Did bones actually become fossilized in the sediments of "ancient" epeiric (inland) seas on continents?

Faith & Science Conversation
102

I’m not sure.

However, what we all know is that massive loads of ocean sediments were, at some time in our past, deposited upon the continents. In fact, using Rockworks software, Dr. Tim Clarey (geologist and hydrologist) has figured that 55 million cubic kilometers of ocean sediments (with some eroded sediments mixed in) lie upon the North American craton.

And it lies 1 to 2 miles thick, not only on our continent, but on other continents as well.

So, this is something we know–we don’t have to hypothesize about.

We also know a certain amount of hydrodynamic power was required to pick up this load (in addition to the billions of marine organisms) from the ocean and beach…then transport and deposit it across the continents (over six megasequences). In fact, scientists should be able to do the math on this–figuring the needed hydrodynamics.

Then, we need to ask ourselves, "So how would such hydrodynamics be produced? Would it be by slowly, slowly rising sea levels over millions of years, that v e r y gradually spill over onto the continents (as currently proposed by evolutionary scientists)?

Or, wouldn’t much stronger, more powerful hydrodynamics be required? And, wouldn’t plate tectonics provide the energetic waters that could provide such power?

Again, something we know: there are over 30,000 miles of subduction zones, indirectly resulting from the 45,000 miles of seafloor rifting that occurred. And we know that such subduction zones, among other things, would produce a series of powerful tsunamis.

103

(PDF) How not to become a fossil-Taphonomy of modern whale falls (researchgate.net)

Actually, there are several studies of this under the heading of “Whale Falls.” So, just Google it, and start reading.
.
By the way, you might think also about what was not found when the Titanic wreckage was discovered. What was not found were the bones of the 1500 men who went down into the sea sediments with this wreckage. In fact, their trousers were found! But their bones had been completely consumed by bacteria.

More evidence that bones in the fossil record did not become fossilized by drifting down into the sediments of ancient inland seas…as is popularly taught by evolutionary scientists.

To become fossilized, bones do not fall into sediments, but the sediments must (massively!) fall upon the bones!

104

The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology

105

Really? Where does it say that evidence for the flood is “hiding” from us or worse, playing hide and seek?

1 Like
106

This is a rabbit hole with no outlet. It’s full of cherries though.

107

So have you actually observed the trasport of this sediment? Is the sediment labeled "imported from the Pacific Ocean? What we do know is that you are wholesale ignoring geology, including references already provided to you last year.

This whole how thread is a redux of the previous year’s Geological Megasequences where was explained why giant tsunami’s were not the origin of the Sloss megasequences, including the statement by the man himself:

L. L. Sloss, 1964, Tectonic Cycles of the North American Craton:

The writer concludes that the history of the North American craton for the past 600-700 million years includes six major episodes of changing tectonic behavior.

The whole transport idea is incoherent. Why would one ocean have sediment and the other not have it’s own, to begin with? Furthermore, a great deal of the sedimentation of the central plains is erosion from the Rockies.

108

2 Peter 3:5,6–“For when they maintain this (namely, ‘all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation,’ DP), it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed being flooded with water.”

“Escapes their notice” translates the Greek word “lanthano,” which is used in the active voice to convey the meaning of “hiding.” What “escapes their (i.e., scoffers’) notice” is the fact or evidence that “the world at that time was destroyed being flooded with water.”

So, the evidence of the Flood “hides” itself from scoffers/mockers–that is, those who not only ignore, but mock, the word of God.

So, Peter, by divine inspiration, is saying that clear evidence exists for this world-destroying Flood–it’s right under our noses, actually. But to see it, there must be a humble, trusting attitude towards God and His Word.

So, let me ask you, Beaglelady: How can you deny the Flood (and Peter identifies it as a “world” Flood) when the Apostle Peter–an Apostle of Jesus Christ–clearly speaks of its historicity?

109

Not only are tsunami’s causing glogal megasequences, and speeded up decay, unsupported by scientific evidence, they are not in the Bible either.

The evidence is not hidden. It has been carefully examined in whole and detail by the US geological survey, academics, and industry.

2 Likes
110

Do you realise that this is something that happens on a regular basis today? Lahars, mudflows and landslides are very much a thing.

It is unrealistic to suggest that similar events on a similar scale could not have happened in the past. Evidence for a planet-wide flood that created the fossil record needs to have features that can not be explained by a large number of localised catastrophes similar to what we see today.

Just claiming that slow sedimentation can not account for the fossil record proves nothing.

It doesn’t work like that. The reason why people reject young earthism and Flood Geology has nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of scoffing and mocking that Peter is talking about.

The thing that you need to understand here is that evidence has rules. More to the point, honesty has rules. If you are going to try to claim what evidence does or does not exist, whether or not it is hiding, and what it does or does not support, you need to stick to the rules. Rules such as this one for starters:

¹³Do not have two differing weights in your bag — one heavy, one light. ¹⁴Do not have two differing measures in your house — one large, one small. ¹⁵You must have accurate and honest weights and measures, so that you may live long in the land the Lᴏʀᴅ your God is giving you. ¹⁶For the Lᴏʀᴅ your God detests anyone who does these things, anyone who deals dishonestly. (Deuteronomy 25:13-16)

Here’s the thing. Any creation model, any interpretation of Genesis 1, any challenge to the scientific consensus on the age of the earth or evolution must obey these verses. Any that does not is not scientific, is not Biblical, is not honest, and is not true.

If young earthists want to have a legitimate claim to being “scoffed at” in the way that 2 Peter talks about, they must first demonstrate a commitment to obeying the rules. It is one thing being mocked or scoffed at for being a Christian. It is a completely different matter being “mocked” or “scoffed at” for fudging measurements, quote mining, misrepresenting evidence or scientific procedures, making things up, or exaggerating or downplaying the extent or significance of errors.

3 Likes
111

Yes, this transport of sediment from the ocean onto the craton or continent occurs during a “transgression,” as described in sequence stratigraphy.

Notice this quote:
Cratonic sequence - Wikipedia

“Cratonic sequences are also known as “megasequences”, “stratigraphic sequences”, “Sloss sequences”, “supersequences” or simply “sequences”. They are geologic evidence of relative sea level rising and then falling (transgressing and regressing), thereby depositing varying layers of sediment onto the craton , now expressed as sedimentary rock. Places such as the Grand Canyon are a good visual example of this process, demonstrating the changes between layers deposited over time as the ancient environment changed.”

You wonder why the “inland sea” ocean does not have its own sediment. Actually, it’s one and the same body of water. That is, the “inland” (ancient) “sea” is the transgressive ocean flow. But since the evolutionary model, with its millions-of-years time scale, is being used, they must slow this transgressive flow way down–turning it, in fact, into a “sea”…a very, very slowly moving sea. So, the ocean sediments are being transported by this sea across (in the case of the Sauk transgression) 75% of the North American continent, and then back again. All over a period of several million years, they claim.

Erosion from the Rockies–and from the Appalachians–becomes swept up in the transgressive and/or regressive ocean flows, and so are included in their depositions.

112

In other words, you’re saying that mere local mudslides, say from excessive rainfall, account for the fossilization we find in the fossil record?

But not so. The kind of “mudslides” recorded in the fossil record all contain ocean fossils, on all the continents. In other words, they were caused not by local, but by global, catastrophic flooding (flood waters was packed with muddy ocean sediments).

113

In other words, there must be honesty and integrity in our approach to evidence. Right? I agree. Though, of course, you know this applies to all of us, doesn’t it?

So, how do you justify denying the worldwide Flood that the Apostle Peter says is evident to those who do not mock at the Word of God?

114

Peter, here in 2 Peter 3, says that this Flood flooded and “destroyed” the world. Are you saying you accept that the Flood happened, but that it was just local? Or, do you accept what Peter says here?

115

I’m sorry, but that’s just deflection. Whataboutism.

Yes, the rules apply to all of us. But before young earthists can make such a point, they must demonstrate that their own approach is accurate and honest first.

1 Like
116

Having been a victim of the Flood, but not YEC (I mean, there are limits! Not really: I was a Gap man), I fully understand the impenetrability of matters of religion and how they twist all facts. There are no limits to the lengths a hermetically sealed mind will go to. This is a by-product of the evolution of psychology obviously. I only changed as the leadership of my cult acceleratingly did. If it hadn’t, I couldn’t.

117

This is an interpretation of Scripture in light of current understanding. This is NOT what Scripture alludes to or says. This claim reflects a reading into the text of what is not there.

2 Likes
118

The inland ocean experiences sedimentation similar to any ocean. There isn’t any need of a dominant net transport at all. But as you have admitted, you do not know where the ocean sediment comes from, but somehow are sure of where the interior seaway sediment came from. What is so difficult to fathom that similar geological processes account for the sediment in all ocean basins including the inland sea?

Sedimentary Basins of the World - The Western Interior Basin Sedimentary Basins of the World

The distinctive paleogeography of the seaway throughout its history represents variations on a basic theme:clastic sediment sources were generated at different times by contractional orogeny at discrete locations along thelength of the Cordilleran Orogen. These shed detritus eastward, forming clastic wedges deposited in a range of nonmarine and shallow-marine environments

The Western Interior Basin in Space and Time

Sedimentation in, and marginal to, the basin was controlled by several factors, which exerted their own special influence and interacted with one another in a complex, exceedingly dynamic, paleo ­
oceanographic system. The factors include (1) tectonic growth of both proto-Cordillera and basin, which affected, for example, the source, supply rate, and depositional site of the predominantly terrigenous clastic sediments that accumulated; (2) eustatic changes, which are recorded in widely correlative transgressive-regressive cyclicity and sequence-stratigraphic response; and (3) watermass dynamics in the epicontinental seas of the basin, which influenced deposition of carbonate sediments (mainly in the southern basin), and spatial distribution of both environmentally sensitive emigrant biotas from the bordering oceans to north and south, and resident biotas.

1 Like
119

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. Genesis 7:11

Allusion is in the beady little eye of the beholder.

2 Likes
120

Of course. Forgot about that.

So, if the fountains were related to plate tectonics, the earth would have been flooded with lava, though. Nõ?

But water came out. A lot of it. From under the earth’s surface. Isn’t that different from plate tectonics? Even with all the ground water we have in Michigan, my limited imagination isn’t finding that water volume under ground to cover the surface of the whole Earth more than a mile deep.

maybe that was just part of the water since the story also talks about the rain. How much water was up above that dome, anyway? Wait, or is/was it a dome?

But if we’re talking about ground water, we aren’t talking about plate tectonics, since the ground water is in pockets in the crust, rather than under the crust, where the magma is.
This is confusing!

Fountains (generally) do expel water, not lava. Broken fountains, generally don’t function, or they leak. It depends on the situation. But if they leak, they leak water still, not lava, which is what is involved with plate tectonics.
This is all very confusing.

I have many more questions about this interpretation, which are all related to untestable inconsistancies.

Like maybe, since physical constants are now up for grabs, the matter under earth’s tectonic plates was, indeed, at one time water? I suppose that might be right, because there was water under the earth in the account of creation.

So many questions.

I also wonder, why no one understood anything about plate tectonics between the time of Noah’s biographers and the early 20th century, when plate tectonics were developed as a “theory” which may or may not be testable, as radiometric dating seems to be. Or not.

So many questions.
I’m sure there are Answers somewhere.

< /sarcasm >

3 Likes
121

Wot? In Genesis?!

2 Likes