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

[donpartain]

@T_aquaticus

You can’t get 2,000 feet of crinoid plates from a single catastrophic event. Catastrophic floods don’t produce life. You need a stationary sea to get that many crinoids stacked up.

I think you underestimate the magnitude of the biblical Flood–where transgressing & regressing ocean waters left one-to-two-miles-thick sedimentary rock layers on every continent.

Certainly, “catastrophic floods don’t produce life”! Instead, massive catastrophic flood sediment flows broke shells and plates into fragments while packing them tightly together in a calcium carbonate medium, which diagenesis turned into limestone.

“You need a stationary sea to get that many crinoids stacked up”

Who says? When have you observed the assemblage of such a layer of sediment–to be able to judge what will work and what will not work, in causing it to happen?

Think about the Tonto Group of rock layers in the Grand Canyon. The Tapeats Sandstone is 290’ thick…the overlying Bright Angel Shale is 375’ thick…and the overlying this, Muav Limestone is 650’ thick. A total of about 1315’ of sedimentary rock layers.

And ALL of these were deposited by a single oceanic wave of the Sauk transgression. Yeah, seems impossible to us, because we simply have not experienced (nor do we want to!) flooding of that magnitude. But it did happen!

You say, “You can’t get 2,000 feet of crinoid plates from a single catastrophic event.”
So, please explain the process that you envision, to account for this layer of limestone with all these crinoids.

[donpartain]

@Dale

Fossilized by drifting down into the sediments?! That is a novel way of misstating reality. I don’t believe anyone else here has said anything similar.

You really do need a break. Go look at the other thread.

Hahaha! Yeah, maybe I do need a break!

So, you believe I am misrepresenting the mainstream explanation for how marine animal bones were permineralized?

O.k., so can you tell me how they actually account for such fossils?

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

@donpartain

So, upon what scientific basis do you believe bones of marine animals became permineralized in ancient inland seas?

While not addressed specifically to me, it is interesting to speculate. The dead animal would have to be covered by sediment fairly quickly, where soft tissue would be broken down, and the bones remain to have their chemical structure replaced by minerals. While this would seldom happen on nice day at the beach, as evidenced by the rarity of fossils, it often would happen when flood came down rivers, and when hurricanes and lesser storms blew in, when tsunami hit as you suggest, and with volcanic eruptions etc. I suspect if we went around the Florida coast, you would find areas that were shallow lagoons now filled with mud and muck in addition to mudslides eroded beaches and waterfront, with those deposits winding up elsewhere. Who knows, in 10,000 to a million years or so, somebody might be digging up Fido and Flipper’s bones next to the remains of iPhone and trying to make sense of it. How Do Fossils Form | How Fossils Form | Live Science

[donpartain]

@Klax

I’m glad Don. That pivot was 56 years ago. All part of the process. Life eh? So you inherited your belief system?

Thanks, Klax.

But, no, I didn’t simply inherit my belief system.

Although my father was (and still is, at age 96!) a minister–more specifically, a missionary–he always taught my siblings and me to study and think for ourselves–to come to our own convictions about spiritual matters, in keeping with the biblical principle found in 1 Thessonians 5:21,22–“But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”

But I like your word, “process.” Life is certainly that. And I think the best we can do, with the help of God, is keep that process moving forward in the right direction.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

As with is so very common with YEC argumentation, they find a detail about something that science has not resolved exhaustively and say “This is my favorite whataboutism for the moment.”
 

@jammycakes

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

@Dale

Another observation… this applies (it has to do with red herrings):
Whataboutism

As does this:
Brandolini’s law

(Brandolini’s law states it takes ten times* the effort to debunk rubbish as it takes to produce it.)
 

---

*ETA: I’m sure that’s low – just look at all the manhours that have been expended in this thread.

 

Now, about that other thread that I started at your prompting…. (I added “Awe and wonder” as a tag because it is such an unusual and delightful piece of evidence for the antiquity of the earth. ; - )

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@donpartain

abstain from every form of evil.

False doctrine combatively and divisively pushed is evil.
 
It is also demeaning of God and contrary to the heart of the first petition in the Lord’s Prayer. (“Hallowed be thy name” – I love you, Lord, and I desire your renown!)

In regards to things about the earth, the sky, other elements of this world, the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, the definite eclipses of the sun and moon, the passage of years and seasons, the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, it should not be surprising that such things can be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian.

Therefore, it is an utterly disgraceful and ruinous thing—and something that should be greatly avoided—if [a non-Christian] hears a Christian speaking like an idiot on these matters and trying to make them accord with Christian writings. When that happens, [the non-Christian] will say that he can’t keep from laughing when he sees how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some singular meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation.

– Augustine

[donpartain]

@jpm

Who knows, in 10,000 to a million years or so, somebody might be digging up Fido and Flipper’s bones next to the remains of iPhone and trying to make sense of it.

Hahaha!

Thanks for jumping in, Phil. Yeah, actually, this is the question I am directing to everyone in this thread.

An undeniable finding is that marine fossils practically cover every continent. So, how did they all get here? To me, the obvious conclusion is, a worldwide Flood–ocean fossils on all continents, even far inland, evidence sediment-laden ocean waters having covered all continents.

However, the mainstream evolutionary explanation, rejecting the Flood as the explanation of these marine fossils, is that all marine fossils resulted from ancient inland seas on all continents. Specifically, they say that these fossils were formed when marine animals died and their bones drifted down into the sea’s sediments–and became fossilized there.

But think about this explanation–even in light of the article you just linked that explains what is necessary for fossilization (especially by permineralization). Just as you concluded from the study, Phil: there must be rapid burial in muddy sediments–like, in a mudslide.

And, in fact, when we dig up these marine fossils, it is evident they were formed under tons of marine sediments. Even when we find these fossils at or near the surface, today, we realize that this is only because of uplift and erosion–again, these bones became permineralized only after they were buried suddenly, completely, and deeply under muddy marine sediments.

So, marine bones were not formed simply by drifting down into sedentary (or even occasionally turbulent) sea sediments…as per current mainstream evolutionary teaching.

As for digging up “Fido’s and Flipper’s” permineralized bones from under the mud and muck of some lagoon…we shouldn’t have to wait 10,000+ years to find such fossils, should we, since we even have ancient inland seas/lakes on the earth right now….

For example, the Caspian Sea is an inland sea that is supposedly 30 million years old. The Black Sea is another 30 million year old inland sea. Even Hudson Bay is classed as an inland sea–and it’s 2.6 million years old. So, if it’s true that marine bones became permineralized at the bottom of ancient inland seas, shouldn’t we be able to find marine fossils on the bottoms of these seas? Yet, we don’t, do we?

So, on what scientific basis, do evolutionary scientists claim that marine fossils were formed on the beds of ancient inland seas in the past?

[donpartain]

@Dale

Now, about that other thread that I started at your prompting…. (I added “Awe and wonder” as a tag because it is such an unusual and delightful piece of evidence for the antiquity of the earth. ; - )

O.k., Dale, I’ll give it a look, too. However, I probably won’t be able to participate for awhile. Thanks for the invite.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Huh. You spend enough time here!

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@donpartain

As for digging up “Fido’s and Flipper’s” permineralized bones from under the mud and muck of some lagoon…we shouldn’t have to wait 10,000+ years to find such fossils, should we, since we even have ancient inland seas/lakes on the earth right now… .

For example, the Caspian Sea is an inland sea that is supposedly 30 million years old. The Black Sea is another 30 million year old inland sea. Even Hudson Bay is classed as an inland sea–and it’s 2.6 million years old. So, if it’s true that marine bones became permineralized at the bottom of ancient inland seas, shouldn’t we be able to find marine fossils on the bottoms of these seas?

The fossils in the sediments at the bottom of those bodies of water have not yet been made accessible by the uplifting of tectonic plates. How are your diving and deep sea excavation skills?
 

@donpartain

shouldn’t we be able to find marine fossils on the bottoms of these seas?

I’m sure you’re more than welcome to go look. And it may not have been long enough for fossilization to have occured, but I expect you should find some silt or sand covered carcasses when you go. Please let us know (and it would be good subject material for the research paper you submit for publication).

[donpartain]

@Dale

Therefore, it is an utterly disgraceful and ruinous thing —and something that should be greatly avoided—if [a non-Christian] hears a Christian speaking like an idiot on these matters and trying to make them accord with Christian writings

Yet, the Apostle Paul warns that there are things in the Bible that the “wise” of this world call “foolishness”–while, those who are spiritually “mature” recognize such things as truly “wise.” And Paul instructs Jesus’ disciples to be willing to be called “fools”–just as he was–for the sake of the gospel (read 1 Corinthians 1,2, & 4).

One specific instance was in Acts 17, where Paul was having discussions with the prominent “wise” Greek philosophers of the day. They “sneered” at him for preaching the truth of the resurrection. But he never flinched nor backtracked on his words.

We must understand: spiritual truths will never be properly evaluated–“appraised”–by worldly people, no matter how many degrees they have attached to their name: “But a natural man (i.e., one who simply lives by human wisdom) does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. But he who is spiritual appraises all things…” 1 Corinthians 2:14,15.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

I’m sorry, but that, while true, does not debunk the foolishness of YECism. You don’t get off that easy by tossing up verses out of context.

The foolishness of the cross is the only thing we should be ridiculed for, not poor exegesis and hermeneutics, not to mention ridiculous “science”.

[donpartain]

"The fossils in the sediments at the bottom of those bodies of water have not yet been made accessible by the uplifting of tectonic plates. How are your diving and deep sea excavation skills?"

Don’t get confused. Uplift is only necessary where the bones were catastrophically buried under deep muddy sediments–which was the case with the fossils.

But evolutionary explanations of marine fossils deny catastrophic burial under tons of sediment. Rather, they claim bones buried themselves under sea sediments, by simply drifting down into such sediments.

So, where are they?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@donpartain

Don’t get confused. Uplift is only necessary where the bones were catastrophically buried under deep muddy sediments–which was the case with the fossils.

But evolutionary explanations of marine fossils deny catastrophic burial under tons of sediment. Rather, they claim bones buried themselves under sea sediments, by simply drifting down into such sediments.

So, where are they?

Sorry, that doesn’t work either. You are using your own false presuppositions to make erroneous scientific conclusions.

Don’t get confused.

[donpartain]

[quote=“Dale, post:518, topic:50051”]
And it may not have been long enough for fossilization to have occured, but I expect you should find some silt or sand covered carcasses when you go."

Again, both the Caspian and Black Seas are supposed to be 30 million years old. This is plenty of time for fossils to have formed.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@donpartain

I probably won’t be able to participate for awhile.

That was thirty minutes ago. You could have read the article on girdled rocks two or three times by now. Not surprisingly, your perceptions are not trustworthy.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@donpartain

This is plenty of time for fossils to have formed.

My point remains. It is not unlikely in my layperson’s understanding that there are fossils there, but not accessibly.

[donpartain]

@Dale

The foolishness of the cross is the only thing we should be ridiculed for, not poor exegesis and hermeneutics, not to mention ridicul ous “science”.

And presumptive “science” is not ridiculous? The kind of science I am addressing in this OP is nothing more than presumptive. And those who accept such just because “scientists” have claimed it is science have turned scientists into high priests and science into their dogma.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

By bringing that up again, you have testified against yourself that you rather missed the point about the only thing Christians should be ridiculed for.

[donpartain]

"You are using your own false presuppositions to make erroneous scientific conclusions."

So, you think I am misrepresenting evolutionary claims as to the formation of marine fossils?

Would you like to start comparing notes? Have you actually read what they say on this matter?