Re: Dead Bisons and fossilization

Glenn Morton (grmorton@waymark.net)
Wed, 28 Jan 1998 21:36:17 -0600

At 08:31 AM 1/28/98 -0600, Ron Chitwood wrote:
>>>>and now the erroneous contention
>that fossils of bison do not exist. <<<
>
>I know they exist, too. Its just that none from the 19th century when they
>flooded the plains by the millions do.

I am not sure this is correct either. If I were to go looking I am positive
I could find you some 19th century bison bones.

"Countless millions of the American Bison have roamed the western
prairies, yet only an occasional bone of one of these may now be
found. It is probable that after the lapse of a thousand years
not one in a million of these animals will have left a bone, or
any other indication, of its former presence. Insects live in
most lands in numbers reaching astronomical proportions yet
probably not more than one in many millions will leave any fossil
evidence of its existence."~William H. Twenhofel and Robert R.
Shrock, Invertebrate Paleontology, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Co., Inc., 1935), p.4.

They didn't say NONE!

And I don't know exactly what not having a 19th century bison fossil would
prove. There are lots of Indian kill sites which left behind lots of bison
bones. I would point you to an indian kill from Colorado from 6500 B.C.
which left a pile of buffalo bones. Any plains indian archeological site is
quite likely to find bison bones, so I don't think that you can make the
claim that you are. (and the indians did not bury bison bones so the ones
that are found are those that were then preserved by natural means.

>
> >>>And this raises a major frustration I have about the issue of
>> creation/evolution. Well meaning honest people like you, wanting to deal
>
>> with the problem of evolution, read books written by people who never did
>
>> sufficient research to ensure that their facts were correct. Then you
>trust
>> them, because you think they have done the work they should have done.
><<<
>
>I run into the same problem with evolutionists. They make pronouncements
>assuming evolution to be true when it isn't. The people you are quoting
>are very intricately detailed in their observations but those are just
>that, not experiments that have been scientifically verified and
>repeatable.

We aren't talking about theories, we are talking about observational facts.
Lets see whose raw facts are correct. You wanted to know about
fossilization partly because creationists proclaim that it doesn't happen
today. Who is correct, the evolutionist or the creationist? Since
fossilization occurs today the evolutionist must be correct.

The creationists say that the entire 10 periods of the geologic column are
found nowhere on earth. IT does infact exist vertically in proper order in
20+ basins around the world.

They say that coal comes from one global flood but can't explain the vast
quantities.

They say everything was deposited in a grand deluge but ignore the existence
of rain-drop impressions and mud cracks which are very often associated with
eachother in the fossil record.

> Darwinian evolution is considered by many to be just a fact,
>not a philosophy, and that is just not true. The overall picture that is
>presented today of lack of fossil 'mising links', is just one example. An
>evolutionist will scramble mightly for that one possible exception to the
>rule, and those seem to be the people you rely on for information. You, by
>the way, as well as I, MUST use the information gleaned from reading.
>There is no way possible for anyone to look over all the experiments done
>in the world.

Agreed, so in a global flood how do you deposit footprints, raindrop
impressions and hexagonal desciccation cracks, and burrows?
>
>>>> If you are trying to use this as an explanation within a global flood
>model,
>> then this won't work. Dinosaurs are more "ambulatory" than we are. They
>
>> could run faster and since they were taller could stick their heads out
>of
>> the water long after we would be swimming. Yet they occur in the fossil
>> record lower than any man.<<<
>
>Yeh, right. They also could not go climbing the mountains to escape the
>flood, either.

Then why don't we find mossasaurs and plesiosaurs in the Cenozoic strata
which is believed to be from later parts of the flood? Mossasaurs and
plesiosaurs swam in the ocean! These animals didn't have to flee to the
mountains yet they died out fairly early.

glenn

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

and

Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm