Through Unexplored Texas

I have recently finished reading the book Through Unexplored Texas, by W. B. Parker. Its full title well explains the topic: "Notes taken during the expedition commanded by Capt. R. B. Marcy, U.S.A., Through Unexplored Texas, in the Summer and Fall of 1854."
I have found this to be a very unique insight into the natural history of our great state. Written by a northerner, the book was written six years before the War Between the States broke out. The expedition was one designed to scout out possible locations in Texas for a reservation for the Indians. The expedition went across north-central and west Texas, long before these areas were settled. This was in the time that only the Indians lived there, only about ten years after the Republic of Texas was annexed into the Union. The author writes about the landscape, the Indians, and the hardships encountered on this journey. I would like to explore this quote from chapter 4 of the book:

The country around Fort Washita bears unmistakeable [sic.] evidences that, at a remote period, old ocean's surges rolled in all their might and majesty over these vast plains.

Hitherto, the idea that they were once the ancient bed of
the ocean, appeared to me to be a very plausible theory, but, "experientia docet," no fact can be more fully established.

Our explorations developed every water-course, hill side and ravine to be filled with fossiliferous remains. The indefatigable doctor was busy from early dawn to dewy eve with hammer and specimen bag, and his cabinet now contains fossil sea eggs, fossil oysters, scollops, clams, and other marine shells, whilst in the soft limestone we found the ammonite and the nautilus (extinct marine crustacea), some of the former as large as a cart-wheel.

A suggestion has been made, that the days of Noah and the Flood will explain these deposits, but the depth of the strata and the size of the specimens found, prove revolving years of submersion and procreation. Some of the strata were fifty feet perpendicular, with numerous specimens thickly embedded from bottom to top.

What food for thought! Over a spot, now redolent with the perfume, and gay with the hues of sweet flowers, and teeming with insect and animal life, once rolled the mighty wave, sported the monsters of the deep, and roared the tempest in its irresistible might!

How ancient, then, must be this universal system--how far exceeding all the bounds set to it; its history is as unfathomable as that of the Being who formed, and now guides and directs it! Truly, at sight of nature's wonders, man sinks into puny insignificance.

I find this quite fascinating, as I live in a part of Texas which is covered with limestone fossils. Of course, current popular opinion says that a great ocean once covered this part of the earth many years ago. Obviously this was the position held by Mr. Parker back in the 1850's as he looked out across Texas and saw its fossils. Although on the surface this seems like a quite reasonable conclusion, my opinion differs.

What I find interesting about this is that Mr. Parker mentioned the belief that these fossils were created in the Flood (which is the position I hold). However, after seeing the fossils, he concluded that "the depth of the strata and the size of the specimens found, prove revolving years of submersion and procreation." Apparently he saw the huge fossils and the many layers, and thought there was no way the Flood could have done it. He also mentioned in the first part of the quote that the landscape seemed to indicate "that, at a remote period, old ocean's surges rolled in all their might and majesty over these vast plains."

While Mr. Parker firmly believed that the area was once covered with an ocean, I think he underestimated the Worldwide Flood of Noah's time. In the inspired word of God, we read about the Flood in the book of Genesis:

It came about after the seven days, that the water of the flood came upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. The rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. The water prevailed and increased greatly upon the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered.

(Genesis 7:10-12, 18, 19, NASB)

I get the impression that the Flood was very violent. It wasn't just like slowly filling up a swimming pool; "all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened." Not only did water come in torrents from the sky, it came from the the ocean floor also. With all this water sloshing around on the surface of the earth, I imagine it moved a whole lot of dirt and rock around. It probably totally reshaped the landscape, and washed ocean creatures all over the globe (thus, seashells found in north Texas!). The Bible says that after 40 days, "the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed." After that, everything started to settle down. Sediments slowly went to the bottom, and the dead bodies of countless animals were buried, many forming the fossils we see today.

Now compare that to an ancient ocean. Would any fossils be formed? For those of you who don't know, fossils are formed when a hard object (such as a bone or a shell) is quickly buried in mud. In order to make a fossil, the mud must have certain minerals in it. If it does, eventually the mud hardens around the object. Over time, the object decomposes, leaving an empty mold. Quite often, sediments seep through the rock and fill the mold. When this hardens, you have a cast of the original object, a fossil.

It is much more likely for a fossil to be created in a flood than in an ocean. How many fossils do you see on the seashore?

Although I disagree with Mr. Parker on the origin of the fossils, I must give him credit for this statement:

How ancient, then, must be this universal system--how far exceeding all the bounds set to it; its history is as unfathomable as that of the Being who formed, and now guides and directs it! Truly, at sight of nature's wonders, man sinks into puny insignificance.

As Mr. Parker saw evidence for what he thought must have been an ancient ocean, I find it remarkable that he did not take God out of the picture. Not only did he say that God created "this universal system," but also said that He guides and directs it.

So many people today believe in the "ocean theory," as well as the theory of macroevolution. Doubtless, many evolutionists believe as they do because they sought a faith without God. This goes hand-in-hand with humanists, who believe that man is his own God. I fear that this is a trend that is spreading across the world today.

Back in the 1850's, nearly everyone believed in God, including scientists. Science without God was unheard of. However, the atheists have now found a theory which partially explains the origin of the universe--leaving God out of the picture.

I think a lot of people need to look at nature's wonders and be humbled by the Creator and His awesome creation, as Mr. Parker said, "Truly, at sight of nature's wonders, man sinks into puny insignificance."