Re: [asa] AIG blurb of the week

From: PvM <>
Date: Mon Dec 11 2006 - 12:16:17 EST

Strawman: Fossils take millions of years to form...
By focusing on the few fossil examples, AIG has to ignore a vaste body
of evidence that contradicts their ideas of a global flood.
The cost of such is high to both science and faith.

On 12/11/06, Jon Tandy <> wrote:
> 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
> To:
> Subject: [asa] AIG blurb of the week
> 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 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.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 11 12:16:45 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 11 2006 - 12:16:45 EST