[asa] AIG blurb of the week

From: Carol or John Burgeson <burgytwo@juno.com>
Date: Mon Dec 11 2006 - 11:06:46 EST

This is AIG's blurb of the week. I really don't understand their
argument.

Burgy

Q: What do fossils have to do with giving birth?

A: Most people believe it takes millions of years for a fossil to form,
but that it only takes a short period of time for a mother to give birth.
But knowing that birth is such a brief process shows us that fossils
don’t take millions of years to form! Consider this startling example:

A museum in Germany has a beautifully detailed fossil on display. It
shows an ichthyosaur in the process of giving birth to a fully formed
baby. The baby, except for the head, appears to have emerged from the
body of the mother.

This fossil presents a problem for those who think such fossils were
formed over millions of years. It’s obvious that the mother and baby
ichthyosaur must have been buried instantly to capture the birth while it
was occurring. Also, the tissues of the baby ichthyosaur would have been
more susceptible to decomposition, and yet they were preserved in nearly
perfect detail.

When we study the events of Genesis such as the Flood of Noah, and the
destruction it would’ve caused we shouldn’t be surprised to find such
fossils as an ichthyosaur caught in the act of giving birth. Such fossils
make sense when you start with the Bible.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 11 11:15:19 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 11 2006 - 11:15:19 EST