I countered from a
recent Creation magazine which said seashell type
fossils have been found on some of the highest mountains in our world
(suggesting that they were once underwater).
Geologic uplift from plate tectonics is the generally accepted scientific explanation for this. Colliding plates on the Earth's crust wrinkle up and form mountains. We're reasonably sure this happenes because the plates move to this day; we can measure it with GPS now. We can even see the mountains rise over time.
Some data contrary to the flood story is that the fossil seashells found on mountains tend to be of sea life that we no longer find - and there never seems to be fossils of more modern sea life (whales, etc). If the flood happened, why is the fossil record so selective? Why isn't it more jumbled up?
My mom sends me Creation magazine (when she's done with it), and I have to say, it's not a terribly scientific magazine. They seem to be much more concerned with ideology and orthodoxy than with actual science. Also their writers have a terrible tendancy to cite themselves as sources; that seems a little unkosher to my eye.
It's certainly an entertaining read, however - just this last issue had an article about language where they said:
quote:
Take an alphabet of 26 letters (in the case of English) and you can get, say, War and Peace.
My girlfriend, the Russian studies major, laughed aloud when I read that.
War and Peace was of course written in Russian (with French dialogue) which uses the 33-character Cyrillic alphabet.
Nit-picking, perhaps - but for a magazine that claims to be an accurate source of scientific information those kinds of mistakes are fatal.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 06-19-2003]