Large collections of fossils indicate catastrophism (Talk.Origins)

Claim CC362:


 * There are many places where fossils occur in great numbers. These vast fossil beds indicate catastrophic rapid burial, not gradualistic conditions.

Source:
 * Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 97-100.

CreationWiki response:

This assumes that fossils are always found where the animals lived or close to where they lived. A uniformitarian geologist would have to make such an assumption since his theory provides no way of transporting dead animals over large distances. However such fossil beds are predicted by flood geology. A global flood would be capable of transporting bodies hundreds or even thousands of miles.

Most places where mass fossil beds are found do not have conditions like the La Brea Tar Pits. In most cases there is no reason to conclude that the fossils resulted from animals dying over a long time, except the requirements of uniformitarian geology. To get such fossil beds by uniformitarian methods not only requires having persistent conditions for fossilization, but it also requires having large numbers of different types of animals dying in the same area, while keeping scavengers from scattering and destroying the bones. The La Brea Tar Pits does this by preventing the bones from scattering and trapping the scavengers, but this would not be the case in most areas where mass fossil beds are found. As a result the most likely origin of mass fossil beds would be a massive large scale flood.

This figure is nothing but conjecture at best. The figure comes from Robert Broom. He starts with an estimated 5 visible fossils per square mile. For his next step, he seems to estimate about 1000 fossils per square mile in the top layer when those covered by sand and dust are considered. He gives no reason for why this figure might be accurate but simply assumes it. Next he multiplies the 1000 fossils per square mile by the 200,000 square miles of the formation to get 200,000,000 fossil animals at the surface. Finally he assumes a new fossil layer every 6 inches over the 2,000 foot average thickness of the formation, giving 4,000 layers of fossils to get the 800 billion figure. Of all the figures used in deriving this estimate only the 200,000 square miles of the formation and the 2,000 foot average thickness seem to have any basis in fact, the others are pure conjecture. Even the figure for the average number of visible fossils per square mile seems be a guess. The simple fact is that by making the right assumptions one could arrive at any figure for the estimated number of fossils one wants.

Even if the estimated number were correct, according to Flood geology most of the dead animals would have been funneled into the area by the Flood so this number is still not a problem.
 * See: Woodmorappe, J., 2000. The Karoo vertebrate nonproblem: 800 billion fossils or not CEN Tech. J. 14(2): 47-49.

This statement makes several assumptions.
 * 1) That the 800 billion figure is accurate.
 * 2) That the area contains only 1% of the world's fossils.
 * 3) That the land area in the past is about the same as it is today.

If any of these assumptions are wrong, so is this figure. Even if it could be correct, all it would show is that in the past the Earth was capable of supporting more life than it does today and such is expected in Flood geology.


 * 1) The pre-Flood Earth was probably capable of supporting this extra plant biomass
 * 2) Estimates of how of how much biomass is needed to form observed coal and oil deposits assume uniformitarian theories of coal formation, estimates based on Flood geology are considerably less.
 * See: Walker, T., 1999. Geology and the young earth Creation 21(4): 16-20.

While this is true, no recent process comes even close to examples found in the fossil record such as the Karoo Formation in Africa.

Grandes coleções de fósseis indicam catastrofismo (Talk.Origins)