Frozen feeding

Dr Joachim Scheven fisheatingfishscheven
This fish, fossilised before it could finish eating another one, speaks of being buried quickly. This specimen is in the creationist museum Lebendige Vorwelt, in Hagen-Hohenlimburg, Germany.

by Carl Wieland

Article from:
Creation
19(2):52
March 1997

How long does it take a well-preserved fish fossil to form? The average member of the public, including most teachers of science classes, would reply with a story involving long periods of time. In this view, a dead fish on the bottom of a lake or sea is slowly covered by particles of mud or sand settling on the bottom.

The Bible would indicate, on the other hand, that most fossils were formed rapidly, buried in mud or sand carried by large volumes of water during the great Flood or its aftermath.1

One fossilized fish is of the species Mioplosus labracoides, from the so-called late Early Eocene Fossil Lake sediments of the Green River Formation (Wyoming, USA). It was apparently trapped in sediment and buried while part-way through swallowing another fish. Another fossil shows a fish which has already eaten its meal, but has not yet had a chance to digest it.

Although these are spectacular examples of rapid burial, the evidence against the idea of slow burial of fossils has always been there in the many millions of well-preserved fossil fish, often showing such things as scales and fins in exquisite detail. This fits with the idea that they were buried before scavengers got to them. We do not observe carpets of dead fish, or even their skeletons, on the sea floor today waiting to become fossils. Also, if the sediment did not harden fairly soon after entombing the fish, oxygen and bacteria could still get at the specimens, causing decay and ruining the features.2

Some evolutionists today have conceded that fossils do not need millions of years to form, but unfortunately for most people the very word ‘fossils’ still speaks of slow processes over millions of years. God’s Word, the Bible, prophesied3 of ‘scoffers’ who would be ‘willingly ignorant’ about the Flood, which is a testimony to God’s awesome holiness and judgment upon sin. Evidence such as this is clearly and dramatically consistent with the biblical account.

References and notes

  1. We know today of huge underwater avalanches called ‘turbidity currents’ which happen when there are earth tremors and/or slumpings of sediments on the sea floor. They can carry millions of tonnes of mud and ooze at express train speeds. With the upheavals inevitably associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ recorded in the Bible, it is no wonder that most of the fossil record consists of buried sea creatures. Return to text.
  2. Diehard ‘gradualists’ would claim that there would occasionally be areas of the sea or lake floor with, say, very little oxygen. However, there are bacteria which thrive without oxygen. In any case, a dead fish on the bottom of a sealed, sterile container in water does not retain its features for long at all, but falls apart (try the experiment yourself). Return to text.
  3. 2 Peter 3:1-18. Return to text.
We know today of huge underwater avalanches called ‘turbidity currents’ which happen when there are earth tremors and/or slumpings of sediments on the sea floor. They can carry millions of tonnes of mud and ooze at express train speeds. With the upheavals inevitably associated with the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’ recorded in the Bible, it is no wonder that most of the fossil record consists of buried sea creatures.
Diehard ‘gradualists’ would claim that there would occasionally be areas of the sea or lake floor with, say, very little oxygen. However, there are bacteria which thrive without oxygen. In any case, a dead fish on the bottom of a sealed, sterile container in water does not retain its features for long at all, but falls apart (try the experiment yourself).
2 Peter 3:1-18.

Related Articles

Further Reading

Readers’ comments
Guy W., United Kingdom, 21 June 2017
As a totally convinced Creationist I do have a question for the godly scientific community. Given that c. 1,500 years of antediluvian life existed from the Fall of Man onwards. I incessantly have my ear banged by TV commentaries about the chalk deposits in Southern England. I live in the South Downs near Pulborough (where Morning Has Broken was written) and the whole area from Chichester to Eastbourne (in Piltdown Man country) where massive hills made of multi-billions of tons of chalk which they say is made up of tiny fossil remains of sea creatures. My question is how long would it take to produce such a quantity of such 'moluscidae' if that is really what they are made of.
Warren Nunn responds
You should find this article helpful Can Flood geology explain thick chalk beds?
Graeme M., Australia, 2 July 2017
Hi CMI, Regarding the experiment, reference 2, was the sealed specimen encased in soil or sand, and was it also subject to pressure (weight) this I'm certain would have a resulted in a different outcome if these principles were applied. Regards, Graeme.
Tas Walker responds
No the speciment is not encased in soil or sand. That is the point. Those who advocate slow-and-gradual fossilzation suggest the fish lay on the bottom without being covered by sediment.