Navajo Sandstone 2

​                                                                                                         B-H
​By Matys Weiser
I feel as though I am bursting with excitement over my discovery of marine fossils in what is purported to be a vast, fossilized desert of Navajo sandstone. However, the reality is that the shifting identification of the origins of this stone carries significant implications. There is no point in the timeline of creationist geology where such a desert could be situated. If it were indeed a desert, it would pose a serious problem for those of us who accept the Young Earth model of our planet's existence.
I must reiterate that this would not have any consequences for our faithful lives as Torah observants, as there could be various explanations for the existence of what appears to be a massive desert in prehistoric times. However, since this is not a theological article, I will refrain from elaborating further. The existence of such a desert in this geological layer, dating to the late Jurassic period, would present significant challenges for Young Earth Creationism, but not for Judaism.
If, however, it is demonstrated to evolutionists that they are mistaken in their worldview of old Earth, they would face serious difficulties in negating the concept of rapid creation. Proving that a one-year-long remodeling of our planet occurred during Noah’s Mabul would be detrimental to atheistic or agnostic ideologies.
The issue of Navajo Sandstone is not decisive but is very significant in this ideological struggle. Most geological layers recognized by evolutionary geologists are wet deposits, formed by some kind of sea, a massive river, a delta, a lagoon, or a sizable lake that, after drying, became cemented to varying degrees of hardness or sand layers. Only a few, like Navajo sandstone, are classified as aeolian deposits, meaning they originated as dry sand. Only later did this sand become wet, and after the addition of a cementing agent, it petrified into the stone we see today.
In my view, there is no doubt that Navajo Sandstone is, in fact, a wet deposit mixed with marine fossils, and the original material from which the stone is composed was neither dry nor a desert. There are other similar strata, such as Wingate sandstone and Entrada sandstone, also designated as aeolian. 
In our previous article on this topic, I discussed the location of Wingate sandstone, which is situated in the same stratigraphic position as the clearly wet deposit of Moenave Sandstone. Entrada sandstone remains a subject of ongoing research.
Personally, I am convinced that these strata deposits also have a wet origin; if proven as such, little evidence would remain to support the hypothetical millions of years of deserts conceived in evolutionary thought.
I will share some new pictographic and video material from the kelp fossil location within Navajo sandstone in Zion National Park, as well as other marine fossils from the same canyon, including sponges and various seaweeds I have discovered on many hikes since my initial visit several years ago.

​In addition to these obvious marine fossils, there is another puzzling fact for evolutionary geologists: multiple sites with dinosaur tracks in Navajo sandstone and other layers adjacent to these supposedly aeolian deposits. The first major problem is how the footprints of various-sized animals were preserved in desert environments. To preserve a footprint in sand, the sand must be wet! The subsequent layer covering the imprint and filling the depth of the footprint must also be wet but not mixed with the previous layer where the footprints were made. This entire process must occur rapidly to maintain the shape of the animal’s foot.
The challenge for evolutionists is how to make a desert wet. Some have suggested that occasional rain in the desert and flash floods could cover the layer with dinosaur tracks. However, anyone who has witnessed a flash flood knows that it does not contain pure sand, which typically fills dinosaur tracks.

Another theory posits that a lake existed where animals walked along the banks, leaving footprints. The question remains: where does the covering layer come from? Most readers have likely walked on a beach and know that even small waves can wash away footprints within minutes, and without waves, the shape of a footprint does not survive for more than a few hours. If those animals were indeed walking on a beach, and some unknown type of flash flood preserved the tracks, there must have been a significant number of those animals and many beaches, as we have numerous preserved footprints in Navajo and similar sandstones. I present only a few locations, often just a few miles apart, to illustrate my point.
Another significant issue with this hypothetical desert environment is the necessity of vegetation to sustain these creatures. If larger beasts consumed smaller ones, the smaller ones also needed sustenance. Unless the food chain was short and circular, there is simply no evidence of any type of food sufficient to support the entire ecosystem.

Indeed, as shown in photographs from some sites I visited, the information boards describe the environments reconstructed to the best of paleontologists' imaginations. Even if water existed in the desert, there is no evidence of vegetation embedded in the sandstone. It should be noted that if conditions were suitable enough to preserve footprints in the sand, it would be more likely for some vegetation to be preserved, including in situ, where it grew. Meanwhile, the only vegetation I have observed in Navajo sandstone appears to be of marine origin, characteristic of seas rather than lakes, not to mention sponges and jellyfish. Please see my previous article for pictographic material.

---

What I see in these tracks and locations suggests a very temporary environment. There is no land vegetation because it had no time to grow, and the vegetation from the original habitat of the animals was likely uprooted and deposited elsewhere, possibly where the waves of Mabul transported the material. Unlike animals, trees do not walk. The clumps of vegetation embedded in the Navajo sandstone resemble marine vegetation that has been uprooted, clumped, and deposited among the sands of mud waves coming from various directions, laden with volcanic material.
Another argument for the rapid deposition of mud is that the strata layers containing dinosaur footprints are usually not the same as those where their bones are found. I am aware of only partial skeleton remains of a sauropod found in Navajo sandstone; however, many species left their footprints, and the number of track sites is abundant.
“The Seitaad ruessi fossil is articulated, meaning that the bones had not moved from life positions, so they were probably held in place for some time by soft tissues during burial. But a few partially disassociated limb bones suggest the animal was dead before burial. The science of determining the details of fossilization is called taphonomy, and such study adds considerable depth to understanding the landscapes and lifestyles behind fossil remains.
Other previously described fragmentary sauropodomorph fossil remains were found in Northern Arizona’s Navajo Sandstone. One find, MNA 7233, included portions of tail vertebrae, remains of pubic bones, a partial right tibia, both articulated feet and several articulated belly ribs. Another partial sauropodomorph from the Navajo Sandstone, UCMP 82961, consists of two cervical vertebrae and cervical ribs, an articulated left hand, fragments of the right hand several foot bones, and fragments of the shoulder girdle. “
(Utah Friends of Paleontology website)

​It is important to note that reconstructions of complete skeletons of these animals typically do not originate from a single specimen. Skeletal remains are often collected from clumps of mixed bones, indicating that most of the animals from which the bones come were dead and dismembered when they became mixed with bones of other animals, whether of the same or different species. Paleontologists can often reconstruct entire skeletons from different animals of the same size or from remains of the same species but of varying sizes. If other bones were preserved, it is possible to reconstruct an entire skeleton by resizing the bones of another animal. In many museums, these skeletons are artificial copies of original bones. In the early days of paleontology, original bones were often part of reconstructions, with missing parts filled in with artificially created bones.
I have seen such an example in a museum in Bismarck, ND, where a dinosaur skeleton labeled Edmontosaurus was displayed. However, in Montana, it is referred to as Maiasaura, and I have seen it in Canada under yet another name. A simple Google search of both names will reveal no major discrepancies. Edmontosaurus is known to have walked on four limbs, yet it was reconstructed as bipedal—walking on two legs—because that was the prevailing trend at the time of reconstruction. When I inquired about this issue, the custodian informed me that the skeleton was largely composed of artificial bones, as only a portion of it was original. The bones were later painted to create a uniform appearance, and there is no documentation indicating which bones are original and which are not. Sorting real bones from artificial ones would be costly and potentially damaging to the original specimens, so Edmontosaurus will remain in its current pose for the foreseeable future.

​Neither I nor specialists in the field of Young Earth Creationism have a definitive answer regarding which geological strata represent the beginning of Mabul. One significant difference between Christian scientists and someone like me, who has access to Mesoira, a Jewish non-scriptural body of tradition, is their lack of crucial information on the topic.
The main issue is that we possess knowledge about the Flood of Enosh, which, after submerging a third of the original continent created in six days, likely left some deposits on the Earth's surface. I suspect that the Great Unconformity, clearly visible in the Grand Canyon, indicates the boundary between deposits from the first, partial Flood and the total catastrophe of Noah’s Mabul.

​If, as some agree, Mabul began during the Triassic deposits, the Jurassic period is significantly later—weeks, perhaps months, into Mabul. By this time, most life had already been annihilated and washed down to the lower basins of the Antediluvian continent (Rashi) or to the shores of oceans. Organic remains in many of these locations transformed under heat and pressure, forming fossil fuels—coal and crude oil. Some animals, however, like those that left their footprints in the late Jurassic wet sands, likely survived for a while, instinctively moving to higher elevations during the flood. 

Labreya Tar Pits Los Angeles

I will mention a theory developed by some creationists that in North America, many of these animals migrated toward the center of the new landmass, known today as Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, the Dakotas, and central Canadian provinces, where dinosaur remains are predominantly found. The extensive boneyards of various species are being discovered across a range that extends from Dinosaur National Monument to northern Montana and Alberta.

Exceptionally preserved dinosaur fossil in Alberta Canada. Almost whole animal!

​I am aware of dinosaur track sites in Texas, Oklahoma, Connecticut, California, and Yukon Territory—just from the locations I have personally documented. There is much more to research and many other topics to explore. May Hashem bless us with the time and resources to continue this work.