The Biblical Case for Pro-Choice & Stem Cell Research

[BJean 16]

gadgetlady: TommyO has a good point for most of us here and presented it in a very entertaining way. We will believe whatever we believe. He was just offering up a viewpoint. I believe that what he was trying to convey is that we can all argue here until the cows come home.

If scientists and theologians who have spent their lives trying to prove or disprove the theories of creationism and evolution cannot agree how human beings were created, nobody here is going to resolve it for us.

For you to say it is "ridiculous" and behave as if he is a scientist or theologian with an incorrect theory, is ridiculous.

[Ron Cusano 0]

With all due respect, there is more scientic evidence to support the biblical claims of creation, and I might add the flood, than there is against it. A lot more!

I am sure that you have not read this in the media, but with the growth of DNA technology, many scientists have now concluded that there is a single person in past geneology from whom all people have come from.

Even the Einstein Theory of Relativity concluding that all thing in existance are growing older, indicates that at some point in time they had to be younger. And, if you trace backward far enough, there had to be a starting point; a point of creation!

So Gadgetlady, you are willing to take the Bible as truth, but not the theory of evolution? Isn't it really because you choose to believe the words in the Bible, not because of any proof or lack of proof? You mention several sources that you think make creationism credible. I believe they impress you because they back up your beliefs, not because they provide any real proof.

When people start quoting passages in the Bible I usually realize that they have made a decision to believe in the Bible and one must weigh their arguments knowing that they have this "faith" that has little to do with scientific theories or facts as we know them. Carl Sagan believed in the concept of God. He was also a scientist. He said he believed in God because that's what he chose to believe. I was impressed with his honesty.

[gadgetlady 4]

gadgetlady: TommyO has a good point for most of us here and presented it in a very entertaining way. We will believe whatever we believe. He was just offering up a viewpoint. I believe that what he was trying to convey is that we can all argue here until the cows come home.

If you wanna believe the universe is only 47 years old, more power to you.

If scientists and theologians who have spent their lives proving or disproving the theories of creationism and evolution cannot agree how human beings were created, nobody here is going to resolve it for us.

I've said that more than once. My hope is to present an opposing viewpoint to some of you, perhaps one that you have never heard presented in a thoughtful and realistic manner. Some may investigate, and some may not. Hopefully some will gain a little insight into creation science and understand that it is not a bunch of bull put together by people who believe the earth is flat.

I never knew about creation science until I was in my late 20's. All I had ever heard was evolution. The first time I saw a picture of a whale fossil vertically suspended through several layers of rock strata, I realized evolution theory might have a problem. When I heard of a miner's hat becoming fossilized in fewer than 50 years, I was intrigued. It was with investigation that I learned.

I will quote from a newsletter I just received about the tv show "Family Guy":

In the episode “Petarded,” a character named Peter takes an IQ test. When he goes to find out the results, a doctor shows him a chart depicting where he is intellectually. The chart, in descending order, shows:

Average

Petarded

Peter

On the bottom of the chart, under Peter, who himself is listed under “petarded,” we see the word “creationist.”

How easy do you think it is to present an alternate theory of origins in a world that mocks it? Most people absorb not only debasing discussions of creation science throughout their lives, but also "facts" (which I contend are not factual) about evolution theory as well. How easy is it to present alternatives to people who have been brainwashed?

[anonemouse 1]

How easy is it to present alternatives to people who have been brainwashed?

I would ask you the same question.

Claim CC335:

Near Lompoc, California, an eighty-foot whale fossil was found in a diatomaceous earth quarry. It was oriented vertically (standing on its tail), passing through millions of years of strata. Only a cataclysmic deposition could account for this. Source:

Ackerman, P. D., 1986. It's a Young World After All, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, pp. 81-83.

Response:

1. The fossil was not vertical. It was 40 to 50 degrees off horizontal, and the fossil was oriented parallel to the strata. In other words, the whale was horizontal when buried. The strata were later uplifted and folded into their present orientation.
   
2. There is no evidence for catastrophic deposition. The strata show laminations such as occur from slow accumulation onto an anoxic bottom. A partially buried whale skeleton has been observed off the coast of California; it exemplifies how such fossilization could occur.

Links:

South, Darby, 1995. A whale of a tale. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/whale.html

Where did you see something about a miner's hat being fossilized?

[BJean 16]

Gosh, some people just take themselves way too seriously.

[gadgetlady 4]

Where did you see something about a miner's hat being fossilized?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i3/fossil_hat.asp

The vertical whale was a photo I saw about 15 years ago. It will take me some time to find it.

[green 6]

ID and creationists start with a belief and then set about to prove it correct. Evolution started out as a question looking for an answer. Two very different approaches I suggest.

Tomorrow I turn 47, and from my perspective the world/universe began that day. A supreme being decided that it was time for a little fun so it decided to create the TommyO universe. Based on that premise I have decided to prove that the world is 47 years old and I can use much of the same argument as the creationist use. My theory will be called Design unto Him (Him being TommyO) or Duh for short. Now go ahead and disprove my theory, In no time I will put together all sorts of arguments why the other theory is wrong making mine right.

My theory is much closer to ID and creationism in it's premise so I would like to invite all of those folks to become active members in my society. If you do we can ten safely say that If the theory of evolution is wrong it proves that we are right Duh!

P.S the supreme being made me in his image so it's nice to know he is not skinny but he does have a rather large________

P.S.S He does approve of the band and he gave me a brain so I could think for myself and I do

I have to agree with TommyO. I wasn't alive until He was born. This has shaved 10 years off my age. Yippee! Thanks, TommyO. You're the best.

[anonemouse 1]

The following is a quote from a website, not my own wording.

Ken Ham: QUESTION: If most fossils were formed during Noah's Flood, a few thousand years ago, is there any evidence that fossils can form quickly?

Ken Ham: ANSWER: My favorite fossil is a miner's hat. It's rock hard.

And I'll lay you 99 to 1 odds that it's a concretion, not a fossil. Not that it matters much.

Scientists are well aware that fossils can form quickly. We are also aware that concretions can form quickly. My favorite example is a spark plug with a mass of rock around it which is loved by creationists as evidence of "fast fossils". Scientists consider it a minor example of a well known phenomena and have even identified the make and model of spark plug.

But people desperate to shore up crumbling beliefs will take whatever "evidence" they can find and make mountains out of grains of sand.

Scientists know that certain kinds of rock formations can take a long time. Scientists know that other types of rock can form very quickly. Creationists, meanwhile, lump the whole thing together as "fossils" and declare that if *that* forms quickly, then all of them can! This is pathetically stupid, even by creationist standards. Cement can set overnight into rock, so all rocks can! And yet, such fuzzy thinking is rife in creationism. This fish could survive the Great Flood, so all fish could! Some plants don't die when submerged underwater for a few weeks, so all plants could survive the Flood for over a year unscathed!

If anyone (apart from creationists) believe this kind of "logic", let me know, I have some investments I'd like to interest you in.

If anyone wants to know about the "fossilized" spark plug, here is an article.

[BJean 16]

Like I said laurend, you come up with good stuff.

[BJean 16]

TommyO I'm trying to get a visual. ahem.

[anonemouse 1]

Like I said laurend, you come up with good stuff.

Thank you.

[gadgetlady 4]

3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.

a) Common fossils.

There are billions of fossil fish in rock layers around the world which are incredibly well-preserved. They frequently show intact fins and often scales, indicating that they were buried rapidly and the rock hardened quickly. In the real world, dead fish are scavenged within 24 hours. Even in some idealized cold, sterile, predator-free and oxygen-free Water, they will become soggy and fall apart within weeks.3 A fish buried quickly in sediment that does not harden within a few weeks at the most will still be subject to decay by oxygen and bacteria, such that the delicate features like fins, scales, etc. would not preserve their form. Rapid burial in the many underwater landslides (turbidity currents) and other sedimentary processes accompanying Noah’s Flood would explain not only their excellent preservation, but their existence in huge deposits, often covering thousands of square kilometres.

Special examples.

We’ve often featured in this magazine instances which are particularly spectacular, like the mother ichthyosaur apparently ‘freeze-framed’ in the process of giving birth. Then there are the fossil fish which are found either in the process of swallowing other fish or with undigested fish intact in their stomachs

from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/howold.asp

[gadgetlady 4]

Morris then went on to explain that “large fossils...are found which extend through several strata, often 20 feet or more in thickness” (p. 102). Ken Ham has noted: “There are a number of places on the earth where fossils actually penetrate more than one layer of rock. These are called ‘polystrate fossils’ ” (2000, p. 138). Such phenomena clearly violate the idea of a gradually accumulated geologic column since, generally speaking, an evolutionary overview of that column suggests that each stratum (layer) was laid down over thousands (or even millions!) of years. Yet as Scott Huse remarked in his book, The Collapse of Evolution:

Polystratic trees are fossil trees that extend through several layers of strata, often twenty feet or more in length. There is no doubt that this type of fossil was formed relatively quickly; otherwise it would have decomposed while waiting for strata to slowly accumulate around it (1997, p. 96).

Probably the most widely recognized of the polystrate fossils are tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, four or more sections of rock—rock that supposedly was deposited during vast epochs of time. However, organic material (like wood) that is exposed to the elements will rot, not fossilize. Thus, the entire length of these tree trunks must have been preserved very quickly, which suggests that the sedimentary layers surrounding them must have been deposited rapidly—possibly (and likely) during a single catastrophe (see Ham, 2000, p. 138). As Leonard Brand explained, even if the trees had been removed from oxygen, “anaerobic bacteria cause decay unless the specimens are buried rapidly” (1997, p. 240). Consequently, it is irrational to conclude from such evidence that these formations built up slowly over millions of years. The logical explanation for such formations is that they must have been formed quickly under cataclysmic conditions. Ken Ham has observed: “For example, at the Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2,500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, which are beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposedly laid down over millions of years” (p. 138). In what surely must be a classic case of understatement, Rupke wrote concerning the Joggins polystrate fossils: “Only a wholly uncommon process of sedimentation can account for conditions like these” (1973, p. 154). [For reviews of the Joggins polystrate fossils, see: Corliss, 1990, pp. 254-256; Rupke, 1973, p. 154.] In other words, these erect fossil trees required a speedy burial to be preserved fully. What better evidence for a catastrophic event than trees fossilized in an upright position and traversing multiple layers of the geologic column? As Paul Ackerman remarked, the polystratic tree trunks “constitute a sort of frozen time clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred—not over millions of years but very quickly” (1986, p. 84).

This type of phenomenon is not an isolated one. Rupke produced a photograph of “a lofty trunk, exposed in a sandstone quarry near Edinburgh [scotland], which measured no less than 25 meters and, intersecting 10 or 12 different strata, leaned at an angle of about 40°” (1973, p. 154). Thus, this particular tree must have been buried while falling down! In fact, one scientist who examined the tree, George Fairholme, commented on the fact that an inclined trunk constitutes a much stronger testimony for rapidity in deposition than an upright one because

...while the latter might be supposed to have been capable of retaining an upright position, in a semi-fluid mass, for a long time, by the mere laws of gravity, the other must, by the very same laws, have fallen, from its inclined to a horizontal position, had it not been

retained

in its inclined position by

the rapid accumulation

of its present stony matrix

(1837, p. 394, emp. added).

In his book, The Creation-Evolution Controversy, R.L. Wysong presented a photograph of another extremely unusual polystrate tree. The caption underneath the photograph read:

This fossil tree penetrates a visible distance of ten feet through volcanic sandstone of the Clarno formation in Oregon. Potassium-Argon dating of the nearby John Day formation suggests that 1,000 feet of rock was deposited over a period of about seven million years or, in other words, at the rate of the thickness of this page annually! However, catastrophic burial must have formed the rock and caused the fossilization, otherwise the tree would have rotted and collapsed (1976, p. 366; see Nevins, 1974, 10[4]:191-207 for additional details).

After discussing the effects of the May 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens, Trevor Major commented: “...upright tree stumps found in many coal beds represent, not the remains of trees growing in a peat swamp, but the effects of a flood or similar disaster” (1996, p. 16). William J. Fritz, an evolutionist, recognized the phenomenon in fossilized trees at Yellowstone National Park and stated: “I do not think that entire Eocene forests were preserved in situ [in place—JD/BT] even though some upright trees apparently were preserved where they grew (1980a, p. 313, emp. added). In another article published the same year in the same scientific journal, Fritz wrote:

Deposits of recent mud flows on Mount St. Helens demonstrate conclusively that stumps can be transported and deposited upright. These observations support conclusions that some vertical trees in the Yellowstone “fossil forests” were transported in a

geologic situation directly comparable to that of Mount St. Helens

(1980b, p. 588, emp. added).

Evolutionary uniformitarianism would have us believe that the same processes going on in nature today have formed the Earth—as opposed to large-scale catastrophes (like, for example, the Flood of Noah recorded in Genesis 6-8). However, in light of the evidence from polystrate fossils, creationists believe that just the opposite is true. Some scientists have suggested that the fossil forests in Yellowstone may have been transported by geologic and/or volcanic activity possibly associated with the Noahic flood (see: Brand, 1997, p. 69; Roth, 1998, p. 246). Furthermore, as Morris and Parker have discussed in their book, What is Creation Science?:

Polystrates are especially common in coal formations. For years and years, students have been taught that coal represents the remains of swamp plants slowly accumulated as peat and then even more slowly changed into coal (1987, p. 168).

If polystrate fossils must form quickly in order to be preserved, and if (as many evolutionists believe) coal has been formed over periods lasting millions of years, how could there be so many (or any!) polystrate fossils in coal veins? The answer, of course, is that the evolutionary scenario requiring vast eons of time for the origin of coal (and, for that matter, oil) is wrong.

Yet tree trunks are not the only representatives of polystrate fossils. Even animals’ bodies form polystrate fossils (like catfish in the Green River Formation in Wyoming—see Morris, 1994, p. 102). But perhaps the most famous of all animal polystrate fossils was that of a baleen whale discovered in 1976. Not only was the whale fossilized in diatomite, but it was buried on its back at a 60-degree angle (with its tail down and its head pointing up). K.M. Reese, a staff writer for the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Chemical and Engineering News, reported the find in great detail in the October 11, 1976 issue of that publication.

Workers at the Dicalite division of Grefco, Inc. have found the fossil skeleton of a baleen whale some 10 to 12 million years old in the company’s diatomaceous earth quarries in Lompoc, California. They’ve found fossils there before; in fact, the machinery operators have learned a good deal about them and carefully annotate any they find with the name of the collector, the date, and the exact place found. Each discovery is turned over to Lawrence G. Barnes at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The whale, however, is one of the largest fossils ever collected anywhere. It was spotted by operator James Darrah and Dr. Barnes is directing the excavation. The whale is standing on end in the quarry and is being exposed gradually as the diatomite is mined. Only the head and a small part of the body are visible as yet. The modern baleen whale is 80 to 90 feet long and has a head of similar size, indicating that the fossil may be close to 80 feet long (1976, 54[4]:40).

In the January 24, 1977 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Larry S. Helmick, professor of chemistry at Cedarville College in Cedarville, Ohio, wrote to the editor to comment on this unusual find, and suggested:

K.M. Reese made no comment concerning the implications of the unique discovery of a baleen whale skeleton in a vertical orientation in a diatomaceous earth quarry in Lompoc, California. However, the fact that the whale is standing on end as well as the fact that it is buried in diatomaceous earth would strongly suggest that it was buried under very unusual and rapid catastrophic conditions. The vertical orientation of the whale is also reminiscent of observations of vertical tree trunks extending through several successive coal seams. Such phenomena cannot easily be explained by uniformitarian theories, but fit readily into an historical framework based upon the recent and dynamic universal flood described in Genesis, chapters 6-9 (1977, 55[4]:5).

The amazing part of this story, however, concerns the response from the scientific community to the Reese report, and Dr. Helmick’s letter to the editor about the find. Read what one scientist, Harvey Olney, wrote in a letter to the editor of Chemical and Engineering News—and believe it if you can!

Dr. Helmick,

how dare you imply that our geology textbooks and uniformitarian theories could possibly be wrong!

Everybody knows that diatomaceous earth beds are built up slowly over millions of years as diatom skeletons slowly settle out on the ocean floor.

The baleen whale simply stood on its tail for 100,000 years, its skeleton decomposing, while the diatomaceous snow covered its frame millimeter by millimeter

. Certainly you wouldn’t expect intelligent and informed establishment scientists of this modern age to revert to the outmoded views of our forefathers just to explain such finds! (1977, 55[12]:4, emp. added).

There you have it. Rather than accept the straightforward facts at face value, and admit that gradualistic, uniformitarian processes simply do not work, we are expected to believe instead that a whale carcass stood on its tail—decomposing all the while—as millions of tiny diatom skeletons enshrouded it over a period of 100,000 years! [For an in-depth, technical report on the baleen whale polystrate fossil, see Snelling, 1995.]

After Dr. Rupke (who, remember, coined the term “polystrate fossils”) cited numerous examples of polystrate fossils (1973, pp. 152- 157), he concluded: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts” (p. 157, emp. added). Contradicted by plain facts indeed! Rupke then wrote: “Personally, I am of the opinion that the polystrate fossils constitute a crucial phenomenon both to the actuality and the mechanism of a cataclysmal deposition” (1973, p. 157). What “cataclysmal deposition” could have produced the types, and numbers, of polystrate fossils that have been discovered around the globe? How about the Noahic flood?

from http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/184

[anonemouse 1]

Here you go.

A Whale of a Tale

Copyright © 1995-1997 by Darby South

[Last update: September 2, 1995]

Background

ver the time that I have been reading and contributing to talk.origins, I have seen references to a fossil whale found in California that was alleged to have been buried and fossilized in a vertical position. The first reference was by Ted Holden (medved@access3.digex.net) in article <3en2bc$q5j@access3.digex.net> that was posted in January of 1995. This post consisted of material from The Velikovskian that was posted by Mr. Holden at the request of Mr. Charles Ginenthal. In the material from the The Velikovskian, Mr. Ginenthal wrote:

Twenty-two years later, in 1976, the complete fossil skeleton of a baleen whale was uncovered in Lompoc, California, in a bed of diatomaceous earth along with a small seal, other small whales, fish and birds.

From this fossil whale and other fossils, Mr. Ginenthal concluded:

The evidence of marine animals that has been found could only be created by immense, recent, oceanic tidal waves. If the floods across North America were caused by ice-domed lakes, they would have washed away all evidence of these whale bones and other marine materials; none of the floods would reach Mexico or the Bahamas.

Similarly, Jeff Dejong (enigma@reg.triumf.ca), on Jul 21, 1995, wrote:

Lets see, a world wide flood. Would a layer of silt which surround the earth constitute proof by any chance, or how about whales which have been discovered running perpendicular to the geological layers. Running through say 50 million years of strata! This suggest that the layers of geological time where layed down fairly quick.

And in May of 1995 Mr. D. W. Leon (dwleon@aol.com) wrote:

How do you explain whale skeletons found in a vertical position in diatomaceous earth (evolution cannot explain it, because for the diatoms to drop out of the Water and engulf a whale would be a singular, rapid event of cataclysmic proportions).

Besides appearing on talk.origins, the claim that a 80 ft-long whale was buried standing on tail has appeared within the creationist literature. Videos and pamphlets of the Creation Science Evangelism out of Pensacola, Florida frequently claim that the existence of this same fossil whale from a diatomaceous earth quarry near Lompoc, California is clear proof of the Noachian Flood. This same story has also appeared in creationist journals, e.g. Creation Ex Nihilo (Anonymous 1988). The most detailed account about this vertically buried 80-ft long whale is published in a secular collection of geological mysteries collected in Corliss (1980). Because of the continuing reappearance of this story, however infrequent, a FAQ was prepared on the strange case of the whale that was alleged to have been buried standing on its tail.

It is in only Corliss (1980) and Mr. Ginenthal's article that the source of this story is cited. The article that they both cite is Russel (1976). It stated that a fossil baleen whale was found in a vertical position, "standing on end in the quarry...the fossil may be close to 80 ft long...." in the GREFCO diatomite quarries near Lompoc, California. Almost immediately, creationists, e.g. Heimick (1977) and Olney (1977), jumped at this news brief and wrote letters-to-the-editor in claiming that only a Biblical Flood could explain this fossil. From similarities in later accounts published by Creation Ex Nihilo, Creation Science Evangelism, and as talk.origins posts, it is quite apparent they all are talking about this same whale described by Russel (1976) and commented on by Heimick (1977) and Olney (1977).

The Real Story: Just the Facts

Had anybody taken the time and trouble to check the facts, they would have found that the story by Russel (1976) took some liberty with the facts and lacked very important information. First, the skeleton was not found in a vertical position, but was lying at an angle 50 to 40 degrees from horizontal. Finally, although at this angle, the whale skeleton lay parallel to the bedding of strata which at one time was the sea floor on which the dead whale fell after its death. These facts were confirmed by inquiring with the people at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History who excavated the whale. Although nothing had been published on the whale, Russel (1976) clearly identified the staff who excavated the skeleton and they could have been easily called at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

The strata containing the whale consists of diatomites that accumulated within deep bays and basins that lay along the Pacific coastline during Miocene times. As a result of folding and tectonics associated with the formation of the Transverse Ranges, the strata containing the enclosed skeleton has been tilted into a less-than vertical position. These sediments lack any sedimentary structures that would indicate catastrophic deposition. Rather, the strata exhibit laminations indicative of slow accumulation on an anoxic bay bottom. Within the adjacent strata, several hardgrounds occurs. A hardground is a distinctive cemented layer of sedimentary rock that forms when the lack of sediments being deposited over a very long period of time on the sea bottom allows the surface sediments to become cemented (Isaac 1981, Garrison and Foellmi 1988). In fact, identical sediments are currently accumulating without the involvement of a Noachian-like flood within parts of the Gulf of California (Curray et al. 1992; Schrader et al. 1982).

Furthermore, a partially buried, articulated whale skeleton slowly being covered by sedimentation in the deep ocean off the coast of California was observed by oceanographers diving in submersibles. It is an excellent modern analogue of how this particular whale fossil was created without the need of a Noachian Flood (Allison et al. 1990; Smith et al. 1989).

The geology of these quarries is documented by publications of the California Division of Mines and Geology (Dibblee 1950, 1982) United States Geological Survey geological maps (Dibblee, 1988a, 1988b), graduate students at University of California, Los Angeles (Grivetti 1982), and field trip guidebooks (Isaacs 1981). The other whale skeletons which have been found in these quarries lie parallel to the bedding and owe their modern attitude to tectonics rather then some mythical catastrophe. The written documentation for the attitude of the whale skeletons is contained within field notes and locality records of the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles, California.

Some Commentary

It appears the creationists repeating this whale-of-a-tale, (including the editors of Creation Ex Nihilo) either failed to check their facts or didn't want a good story to be ruined by the facts. In either case, none of these people apparently took the time and trouble to find out what the facts were before putting pen to paper. What they claim to be God's truth is nothing more than an urban folktale used to validate personal religious beliefs.

What was found to be most disturbing was the tendency for creationists to deliberately omit specific locational data and references. Thus, they made it as difficult as possible for a person to independently confirm the data on which they offered as proof of a Biblical world-wide flood. As a result, only someone who had come across Corliss (1980) and Mr. Ginenthal's article could track down Russel (1976) and by comparing descriptions of this fossil whale to Anonymous (1988) and other places where it was used evidence by creationists determine the source of the claims about a 80-ft fossil whale having been found in California buried in a vertical position. It almost seems that the people making the claims about this whale being evidence for a catastrophic or Noachian Flood wanted the reader take their claims taken as a matter of faith as being true and make it impossible for anybody to check the veracity of the story. This is propaganda, not science in the form of paragraph- to page-size versions of media sound-bites.

In addition, Mr. Charles Ginenthal in The Velikovskian (as posted by Ted Holden) appears to have quoted from a secondary source, without apparently looking up the original article, because the reference that he gives for the whale article is badly garbled. Compare his reference given below to Russel (1976):

18 Frederic B. Jueneman, "Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry," Chemical and Engineering News 54 (October 11,1976): 40.

According to museum staff at the Los Angeles Museum of Natural History in Los Angeles the whale that started this particular piece of folklore in 1976 still remains in its cast on a flatcar in one of the GREFCO diatomaceous earth quarries as a result of lack of the money and space needed to curate it. Currently, it is rumored to have a small tree growing in it. If this story is true, the story of the "whale found on its tail", in addition to being completely false, has a sad ending.

Cited and Additional References

Allison, P. A., Smith, C. R., Kukert, H., Deming, J. W., and Bennett, B. A., 1990, Deep-water taphonomy of vertebrate carcasses: a whale skeleton in the bathyal Santa Catalina Basin. Paleobiology. vol. 17, pp. 78-89.

Anonymous. 1988. Polystratic Fossils. Creation Ex Nihilo. 10(2):25.

Brace, Thompson J., 1994, The fossil fish of the California coast. Rock-and-Gem. 24. (6). p. 68-72

Corliss, William R. 1980. Polystrata Fossils. Unknown Earth: A Handbook of Geological Enigmas, The Sourcebook Project. Glen Arm, Maryland. pp. 643-644.

Curray, J. R, and Moore, D. G., 1982, Introduction to the Guaymas Slope and laminated diatomite symposium in Curray, J. R., and others Initial reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project covering Leg 64 of the cruises of the drilling vessel Glomar Challenger, Mazatlan, Mexico to Long Beach, California, December, 1978 - January, 1979; Part 2. Initial-Reports-of-the-Deep-Sea-Drilling-Project. 64. no. 2., p. 1179-1191

Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr., 1950, Geology of Southwestern Santa Barbara County. California Division of Mines and Geology Bulletin. 150, 95 pp.

Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr., 1982, Geology of the Santa Ynez-Topatopa Mountains. in Fife, D. L., Minch, J. A. (eds.), p. 41-56., Geology and mineral wealth of the California Transverse Ranges; Mason Hill volume. South Coast Geol. Soc., Los Angeles, CA.

Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr., 1988a, Geologic Map of the Lompoc Hills and Surf Quadrangles, Santa Barbara County, California. 1:24,000, United State Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Dibblee, Thomas W., Jr., 1988b, Geologic Map of the Lompoc Hills and Point Conception Quadrangles, Santa Barbara County, California. 1:24,000, United State Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Garrison, R. E., Foellmi, K. B., and others, 1988, Phosphatic Hardgrounds and Hiatus Concretions in Neogene Marine Sequence of California Coastal Range. American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin 72(3):381.

Grivetti, Mark C., 1982, Aspects of the Stratigraphy, Diagenesis, and Deformation in the Monterey Formation near Santa Maria-Lompoc, California. Unpublished M.S. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, California.

Heimick, Larry S. 1977. Strange Phenomena. Chemical and Engineering News. 55(4):5.

Isaacs, C. M., 1981, Field Trip Guide for the Monterey Formation, Santa Barbara Coast, California. Pacific Section for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Menlo Park, California. 55 pp.

Jenkins, D., Diatomaceous earth operations, Grefco Inc., Lompoc, California, 1982, in Fife, D. L., Minch, J. A. (eds.), p. 513-515., Geology and mineral wealth of the California Transverse Ranges; Mason Hill volume. South Coast Geol. Soc., Los Angeles, CA.

Olney III, Harvey O. 1977. A Whale of a Tale. Chemical and Engineering News. 55(12):4.

Ozalas, K., Savrda, C. E., and Fullerton, R. R., 1990, Bank-top Related Ichnofossil Associations in Miocene Siliceous Strata (Monterey Formation, Central California). Geological Society of America Abstracts with Programs 22(7):308.

Russel, K. M. 1976. Workers Find Whale in Diatomaceous Earth Quarry. Chemical and Engineering News. 54(41):48. (October 4, 1976 issue).

Schrader-H; Kelts-K; and others, 1982, Laminated diatomaceous sediments from the Guaymas Basin slope (central Gulf of California); 250,000-year climate record. Science. 207. (4436). p. 1207-1209.

Smith, C. R., Kukert, H., Wheatcroft, R. A., Jumars, P. A., and Deming, J. W., 1989. Vent fauna on whale remains. Nature, vol. 341, pp. 27-28. (Set. 7, 1989).

Zawacki, R. L., 1974, Xyne grex, Revisited. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Department of Biology, University of Los Angeles, California.

[anonemouse 1]

Claim CC363:

Fossilization requires rapid burial, or the organism will decay. This suggests that a catastrophe is responsible for fossils. Source:

Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1961. <#The Genesis Flood#>. Philadephia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., pp. 128-129.

Response:

1. 
   
2. Bones can survive for over a year before being buried. Shells can last decades or even centuries. In fact, some fossils that have been eroded or encrusted or bored by other animals have been found, showing that long times passed before they were buried, and discrediting catastrophic burial. Only soft tissues need to be preserved quickly.
   
3. Rapid burial is not necessary for rapid preservation. Fossils can also be preserved by falling in a peat bog or on an anoxic lake bottom, areas where decay is slow or nonexistent. Other fossils are preserved in tree sap, which can become amber over time.
   
4. Rapid burial is common as a result of processes that are local catastrophes or that can scarcely be considered catastrophes at all, such as
   • burial in sediments in a river delta
     
   • burial in sediments from a local river flood
     
   • burial in a small landslide, as along an eroded stream bank
     
   • burial in ash from a volcano
     
   • burial in a blown sand dune

[*] Patterns of fossilization are consistent with noncatastrophic processes such as those mentioned above. Fossilization occurs as a result of all those different processes, not as a result of a single catastrophe. And it occurs where we would expect on the basis of commonplace processes. Bison fossils, for example, are found in active floodplains, not in upland areas.

Links:

Littleton, Keith, 2002. Fish fossils. http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep02.html

From www.talkorigins.org.