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.
The 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, sloths stroll. But none of the sloths alive today, nor any… others … from 35 million 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 stroke…” Discover, Jan. 1996, p. 45
So 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 “Problematica” 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 that it simply means “problems.” Imagine that: over 3,000,000 web pages on a virtually undefined word. I wonder how many of these “problems” include fossils found where they shouldn’t be (according to evolutionary thinking anyway)?
The word also appears in the article mentioned below from Smithsonian magazine 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. 71-79.
If you happen to read the article, pay particular attention to the words: “bearlike,” “three-toed animals,” “tracks where creatures appear to be walking on their hind legs,” “almost simian,” “they look just like bear tracks” and “they sure do.”
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 it is”.
Another article talks about Human Bones that were found in 100 “million-year-old” Cretaceous strata. The whole story was simply ignored by the “Natural History television photography ” who had been invited to document the excavation – which they did. Only, instead of actually making a TV program, they somehow forgot to do so. Maybe they thought that ordinary people wouldn’t understand since it didn’t fit into the standard evolutionary story of how we got here. Only a small local newspaper, Desert magazine, and Creation Research Society had the courage to “go against the flow” of evolutionary 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 — who 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.