RE: [asa] AIG blurb of the week

From: Jon Tandy <>
Date: Mon Dec 11 2006 - 12:04:58 EST

This seems absolutely absurd. The fact that they were instantaneously
covered by something at the moment of giving birth has nothing to do with
whether the fossil was ancient or modern. YEC doesn't have sole claim on
catastrophic occurrences in nature.

The assertion (given without evidence) saying the baby ichthyosaur's tissue
would have decomposed quicker is the only argument for a rapid or gradual
fossilization process. But regardless of the truth (or likely, falsehood)
of the assertion regarding the delicacy of the baby's flesh, the flesh of
each animal would have begun naturally decomposing probably within days,
which negates any real difference between the preservation of the mother or
the baby. Therefore, whatever caused the mother and baby to be buried,
obviously must have caused both to be preserved in very short order against
further decomposition, and says absolutely nothing about the age of the
fossils themselves.

This is merely a spectacular example of catastrophism, and of non sequitur
(if not outright deception).

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of Carol or John Burgeson
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 10:07 AM
Subject: [asa] AIG blurb of the week

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


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

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 with "unsubscribe
asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 11 12:05:54 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 11 2006 - 12:05:54 EST