The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube

Fossils can form quickly (Talk.Origins)

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

(Redirected from CC361)
Jump to: navigation, search
Talkorigins.jpg
Response Article
This article (Fossils can form quickly (Talk.Origins)) is a response to a rebuttal of a creationist claim published by Talk.Origins Archive under the title Index to Creationist Claims.


Claim CC361:

Fossils can form rapidly, so fossils are not a problem for a young earth.

Source: No source given.


CreationWiki response: (Talk.Origins quotes in blue)

1. Most fossils, by themselves, are not a problem for a young earth.

Actually, no fossils are a problem for a young earth.

The problems come from geological context, including the following:

Such problems only occur when the geological context is interpreted by uniformitarian geology. When they are interpreted by flood geology these so-called problems do not exist. This a good example of "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong."

  • Independent dating of sediments via any number of techniques.

None of which methods are truly independent. All these methods are mutually calibrated to each other and to the geologic column. It is really a case of "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong."

  • Multiple layers of fossils. Sometimes each layer preserves an entire ecosystem, which would have taken decades to establish.

All this shows is that the Flood buried entire ecosystems together. It does not prove that any of the ecosystems existed at the spots where the fossils are found. This is yet another case of "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong."

  • Large number of fossils, beyond what the earth could support at once, showing multiple generations were necessary.
  1. This may be the case for the post-Flood Earth but not the pre-Flood Earth.
  2. The number of fossils is exaggerated. Such numbers are not based on actual counts but estimates and untested assumptions about fossil density.
  • In-place marine fossils on mountains, showing that the mountain must have risen since the fossil was deposited.

This assumes uniformitarian theories of mountain formation. According to Flood geology the large mountains rose in at most a few months, and most likely only a few days. As such this is yet another example of "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong."

  • Reworked fossils, showing that a mountain must have risen and eroded since the fossil was deposited. In Flood geology it is unlikely
  1. This assumes that so-called reworked fossils have actually been reworked. This notion is mainly a way of explaining away out-of-place fossils.
  2. Like the claim right before it, this assumes uniformitarian theories of mountain formation. According to Flood geology the large mountains rose in at most a few months, and most likely only a few days.
  3. This is a double case of "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong."
  4. With the massive hydraulic movements occurring during the flood, it would be expected that some of sediments laid down during the flood would be reworked during later stages of the flood.
  5. Flood geology does not rule out limited post-flood catastrophes that could also rework sediments.
2. Many fossils occur in amber, and the formation of amber cannot happen rapidly. First, plant resin polymerizes to produce copal, which takes thousands of years. Then the volatile oils must evaporate, which can take millions of years more.

No basis is given for this claim. All we have is Talk.Origins' word for it. This can not be based on direct observation, so what is it based on? The most likely basis would be by calculating the time based on current rates the processes involved, but once again that assumes uniformitarianism. As is so often the case it ignores the possible affects of the Flood. So this is yet another example of "Your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong."

Personal tools