Creation Science Rebuttals

    The difference in age of the three rock layers was a span of one million years.  Since the fossil was nose-down, in these three rock layers, young earth creation science advocates Carl Wieland and Tas Walker claim that it is a “lethal body blow” to long ages.  If taken by itself, that would appear to be true.  However, when you consider that this is one data point, among millions which suggest the earth is old, you realize that there must be an explanation for this fossil.

     The young earth creationists mention the geologist who found and studied this fossil, and how his explanation for the phenomenon did not stack up to common sense.  There are two possible explanations for this fossil.

     First, given the right circumstances, it is entirely possible for the fossil to be preserved for a million years in soft mud, just as the geologist claims.  It all depends on the water.  If the organism was in an anoxic water environment (low oxygen), there would have been very little, if any, microorganisms to break down the fossil’s soft parts.  It could easily have remained unscavenged by predators for a long time, as the lack of oxygen would prevent predators from reaching the fossil.  Such anoxic water conditions are seen as a cause of such well preserved fossils in the Green River Formation in Wyoming.

     Second, assuming there was no anoxic conditions…I would suspect that the one million year variance in the dates is inaccurate.  I do not know if the geologist in question examined this possibility.  However, given the circumstances, it bears closer examination. 

      One thing is for certain.  The young earth creation science model, saying it was buried during the flood, would not work for this fossil.  As the young earth theorist’s state, dead organisms usually float.  Given the conditions of the Flood, as explained by an excellent computer simulation of currents when the entire surface of the earth is covered with water,² it would have been impossible to preserve a skull like this.  Currents would have reached 194 miles per hour…any dead animals would be torn apart, and their bones would be shattered as they were subjected to this force, and as organisms beat against one another in this global “washing machine.”  Using the young earth creation science model, you would have few, if any, well-preserved fossils from a worldwide flood.

     What the true answer is for this particular fossil is unknown...we can only say with certainty that it wasn't from a global flood 4,300 years ago.

     This article contains my limited rebuttal.  I do not have access to the article that Wieland and Walker refer to (it appears in a publication called Factum).  One person who does have this publication is the geologist in question, Achim Reisdorf of the University of Basel.  He emailed me, and pointed me to his online review of the Creation Magazine article.  It clearly shows how Wieland and Walker use questionable tactics (misquotes, omissions) in thier article.  Many of the questions they bring up are already answered by this website.  Click here.

¹  Creation Magazine, Volume 27, Issue 4.  Published on the web at https://creation.com/kamikaze-ichthyosaur