Sea Sloths and Out of Order Fossils
Why do we find "sloths" buried in marine sediments? One
publication said it's because they were "Sea Sloths" -- even though
sloths are not known to move very fast, have fur that would (probably) get wet,
and are not known to have webbed feet.
writer of the article tells us that:
"'If we were to find a flying sloth, it would be about as
unexplained as this,'
says Greg McDonald, a paleontologist at the Hagerman Fossil Beds National
Monument in Idaho. Sloths sleep; sloths hand supinely from trees,
stroll. But none of the sloths alive today, nor any... others ... from 35
years of sloth history, could do what McDonald says this sloth did: it swam
in the ocean."
"Not only did the researchers
find the fossils among the remains of
undeniably aquatic animals -- such as fish, sea lions, dolphins and whales--
but also this sloth had bones of a swimmer. While the lower leg bone of
most sloths is much shorter than the upper one... Thalassocnus ... had just
the opposite proportions-- which would have given it a nice long swimming
1996, p. 45
instead of explaining this simply as a Very Large Flood that buried sloths
with marine creatures, the author speculates that it was because these sloths
actually swam in the ocean. Although there are many exceptions,
not many of them make it into the popular press, but are simply labeled as
and then ignored, or buried within the technical literature (that few can
understand without a concerted effort, and several dictionaries), and even then
they may be given different scientific names simply because they were found in
strata where their modern counterparts are not supposed to have trod.
The word "Problematica"
is also quite interesting in itself, in that it isn't in the dictionary.
Not even Webster's Unabridged Dictionary has it; nor is it in science dictionaries
either (at least none that I have found).
However one (Italian to English) Dictionary says
simply means "problems." Imagine
that: over 3,000,000
pages on a virtually undefined
wonder how many of these "problems" include fossils found where they shouldn’t be
(according to evolutionary thinking anyway)?
word also appears in the article mentioned below from Smithsonian
in which the author also tells us its meaning. But
instead of calling a spade
a spade, and admit that there are a Great MANY problems with the fossil record, the scientific community keeps the public in the
dark, while covering up their "problems" with such obscure words as "Problematica." See "Petrified
Footprints: a puzzling
parade of Permian Beasts, Smithsonian, July 1992, pp.
If you happen to read the article, pay
particular attention to the words: "bearlike,"
to be walking on their hind legs,"
"almost simian," "they look just like bear tracks”
But alas, let's not call them bear,
or bird, or simian tracks, let's call them "Problematica,"
and leave them
out of the Textbooks. After all, the students might not understand if we just "tell it like
This article is about
Human Bones that were found in 100 “million-year-old”
Cretaceous strata. The story was simply ignored by the "Natural History
television photography " crew that came to document
the excavation: and which they did ... in a round about way. For instead
See also: "The Case of the Bones in Stone,"
Desert, Feb. 1975, pp. 36-39
of actually making a TV program, they chose not to do so. Perhaps they thought that
the public wouldn’t be interested? Or maybe they didn't want to upset
the evolutionary story of how we supposedly arrived on planet Earth.
a small local
Desert magazine, and
Creation Research Society had the courage to "go against the flow"
dogma and publish something on it.
The excavation was supervised by
an anthropologist professor by the name of Dr.
J. P. Marwitt, from University of Utah --
shortly afterward was transferred to a University
on the East Coast.
There were numerous witnesses
to this also -- including the team of Rock-hounds
who made the discovery, along with
the local mining personnel. Note also that in this article, Dr. Marwitt
agreed that the bones were "in situ" in strata that was
(supposed to be) 100 million years old. He later retracted his earlier
statements that are recorded in Desert magazine, and was reported to have said
that the semi-hardened rock that could be removed with a knife-blade was
"blow sand." Then, many years later, the bones were finally
"dated" by the famous Carbon 14 dating method, and (low and
behold) the "dates" came back as bones that were only about 200
years old, and then it was simply dismissed as an Indian Burial (even though
the mining officials had said that there was no evidence of a tunnel leading
to the so-called burial chamber). So much for the bones being "in
situ" in what were (supposed to be) 100 million year old rocks.
many more instances of out of (evolutionary) order fossils see:
The Hidden History of the Human Race,
and Richard Thompson,
1993, 1996. See
Remains All Throughout the Geologic Column
-- based on this book's findings.
Man: A Handbook of Puzzling
William Corliss, 1978,
The Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm, Md. 21057.
That Their Words May Be Used Against Them, Henry Morris, 1997,
Institute of Creation
(out of place artifacts)
& Ancient High Technology -- Evidence of Noah's Flood?
Age of the Earth
of Place Fossils