often times arguments against it are based upon a set of preconceived ideas and assumptions that may or may not be true.

Yet another challenge is we do not know to what extent or how God triggered this judgment... we know it affected the physical earth and all life on land. Did He do it by only using known geological processes as of 12/13/2019 to trigger the flood as a series of very unfortunate events (in other words, he set the 'trap' during creation to trigger or 'spring' at just the right time), or did He intervene supernaturally in light of His evaluation of a continously evil/wicked humanity? I tend never exclude the possibility of God's supernatural intervention that results in defying known physical laws (such as Jesus walking on water, turning water into wine, spitting into dirt and wiping on eyes to restore sight to the blind, dividing a few loaves and fish to feed thousands, bringing Lazarus back from the dead, bringing oneself back from the dead, etc...).

I'm not a geologist, but the documented research of the Green River formation has also shown that there are many well-preserved fossilized fish (not something that would preserve well if just dying under normal conditions and gradually sinking to the bottom. To your point, numerous fossils from the Green River formation are polystrate and illustrate many laminations being laid down before scavengers and aerobic/anaerobic decay could take effect. As well, there are a variety of fossils in the area also well preserved such as reptiles, tropical & subtropical plants, insects, marine invertebrates, etc...

What this seems to suggest is a multitude of environments and rapid burial with the appearance of many varves--these are minimal conclusions that can be drawn without really having to rely or build upon on assumptions, inferences, or biases. If we follow the Genesis account of the flood as it is written in its historic narrative, coupled with what little can actually be known from observational science regarding the Green River formation and the process of fossilization, we would naturally expect the flood to have been catastrophic and with evidence of many well-preserved fossils, from multiple environments.

Certainly not all of the geological aspects of the Green River formation have been researched / explained under a catastrophic / flood framework; however, keeping to a general view of what is observable and what it written in the flood account, in my layman's opinion fits the flood account narrative well.

@KomatiiteBIF
While I don't think I've really provided much in the way of constructive feedback (and your know my bias is to God's word and the narrative it contains regarding creation and the flood in this case) I do want to comment that in your usual fashion, this draft is well-written, clearly articulated and very nicely illustrated.

One other comment, they're actually is not a wide variety of fossils and environment found in this formation. The fossils found here are actually pretty specific in that there are no saltwater fish. We don't find whales or sharks or plesiosaurs or any animals that we would expect to otherwise find beyond just a regular freshwater lake.

The lake being landlocked seems to be most significant.

You mention they're being insects and reptiles, well anyone can go to a lake and find bugs flying around the surface of the water and small reptiles living nearby.

But what we absolutely would not find, is a salt water Marine animal, that would otherwise be found in a small landlocked lake.

If a saltwater marine animal like a shark or whale were found in this formation it would instantly disprove my position.


This of course is in contrast with Marine strata of the ocean that are of saltwater marine facies such as those described in my old Earth geology part 1 Post. In these alternative stratigraphic columns, we find all sorts of saltwater organisms. But not in the Green River formation.

And please pardon my typos I'm attempting to use my talk-to-text options.

Update: the lake has super-positionally younger hypersaline deposits:
Hypersaline lake - Wikipedia

Though the position still stands that we wouldn't find saltwater animals that otherwise wouldn't be found in a relatively small landlocked lake.



Also, the geology supports this as the rock types themselves have a chemical makeup indicative of a freshwater lake. Not only are the fossils themselves of a freshwater nature, the rocks are too.

Eocene Fossil Lake, Green River Formation, Wyoming: A History of Fluctuating Salinity | Sedimentology and Geochemistry of Modern and Ancient Saline Lakes Models | GeoScienceWorld Books | GeoScienceWorld

Here's a paper...


BOOK CHAPTER
Eocene Fossil Lake, Green River Formation, Wyoming: A History of Fluctuating Salinity
Author(s)

Current Links for doi: 10.2110/pec.94.50.0239

• Published:
  
  January 01, 1994

• Cite
• Share
• Tools

Abstract:
Stratigraphic analysis of the 70-m thick Green River Formation in Fossil Basin of southwestern Wyoming reveals fluctuations in the water-column chemistry ranging from fresh to hypersaline. Fresh water dominated the first two-thirds of the lake’s history while hypersalinity dominated the final stages.

Salinity changes are identified by variations in calcite-dolomite ratio, tuff bed mineralogy (authigenic analcime, K-feldspar, and clay minerals), and paleontology. The lower two-thirds of the sequence are dominated by finely laminated carbonates (primarily kerogen-rich micrite), interrupted by 0.3- to 1.0-meter thick beds of massive dolomicrite. Dolomicrites grade laterally into bioturbated calcimicrites. The sequence is not random, and is related to a lithofacies assemblage including (from the base up) kerogen-rich laminated micrite, kerogen-poor laminated micrite, partly burrowed laminated micrite, and dolomicrite. Tuff beds occur randomly in the sequence and are composed of authigenic analcime and K-feldspar. Laterally, they grade into clays.

These data are interpreted as representing a lake fluctuating from fresh to hypersaline, with stages controlled by sudden freshwater expansions of the lake followed by more gradual regressions. However, initiation of dolomite precipitation was relatively sudden al the end of regressive stages. Even then, the lake remained relatively fresh along its margins as indicated by accumulated synchronous shore–phase calcimicrite. Tuff bed mineralogies confirm this conclusion.


The above appears to be discussing the radial deposition described in the figures of the original post, where chemistry of the lake changed based on depth, to the extent that the deeper portions were oxygen poor with higher saline and kerogen, with the shallower portions oxygen rich, less saline and with less kerogen.

Kerogen | chemical compound

I should just finish with the simple statement that any Marine animal that wouldn't live in a landlocked lake should not and has not been found, nor do such animals exist in the formation for the same reason we don't find sharks or whales in landlocked lakes (because they cannot traverse land to get there).

 

[-57]

Uniformitarian Difficulties
Uniformitarians predictably envision the Green River Formation forming over millions of years due to gradual deposition in large lakes. The Green River Formation is a favorite weapon for anticreationists, for here, they argue, are about 6.5 million years’ worth of varves (annual layers) to discredit the biblical timescale; bird and mammal tracks and insect nests to discredit the idea of a violent, year-long global flood; and mineral deposits allegedly formed by evaporation of water over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Some who previously supported the creation cause have found these arguments convincing (Morton 2003). However, there are many scientific objections to uniformitarian scenarios.

One of the most obvious problems with the uniformitarian scenario is that the so-called varves are not really varves. They should be more correctly termed rhythmites, which are any repeating unit of sedimentation. The varve scenario is unlikely because of the presence of excellently preserved fossils, especially fossil fish. Such an observation indicates that these thin laminae are not varves since fish will rot in only a few weeks, even on an oxygen-less bottom of a deep, cold lake (Whitmore 2003).

Another problem with assuming the Green River rhythmites are varves is their great regularity. Strahler (1987, 233) questioned the number and regularity of the Green River “varves,” a good question given the proposed fluctuations in the lake level:

ref

 

[-57]

Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue ref

The Green River Formation, a sedimentary feature of Wyoming and northern Colorado, is widely recognized for its high quality fossils of fish and other creatures. It has been dated at 40 million years and older. What are the odds, then, of original soft tissue fossils being found encased in its rock?

A new study showed that a "fossilized" lizard leg found in the formation is not made up of minerals, but instead still has the original skin and connective tissue. In a study published in the British scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, paleontologists applied a new technique that was able to detect the presence of original biomolecules such as amino acids, yet without damaging the sample.1 Prior studies relied on sample-destroying techniques, as in the case of one that sequenced proteins from hadrosaur blood vessels.2

This new study used infrared mapping, which detected light that reflected tell-tale patterns caused by organic molecules. The researchers then employed other techniques to cross-check whether or not the infrared mapping results were accurately detecting soft tissue that had not been replaced by minerals. Synchrotron rapid-scanning X-ray fluorescence detected original protein, and the results of X-ray diffraction and mass spectrometry were also consistent with this conclusion. In the end, the claim that the lizard tissue had not mineralized was thoroughly defensible.

The authors wrote:

Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organism's original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.1

Of course, this result forces a re-evaluation of the fossil's evolutionary age assignment. Even when kept dry and sterile, skin cells turn to dust as their proteins spontaneously deteriorate. But this fossil lizard skin from the Green River Formation shows at most thousands, not millions, of years' worth of decay.

This particular rock formation has features that indicate it was formed when a giant inland lake catastrophically drained into the Pacific Ocean. Rapid, wholesale burial of so many fish and other creatures was necessary for their remains to have been protected from scavengers and preserved as fossils. And recent burial in water-carried sediments would have been necessary to explain the persistence of these original tissues.

This catastrophic drainage and burial surely occurred just thousands of years ago—as the original tissue in this lizard leg attests. And this would be consistent with the biblical history of a young earth.

 

[-57]

Do Millions of Laminae in the Green River Shales Document Millions of Years? ref

The Green River oil shales have provided one of the very strongest arguments for millions of years, or at least one of the most used.

Take a specimen of the shale and slice it open perpendicular to the normal bedding, so that you look at the rock's internal characteristics from the side. You will see a multitude of tiny laminations, like pages in a book, but alternating light and dark. Each pair is called a varve usually interpreted as representing a yearly cycle of deposition, with the darker, coarser layer the summer deposit, and the lighter, finer layer from the winter. In the Green River shale deposits up to 6 million varves are found. Does this prove 6 million years?

Actually, in no location do all the varves exist. The total is derived by correlating sequences from several locations, arranging the partial records in consecutive order. Obviously, conclusions are subjective.

The real question is, does each varve unequivocally represent one year? Definitely not, for several reasons. Studies have shown that varve counts vary between individual locations in modern glacial lakes. Sometimes, the number of laminae covering a historically dated level was more than the elapsed years. One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. In the Green River Shale a 35% variance in number occurred between two "instantaneous" volcanic ash falls. "All" researchers now recognize that sometimes more than one varve can form in a single year.

There's also evidence it happened rapidly. Numerous fossils are found in the Green River Formation. Catfish in abundance are found, looking much the same as they did when alive. The thickness of their bodies transgresses several layers. Obviously a fish carcass, even if it did get to the bottom of a lake would not remain undecayed and unscavenged for several years, slowly being covered by seasonal deposits.

Even more remarkable are an abundance of bird fossils. In spite of their low density, bird fossils are copiously present here. If these sediments are from the bottom of a calm lake, as required by the standard varve interpretation, how could myriads of bird fossils be present? Bird carcasses don't lie on the bottom of a lake. What happened?

Further evidence against the uniformitarian, calm lake model comes from the nature of the sediments. The dark summer layer is organic rich, a commercial source of oil today. Organic material does exist in modern lakes, but a huge lake without disruptive storms or variable river input, year after year for six million years? Surely some things cannot be.

On the other hand, numerous examples of catastrophic deposits, hurricane debris, 90 mph mudflows at Mount St. Helens, and laboratory experiments, have documented rapid formation of multitudes of "varves." A detailed understanding of past, unobserved events is hard to construct, but in general, the Green River varved deposits support the global Flood of Noah's day model much better than the uniformitarian, long age model.

 

[-57]

The problem with this measurement of ages comes when we examine the facts. Fossils are found buried all throughout the layers, well preserved and abundant:

. . . fossil catfish are distributed in the Green River basin over an area of 16,000 km2 . . . The catfish range in length from 11 to 24 cm, with a mean of 18 cm. Preservation is excellent. In some specimens, even the skin and other soft parts, including the adipose fin, are well preserved (Buchheim and Surdam)
This is a problem because fossils are not preserved under normal circumstances. The varve must lie undisturbed before having another layer deposited on top of it. These layers are often less than a millimeter thick. The fossilized fish would need to not decay for the period between deposits. Research shows, however, that fish will decay within days:

Experiments by scientists from the Chicago Natural History Museum have shown that fish carcasses lowered on to the muddy bottom of a marsh decay quite rapidly, even in oxygen-poor conditions. In these experiments, fish were placed in wire cages to protect them from scavengers, yet after only six-and-a-half days all the flesh had decayed and even the bones had become disconnected. [1]
There is no way these layers could have formed annually as suggested, which has led some to consider catastrophic explanations.

ref

 

[-57]

As you see KomatiiteBIF, much study has gone into the Green River formation....

 

[The Barbarian]

Uniformitarians predictably envision the Green River Formation forming over millions of years due to gradual deposition in large lakes.

Perhaps you don't know what "uniformitarian" means. It doesn't mean "always gradual", it merely means that the rules by which the universe works, have been the same since the beginning. Ironically, the Green River deposits demonstrate that a young Earth is false, precisely because they didn't form continuously.

Varves are seasonal, two a year, and are countable precisely because they aren't continuous.

Varves are a particular kind of rhythmite, a seasonal form, identifiable by one light and one dark layer per year. And yes, fish and other organisms can be so preserved:

On a larger scale are obrution deposits, where episodic smothering by fine‐grained sediment ensures the rapid burial of mainly benthonic (sea‐floor) communities, and stagnation deposits, where anoxic (low oxygen) conditions in stagnant or hypersaline (high salinity) bottom waters ensures reduced microbial decay, in predominantly pelagic (open‐sea) communities. The well‐known Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale of British Columbia, with its ‘weird wonders’ described by Stephen Jay Gould, is a perfect example of a benthic community preserved by obrution, while the equally renowned Jurassic Holzmaden Shale of southern Germany, with its pregnant ichthyosaurs and other pelagic marine reptiles, is a good example of preservation by stagnation. In fact, most Conservation Lagerstätten combine obrution and stagnation in the preservation of soft tissue, and the classic Bavarian locality of Solnhofen, which has yielded the ten known specimens of the world's oldest bird, Archaeopteryx (Fig. 1), is a perfect example of such a site.
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Such an observation indicates that these thin laminae are not varves since fish will rot in only a few weeks, even on an oxygen-less bottom of a deep, cold lake (Whitmore 2003).

An incorrect assumption.

Another problem with assuming the Green River rhythmites are varves is their great regularity.

That's what varves do. Two per year. Very rarely does that change. In Lake Suigetsu, in Japan, the conditions are nearly perfect for varves, and over 60,000 years of varves are identifiable, interrupted only by layers of ash, caused by a nearby volcano.

 

[Job 33:6]

But of course, anyone who takes two seconds to Google the above article by whitmore can read the following:
Experimental Fish Taphonomy with a Comparison to Fossil Fishes

"The fish taphonomy of Fossil Basin does not contradict warm shallow lake models for the basin."-Dr.Whitmore

Further quotes are provided by Kevin R. Henke, Ph.D.:

"YEC Whitmore (2003, p. xvii) concludes the following about the preservation of the fish fossils in the Fossil Butte Member of Fossil Basin, Wyoming:

"The fish taphonomy of Fossil Basin does not contradict warm shallow lake models for the basin." [my emphasis]

Whitmore (2003, p. 160) reiterates:

"The taphonomy of the fish fossils within the Lower Sandwich Bed [of the Fossil Butte Member] does not contradict a warm (~20oC) shallow lake within depths of 10-15 [meters] in the center of the lake."

"Microbial mats may play an important role, not only in protecting a fish carcass from disarticulation after it has reached the bottom, but in helping the fish to adhere or 'stick' to the bottom so it does not refloat." -Dr. Whitmore




So in reality, Dr. Whitmore supports alternative explanations for slow burial in prehistoric lakes.

With the above said, post#4 still remains unaddressed.

And beyond that, as Barbarian has noted, anoxic environments are well known to be inducive of fossil preservation. So what we have here are multiple explanations for how fish would be preserved in the fossil Butte formation in a uniformitarian context.

 

[Job 33:6]

Green River Formation Fossil Has Original Soft Tissue ref

The Green River Formation, a sedimentary feature of Wyoming and northern Colorado, is widely recognized for its high quality fossils of fish and other creatures. It has been dated at 40 million years and older. What are the odds, then, of original soft tissue fossils being found encased in its rock?

A new study showed that a "fossilized" lizard leg found in the formation is not made up of minerals, but instead still has the original skin and connective tissue. In a study published in the British scientific journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, paleontologists applied a new technique that was able to detect the presence of original biomolecules such as amino acids, yet without damaging the sample.1 Prior studies relied on sample-destroying techniques, as in the case of one that sequenced proteins from hadrosaur blood vessels.2

This new study used infrared mapping, which detected light that reflected tell-tale patterns caused by organic molecules. The researchers then employed other techniques to cross-check whether or not the infrared mapping results were accurately detecting soft tissue that had not been replaced by minerals. Synchrotron rapid-scanning X-ray fluorescence detected original protein, and the results of X-ray diffraction and mass spectrometry were also consistent with this conclusion. In the end, the claim that the lizard tissue had not mineralized was thoroughly defensible.

The authors wrote:

Taken together, all the analyses performed in this study strongly suggest that the fossilized reptile skin in BHI-102B is not a simple impression, mineralized replacement or an amorphous organic carbon film, but contains a partial remnant of the living organism's original chemistry, in this case derived from proteinaceous skin.1

Of course, this result forces a re-evaluation of the fossil's evolutionary age assignment. Even when kept dry and sterile, skin cells turn to dust as their proteins spontaneously deteriorate. But this fossil lizard skin from the Green River Formation shows at most thousands, not millions, of years' worth of decay.

This particular rock formation has features that indicate it was formed when a giant inland lake catastrophically drained into the Pacific Ocean. Rapid, wholesale burial of so many fish and other creatures was necessary for their remains to have been protected from scavengers and preserved as fossils. And recent burial in water-carried sediments would have been necessary to explain the persistence of these original tissues.

This catastrophic drainage and burial surely occurred just thousands of years ago—as the original tissue in this lizard leg attests. And this would be consistent with the biblical history of a young earth.

This is just baseless commentary. Anyone can say whatever they want. The question is, can your claims actually be justified. Post #4 remains.

Obviously the "old earth" paleontologists who conducted research on the reptilian fossils see nothing wrong with their preservation, and neither do I or any other scientist.

Ideal forms of preservation, be them in anoxic environments, or as a product of rapid burial from mass wasting, etc. are known to occur. Which is why I posted the link of the school of fish being buried. We know that in certain cases, ideal preservation occurs, and that this is supported by uniformitarian ideals.

 

[-57]

As you evo's can and have clearly seen...if you read the articles....your green river has many problems.

Fish rot.

 

[Job 33:6]

"One study in a modern lake documented that 300-360 laminae had formed in 160 years. "-57 aka lobster image.

I'll update the OP on this.

But even if we were generous and assumed that perhaps 2 varves formed per year or 300 varves in 150 years...

We would still have 2.5 million years of varves.

Which is still several orders of magnitude far beyond anything young earth beliefs can explain.

And further again, we are talking about an exceptionally small portion of an overall far more expansive geologic column. We're talking about a fraction of a 2,000 foot thick formation, in a column of over 25,000 feet of varying lithologies.

Even if we were super generous in giving the benefit of a doubt to creationists who believe that more than one varve could form per year, they're still miles away from an adequate explanation.

And with that again, I defer to post#4.