A reader left the following comment on my last article:
"Just to play Devil's...or I suppose "Ken Ham's" advocate, the AiG article Green River Blues goes into detail about the existence of cross-varve fossilized fishes that are intact.
The AiC article (linked on my previous comment) goes into this a LITTLE bit (uses Bog People as an example of preservation) but doesn't show quite enough of the evidence to show why the fossils appearing don't support YEC.
Then again, they still have to deal with all of the ridiculous drying/wetting/pooping found in the Zindler article..."
I responded thus:
Good questions. Remember one thing always: Modern uniformitarianism accounts for catastrophe as well as gradual deposition. AiG often likes to caricature this methodology as relying only on long periods of time to create things, when it doesn't.
Obviously some of these varves were laid down catastrophically. But can we tell the difference between the varves laid down annually and those laid down catastrophically? Yes.
(Underneath the second picture it discusses varves)
He also has an article about fish preservation: (Scroll down to the fish picture and begin reading underneath it):
Berkeley has a page on the Green River formation:
"Approximately 60 vertebrate taxa have been found at Green River, including fish, reptiles, birds and mammals. Eleven species of reptiles have been found, including one species of snake, Boavus idelmani. Invertebrate fossils are abundant, with remnants of snails and insects being common. The plant fossils, including many reeds, leaves and wood specimens, are also very prevalent at Green River. A large majority of known fossils are fragmentary but some complete skeletons exist of fish, birds, reptiles and one mammal, Brachianodon westorum."
So in essence, most of the fossils are fragmentary while a very few are well preserved. That seems in line with the modern day interpretation. Also, on the same page is a paragraph about how the lake was dated. Pretty Good Stuff.