Re: fish and the flood

Glenn Morton (
Sat, 04 Apr 1998 21:27:26 -0600

At 07:42 PM 4/4/98 -0600, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>GM>>> For the sake of argument I am assuming that the geologic column was
>deposited in a one year deluge 4000 years ago. If this is true then there
>should be modern fish genera in the fossil record. There aren't
>As I am not as conversant with this type of data as you, I assume you are
>correct. There are no modern fish genera in the fossil record - so far.
>If this were being written in 1938 one could also say "there are no
>Coelecanths existing today. They died out some 40M years ago" and they
>would be correct - so far.

So from what I gather, you are saying that the fossil record is incomplete
and the modern fish genera remain to be found. In that case, why can't the
evolutonist say that the transitional forms remain to be found. It seems to
me that you are wanting it both ways, incomplete when it comes to the
fossils you need but complete when it comes to the fossils the evolutionists

Heads you win, tails I lose.

>Not sure of the point you are making. The Coelecanth, an 'animal' by
>normal definition, is alive today. although considered 'primitive' at one
>time and an index fossil and possibly a transitional fish to the amphibian
>world contradicts your assertion that there is not one animal alive today
>that died out millions of years ago.

The coelacanthiform, Latimera, the animal you refer to above is in the
species Latimera. Latimera has no fossil record and thus is NOT an index
fossil as you state. In order to be an index fossil one must first have a
fossil record. There are other coelacanthiformes which are index fossils
but the one found off Madagascar is bigger, has certain internal structures
that are not found in the fossil forms and thus is not what is found in the
fossil record. What you read in books like Boys,Evolution: Fact, Fraud or
Faith, p. 138-139 is totally false. He writes:

"Evolutionists taught for many years that a bony fish called the
'coelacanth' that swam int he seas in abundance about '400 million years
ago,' was a perfect intermediate. They suggested that it lurched upon land
searching for food and gradually stayed longer until it adapted to the new
environment. Then it disappeared about seventy million years ago until
1938. Then one was pulled from the waters off the coast of Madgascar,
exactly like the fossils fo '400 million years ago! No evolution!"

Not true. The one found in Madagascar is 5 ft long and the fossil ones are
much smaller and are in different genera.

>By the way, I haven't the faintest idea why you picked 4000 years ago. I
>certainly never advocated that date and it falls within the period after
>writing began

What date do you prefer?


Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man


Foundation, Fall and Flood