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

[paleomalacologist (David Campbell)]

" And so, you believe that the flooding waters of the Sauk transgression somehow managed to hold in suspension 3 million cubic kilometers of sediments, very, very, very gradually depositing it over 75% of North America…as these flooding waters crept across the continent at 1/4 inch per year ?

And, you believe that the flooding waters of the Sauk transgression were able to erode even large boulders out of basement granite–thus forming the Great Unconformity–as they “blazed” across the craton, going… 1/4 inch per year (the velocity in keeping with a 5 million year deposition of sediments)?"

This reflects a misunderstanding that is also relevant to the ongoing effects of global warming. The mere rise of sea level at fraction of an inch per year itself would only cause very gradual change. But it doesn’t take much familiarity with the ocean to realize that the surface is not very still. When waves, tides, currents, and storms are taken into account, the effects of rising sea level are rather more dramatic. Rising sea level by just a small amount, especially along a fairly flat coastline, gives waves a bit of a step further inland and so promotes erosion.

It is young-earth models, not old-earth ones, that demand vast amounts of sediment being held in suspension. The patterns in fossils, the sequence stratigraphic pattern, the development of patterns following Walther’s law, isotope stratigraphy, radiometric dating, and many more features indicate that the sediment on top of the Sauk unconformity was gradually deposited over a huge amount of time. But the more fundamental problem is that you (and young-earth arguments generally) don’t have a coherent model that you are comparing with conventional geology. You need to have a detailed model and stick with it. If it needs fixed, fix it, but you need to have a specific model and stick with it. Burying an ichthyosaur already partly broken down before the Flood would require that many layers that most young-earthers, including you, have attributed to the flood were actually pre-flood (e.g., the Sauk megasequence). A viable flood geology model has to specifically identify which layers were during the flood, which were before, and which were after, and stick with those decisions, rather than arbitrarily putting the same layer in or out of the flood as seems convenient. Also, the tsunamis that you are advocating would have scattered and smashed a partially decayed skeleton, not gently buried it. Again, you need to be consistent about whether the flood is gentle or violent and stick with it, not switching to match the detail under discussion at the moment.

I am not convinced that the evidence for the existence of J, P, E, or D is any better than the evidence for a young earth or global flood; dealing with the text as we have it is much more meaningful than speculating about sources. But if we take the biblical text seriously as a whole, the young-earth approach runs into problems. It tries to take Genesis 1-10 out of context, treating as a modernistic scientific and historical account, ignoring the connections to figurative and symbolic meaning as well as disregarding the importance of careful honesty in approaching the scientific evidence.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

We were out and took this pic at a road cut nearby. The green layers are iron rich glauconite, basically trilobite poop from 500 million years back. The layers of sandstone and trilobite pop are evidence of varied water levels and sedimentation with long periods in between.

[donpartain]

@Bill_II

How do you “know” that? Given there are extinct, eroded volcanoes I doubt the “same time” is less than a year.

The Ring of Fire volcanoes were all formed by the same event–ultimately, seafloor rifting, which then resulted in seafloor spreading, which sent ocean plates subducting beneath continental plates…which generated the Ring of Fire volcanoes, along the Pacific coastline.

So, they were formed at the same time–though, “time” will mean something different, depending upon whether one uses the evolutionary time scale or the Flood time scale.

[donpartain]

@Bill_II

So your argument is “tsunamis created sedimentary rock layers and the evidence for these tsunamis are the sedimentary rock layers”? Bit circular isn’t it?

I think you’d better go back and read what I actually wrote–and read more slowly this time, o.k.?

I said that subduction zones produce tsunamis. And the 30,000 miles of subduction zones along the Pacific coast, therefore, would spawn lots of tsunamis–probably, megatsunamis, to begin with.

Evidence for such tsunamis would be the ocean sediment loads found upon the continents.

[donpartain]

" and many more features indicate that the sediment on top of the Sauk unconformity was gradually deposited over a huge amount of time"

So, which Sauk unconformity are you referring to? There is an unconformity below it, and above it. The one below it is called “The Great Unconformity.” Are you referring to this?

This is also the unconformity–erosion zone–where the Sauk trangression eroded large boulders out of the basement granite. So, you are still contending that an ocean flow of “1/4 inch per year” would have the hydrodynamic power to work such erosion…even across most of the North American continent?

You argue that there is sufficient power in even that rate of spread, since even a small rise in sea level would be accompanied by “waves, currents, and storms.” But wait…now we’re not talking about “1/4 inch per year,” are we? You can’t put waves, currents, and storms into super slow motion the way you are trying to do with the Sauk transgression. Yes, the hydrodynamics of THESE ocean flows would indeed erode (and even carry sediment). But they are not at all flowing at only 1/4 inch per year!

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

This seems appropriate now since you’re too busy here to look at girdled rocks*… oh, it’s the second time I posted it (but we’re not talking about just whale bones anymore):

    The Defeat of Flood Geology by Flood Geology
 

---

*A question about the antiquity of the earth

[donpartain]

@paleomalacologist

Burying an ichthyosaur already partly broken down before the Flood would require that many layers that most young-earthers, including you, have attributed to the flood were actually pre-flood (e.g., the Sauk megasequence)

Here, you make it clear you do not understand the Flood model. Sequence stratigraphy records greater and lesser marine transgressions–big flows and small flows…in succession (recorded as different “orders” of sequences–from 1 to 5). So, yes, one flow might simply drown a dinosaur (or herd even)–and it would even begin to decompose or be scavenged. Then, a following–much larger–sediment flow would completely bury the dinosaurs.

In fact, a good example of this was discovered by paleontologist Jack Horner in Montana, where a herd of 10,000 maiasaurs–after first decomposing–were then completely buried in flood sediments (he himself attributed it to a “catastrophic flood,” though not Noah’s). He and his co-workers found their bones disarticulated, even sorted, by the catastrophic flow.

[donpartain]

@paleomalacologist

A viable flood geology model has to specifically identify which layers were during the flood, which were before, and which were after, and stick with those decisions, rather than arbitrarily putting the same layer in or out of the flood as seems convenient

So…who says some sedimentary layers were deposited “during, before, and after”? They were ALL deposited by the Flood. Who has said otherwise?

[donpartain]

@Adrian_B

Oftentimes with large sequences you’ll see interfingered strata as well, demonstrating that these aren’t waves flying across the planet, rather it’s just sea level rising and falling.

Yes, these are called higher order sequences–they are like tsunami pulses or waves of strong flows.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

And this without disturbing the sediments below that have already fused why?

[donpartain]

@Adrian_B

then at the same time you’re saying that mountains or structurally deformed and elevated strata, made of the same aged deposits, somehow wasn’t deposited by these tidal waves?

Wait. Mountains were not made up “of the same aged deposits” of ocean sediments. Where did you get that idea?

Now, when mountains–like the Laramide Orogeny–were pushed up, they already had ocean sediments deposited upon them, by earlier (paleozoic) marine transgressions. But the mountains themselves were not composed of ocean sediments–rather, they are composed of continental crust.

[donpartain]

"If a massive tidal wave was responsible for silurian strata on the west coast of the US, then where did the silurian strata, which makes up mountains on the east coast, even come from?"

Tidal waves do not push up mountain ranges–plate tectonics do that.

[donpartain]

@jpm

We were out and took this pic at a road cut nearby. The green layers are iron rich glauconite, basically trilobite poop from 500 million years back. The layers of sandstone and trilobite pop are evidence of varied water levels and sedimentation with long periods in between.

Thanks for this, Phil. Very interesting.

Though, of course, I’m going to translate this into “Flood-ese,” saying the “varied water levels” were produced by pulses, waves, between major flows…so, not involving “long periods in between.”

[donpartain]

"And I gave a pretty simple example before, where various forms of structural fracturing or otherwise features that are characteristic of the motion of lithified dense bodies of rock, predates things like erosion of Cenozoic strata by rivers. "

You are referring here to the Grand Canyon, right?

You speak of “Cenozoic strata”…yet there is no Cenozoic strata. In fact, most even of Mesozoic strata has been eroded. The rest is all Paleozoic strata.

The carving of the Grand Canyon is said to have begun during the Cenozoic (about 6 millions ago supposedly). But, again, the Grand Canyon does not contain Cenozoic strata.

[Adrian_B (Scientist and Christian)]

" The carving of the Grand Canyon is said to have begun during the Cenozoic (about 6 millions ago supposedly). But, again, the Grand Canyon does not contain Cenozoic strata."

It does contain Cenozoic strata. Explanation:

You’re still not addressing my comments. The issue is a matter of order. Erosion by the Colorado post dates structural deformation. And what do you mean there is no Cenozoic strata? There’s plenty of Cenozoic strata within grand canyon national park and outside or beyond the national park as well.

My response:
A. The grand canyon does contain Cenozoic strata.
B. The Colorado river doesn’t exist in a little bubble where it just stops existing the moment you leave a national park. And;
C. None of this addresses the issue of structural deformation predating erosion by the river.

Let’s see if my image loads. Attached, in yellow, is some Cenozoic strata, SE if Mt Emma, within the national park.

Nobody should overlook this fact, what you just did is you argued something that was blatantly incorrect. You should stop stating incorrect information and spend more time asking questions.

Heres another image over by the lake Meade recreational area. And again you can see in yellow, Cenozoic strata.

But again, the main point here is that erosion by the river post dates structural deformation of underlying strata. This is just a simple known fact, and it’s well known. It’s very well established and clear.

And this is a problem for people who think that all of this stratigraphy formed in some sort of rapid soft sediment washout.

And another note here, you can even see how there are fractures running through various periods of strata, further demonstrating that these were dense and lithified solid bodies of rock, prior to deformation and uplift, and further prior to erosion by the Colorado, as a product of that uplift.

And then you said something like "In fact, most even of Mesozoic strata has been eroded. ".

Well yea, and what time occurs after the mesozoic? the cenozoic. So if you have erosion of mesozoic strata, then you know that the erosion occurred after the deposition of that mesozoic strata. During the cenozoic. But still, just to keep pulling us back to the same original point that cannot be stressed enough, the erosional forces, the colorado river and wind erosion as well, post-date structural deformation observed throughout the paleozoic strata as a product of orogenesis. Uplift and fracturing occurs prior to lacustrine erosion and incision.

And this is a blatant issue for anyone who suggests that earth is a few thousand years old. And these features are observed worldwide. Its no secret or anything.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Klax

I used to believe all that too Don. For over 40 years. Apart from YEC, being a ‘gapper’.

But the scales of biblicism progressively fell from my eyes. Even against my will. With loss. Pruning. Purging.

How the ancients saw God in their primeval ignorance is not how He is, if He is. Neither nature.

Jesus was the greatest step in the right direction. That trajectory continues. Is facilitated by righteous weights and measures wherever they lead.

[donpartain]

"And what do you mean there is no Cenozoic strata? There’s plenty of Cenozoic strata within grand canyon national park and outside or beyond the national park as well."

I said this based on the following quote:

Geology in the Grand Canyon - GrandCanyon.com

“Mesozoic and Cenozoic rocks (250 million years old to the present) are largely missing at Grand Canyon. They have either been worn away or were never deposited.”

But since then, in addition to your maps, I’ve read another article that said some Cenozoic sediment deposits exist, mostly in the western Grand Canyon.

So, I stand corrected on this.

[donpartain]

@Adrian_B

But again, the main point here is that erosion by the river post dates structural deformation of underlying strata. This is just a simple known fact, and it’s well known. It’s very well established and clear.

And this is a problem for people who think that all of this stratigraphy formed in some sort of rapid soft sediment washout.

I’ve never said all the stratigraphy (of the Grand Canyon, you mean?) “was formed in some sort of rapid soft sediment washout.”

But Cenozoic sediments did result from the Tejas megasequence drainoff of ocean waters from the continent (just as the Flood model would predict). And so, these are the sediments you are describing.

Yes, much faulting (probably from uplift?) is evident in the Grand Canyon:

Faults - Grand Canyon National Park (U.S. National Park Service) (nps.gov)

Exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon, are numerous faults that document the region’s earthquake – or tectonic – history. Since faults in the Grand Canyon are not only exposed on horizontal surfaces, but also in the walls of the canyon, geologists are provided with a rare opportunity to study what faults look like thousands of feet down into the earth’s crust. Faults are seen cutting through practically every geologic layer in the canyon, from the oldest, two-billion-year-old Precambrian rocks through some of the most recent lava flows less than 10,000 years old."

But Cenozoic (Flood drainage) sediments also exist, just as you’ve shown.

[Adrian_B (Scientist and Christian)]

thank you.

I just have to tell you, and its not worth trying to debate me because right now im just informing you of the reality of the situation.

The simple reality of the situation, is that structural deformation pre-exists erosion of the colorado.

I know, it seems so simple, how could it be that professional YEC geologists overlook such a simple and blatant issue?

There is no explanation other than quite literally stated that “its just a miracle”. And thats where the response and discussion ends. Its evidence presented by the scientific community vs. closure of the discussion with omission and claims of a miracle.

And in every scientific critique or discussion you’ll find out there in the published world, that’s how the conversation plays out every time. And this is unfortunate, but thats just how it is.

[Adrian_B (Scientist and Christian)]

So now im just going to circle back again to what ive been saying all along. I’m trying to keep us on track here.

So we have this fracturing, breaking, grinding, fragmenting, structural crushing and crunching of dense, solid, lithified, massive bodies of rock. These are solid structures moving, big solid structures that span thousands of square miles, and theyre in motion. They break and uplift.

Then…you have your colorado river, its cutting through the land as it uplifts. Fractures in these rocks demonstrate that they arent soft as the river cuts through them.

And so that leads us to this simple reality that, this valley cut out by the river, must have logically taken millions of years. Unless rivers across earth were made of some sort of supernatural hyper acidic fluid that slices through dense metamorphic rock like a knife through butter…but of course such an idea would come with its own bizarre logical conflicts.

And then you have your response from before that maybe the water was just high energy. And maybe just by some incredible devine force, this water just blew out the canyon in some extreme physics defying way. But again, as ive noted multiple times in past posts, we have many 180 degree meanders, suggesting not high energy water blasting rock out of the canyon, but rather a gradually developed river that in some cases even produced oxbow features, prior to incision through dense rock.

Such a situation just cannot logically be explained by anything but an incredible expanse of time.

And there is no response for this by any young earth professional geologist aside from public deferral to miracles.