Summations Only

In the Cretaceous period as shown on the paleogeographic map of that period (in the textbook referred to), the Inland Seaway covered the middle section of the continent from the edge of the mountains of Nevada to the Great Lakes. This was part of the Zuni sequence that started in the late Jurassic and lasted for the entire Cretaceous period, some 79 million years. There is evidence of fluctuating shorelines of the seaway but the water was there for the entire Cretaceous period.There are lots of fossil dinosaurs from the Cretaceous period. A major fossil formation is the Dakota which is one of the layers in the Grand Staircase diagram that has been posted a few times here. The Wikipedia article on this formation starts out saying it is found east of the Inland Seaway which would suggest there wasn't the problem I've been describing of there being no land area for the dinosaurs to live on because of the sea transgressions.But the Dakota does not exist merely east of the seaway, it is also found in Utah (the Grand Staircase) and Colorado, which are certainly located in the area that was covered by the seaway. It is also found in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, most of which are at least partly in the same area that was covered by the seaway.I suggest that this does show the contradiction I was talking about earlier, between the claim on the one hand that the dinosaur fossils in this formation lived on the spot where they were eventually buried, but on the other hand, for that entire time period most of that land that became the Dakota formation was under water, so they could not have lived there. We know they died there because their fossils are in the strata of the formation found in those various states located in the area of the inland seaway.Seems to me this comes down to evidence that the dinosaurs did not live in that time period; they only died in that time period, and died by drowning.

I hardly ever use Creationist sources and didn't use any for this post. I thought my sources were pretty clear. In any case I used Google and Wikipedia for much of it, including the time span of the Cretaceous period, and the Historical Geology textbook for the paleogeography information about the time period, and its maps referred to from an online source that PaulK found.Here are a few online sources:
Here's the Google quote which was from Wikipedia saying it lasted 79 million years;
Google
And here's Wikipedia, also saying 79 million years.I haven't located the site that said the shoreline fluctuated but that the water never completely went away. But here is the Wikipedia article I just found that also suggests that it was there for the entire time period: Here's a map showing the Dakota formation within the area of the seaway:
http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Current/2010/Ludvigson/gifs/fig1.gifabe: Finally figured out the maps were posted by jar and checked them out. Not sure what the problem is. They show the seaway pretty much as the geology textbook does. I didn't say the water covered the entire continent if that's what you are implying. The maps and my sources just say that there was water in the area of the seaway for the whole Cretaceous period. The maps don't show anything different from that. If that's what you are saying please explain.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

On the map in the textbook the seaway covers the whole area from the mountains on the west to the Great Lakes.

I don't know exactly when Dinosaur Ridge at Golden, Colorado was deposited so that's a problem, but it appears to have been within the seaway for the whole 34 million years of the seaway's existence so it's a candidate for possibly having occurred in marine sediments. It has both Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaur fossils.Golden is a few miles west of Denver and appears to be within the seaway through all its shoreline changes on this map: interior seaway interactive mapWorth a try I figure. If it doesn't work I keep looking.Pollux: If I could prove what I'm trying to prove the dating issues would just evaporate.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The idea is that at some point a clear contradiction should be found between the depositional environment determined by the clues found in the rock strata, and the actual environment that is determined from shorelines and other clues to the six sequences of epeiric seas. Not because of any failure of the geologists but because the Flood would naturally contradict many of the supposed depositional environments. But I need to do a much better job of thinking it all through than I've done lately. Bad case of brain fog.The idea that any dinosaurs "lived in the sea" is a misreading of what I'm saying. That's just a way of characterizing the natural result of the contradiction, that it implies such an impossibility. The impossibility is resolved by recognizing that the dinosaurs died in the Flood.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

But of course your faith is in OE geology, mine is in the Flood. I know I need better evidence, but I have faith that it's out there.

Those are not facts; just your own personal prejudice. I know the truth and the truth includes the revelation of the Flood.

There's no need to keep arguing with my beliefs. We will continue to have the occasional exchange of dogmas I'm sure but it's best just to leave it at that. There isn't anything new to say about any of it. It IS a matter of faith that scientists have, sorry, and there is also no contradiction between belief in God and science, sorry. We can keep doing the little dance of contrary dogmas if you like but I don't see the point.I need a second wind to get back to the topic of this thread.

You know what you perceive to be the truth, based on the brainwashing you've received from your education.My interpretation of scripture is the traditional orthodox interpretation, not at all idiosyncratic. The interpretations that find millions of years in scripture, and believe in evolution, those are idiosyncratic, nothing but capitulations to worldly dogmas.As I said to coyote we can go on exchanging dogmas. How about we don't? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I haven't even got to my original idea. I got sidetracked. I expect to get back to it soon unless the snarky babble gets to me.

I understand how the seaway expanded and contracted. You are right that I don't see the connection with Walther's Law though, so perhaps you would perform a self-sacrificing kindness and explain it to me?But unless I get a second wind on this issue I'm waiting for a second wind on the original OP topic and may go back to that one instead.

It's a matter of persuasion to the most plausible argument in the end, that's all. However, It has occurred to me that an actual contradiction between the geological fantasies of the former time periods, and something like the observable shorelines of former bodies of water, could emerge and expose the fantasy.

Could very well be the needed contradiction there.

Any shore lines of worldwide extent, or continent-covering extent for that matter, have to be from the Flood.

Because you mostly get the oddballs in a debate like this, who want to "prove" that you can abuse scripture and still be a Christian. The orthodox believers who come here don't stay very long. I'm stu/pid enough to keep at it for some reason. Well, I really do believe creationists have proved OE science to be wrong, it's just a matter of getting the right evidence presented. (I am coming to believe, however, that God doesn't want us to win this argument. He wants us to know the truth through faith in Him, not through scientific evidence or any worldly means.) [qs] If you claim to understand how God works you need to know a lot more. Nothing can trump God's word, and nothing in God's word contradicts any actual truth about God's world either. It can't contradict science. That's one way I know the science about these things is wrong. However, I also think it's pretty obvious that it's wrong just looking at the actual facts. Even if I can't prove the contradiction between the strata and their clues and the reality, I know the reality was the Flood so all those clues are misleading you. One way of trying to say this is to try to get the reality across that the only actual landscape in any "time period" is a slab of rock, on which there could not possibly ever have been any other kind of landscape. It's so obvious to me it's constantly a puzzle how you all are so impervious to it. Whatever standard Geology teaches Not "people who study the earth" but people who believe all the stuff Geology teaches, yes.