Skip to comments.Deep-Sea Dinosaur Fossil Buries Evolution
Posted on 08/07/2019 3:37:44 PM PDT by fishtank
Deep-Sea Dinosaur Fossil Buries Evolution
Tim Clarey, Ph.D., and James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Th.D.
Aug. 1, 2019
Oil and gas explorations have found sedimentary deposits so massive and so far offshore that secular science has no satisfactory explanation for their occurrence.1 Marine rock exposures have also revealed numerous land fossils washed great distances out to sea.2,3 Drilling off the coast of Norway has even pulled up a core containing dinosaur bone.4 Although these discoveries baffle uniformitarian scientists, they are not an issue for Flood geologists.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
"Only a massive, high-energy flow of water could move sand over 1,000 feet thick more than 200 miles offshore or transport a dinosaur over 70 miles out from the nearest coast. And only repeated tsunami-like flows could bury it about 1.5 miles deep. And similar, tsunami-like flows would be necessary to transport land-dwelling phytosaurs tens of miles offshore.
Were talking about unimaginable amounts of energygreater than any tsunami witnessed in modern times. These features are difficult to comprehend without recognizing a catastrophe as big as the great global Flood described in Genesis. There is no other conceivable explanation that fits the observable facts. It was a terrible day at the beach when the doomed Plateosaurus was washed out to sea and buried in sediments far off the coast of modern Norway."
Map of the Snorre Field in the Norwegian North Sea. Image credit: Copyright © 2016 Dag Chun Standnes. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder.
Article image and caption.
If it makes them feel good...
I prefer facts not feelings.
There is so much stuff buried under the oceans that its hard to pin any theory on it.
Would a dead dino float? Could it have been carried out to sea in a current and then sink?
Maybe, but to become a fossil it also has to be rapidly buried in sediment. Dont know how that would happen if it merely floated out to sea.
You do realize that the shoreline and other topographic features were completely different 65 million years ago, dont you?
Oh, sorry. I forgot.
Why couldn’t a glacier moving over thousands of years have caused this?
Remember they’re on a planet that’s only 7000 years old.
You’ve heard of the dead cat bounce in polls.
Maybe space aliens dropped a dinosaur and it made a big splash, hit the sea bottom and bounced, causing high fives and smiles from the space visitors.
“Let ‘em figure that one out in 2019” they joked.
Note: all above is hilarious satire and not endorsed or condoned as true science by yours truly, F.B.
Ah, but the Bible tells us that the earth isn't that old.
Plate tectonics, but iirc “pangea” was about 400 million years ago. But who knows what arrangement they were in 65 million years ago.
Glaciers and other frozen-over land masses from an ice age could mean that the dino actually walked a lot closer to where its fossil was found.
Lots of possible ideas I suppose, including a great flood or similar catastrophic event e.g. asteroid crashing into earth. Many ancient cultures repeat the story of the flood. But since 65 million years ago is a lot older than humans - possibly the fossil pre-existed the flood.
"It occurs in a reddish-brown, mudstone interval referred to as the upper member of the Lunde Formation ( reservoir zone L03 ; cf. Diesen et al. 1995) (Fig. 2). The mudstone is composed of dominantly compound and cumulative paleosols that formed in distal to fluvial channels in a flood-plain forming the uppermost part of the upper member of the Lunde Formation"
So the mudstone the fossil was deposited in was formed in a floodplain. On land.
"...the whole area was flooded during a marine transgression from the north and south in Late Sinemurian - Early Pliensbachian time (Nystuen & Fält 1995)
A marine transgression isn't a "tsunami-like flow", it's caused by the sea level rising or the land subsiding, and it takes ages.
So the paper says a dinosaur lived and died on land, became fossilized, and subsequently the shoreline changed and the deposit ended up underwater.
And from this we get that secular science is baffled.
Supposing two swallows carried it together.
Land that was underwater tens of millions of years ago is now dry land, and vice versa. I have found fossil clam shells in hillsides miles from the ocean.
It really does not puzzle scientists when fossil sea animals are found miles from the ocean. Nor is it a puzzle to find land animal fossils at sea miles from shore.
Genesis is the only written history we have....Biblical time is totally different from the Beginning in Genesis.
..... Sea Shells are found on the tops of mountains so why can’t animal bones be found at the bottom of seas? The world was much different in the days of those bygone epochs.
7000 years is only 70 hundred-year lifespans end to end.
What we know happened doesn’t fit in that span.
What we see doesn’t fit in that span.
There’s animal fossils at sea.
There’s fish fossils in mountains.
Most of it arranged such that only long times make sense.
Fast events can’t produce fine arrangements and delicate detail, any more than a bomb can’t make a watch.
Just because the cause isn’t immediately obvious to you doesn’t mean it fits your theory.
I’m sympathetic to young earth theory, but it’s absurd.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.