Evidence for and against Flood theories

It is also important to add that the seashells are not ON the mountain but IN the mountain (ie Mt. Everest). The top portion of Mt. Everest is limestone that is riddled with seashells. If a flood were responsible for the seashells the flood would be required to lay down hundreds of meters of limestone with seashells embedded, and then the mountain would have to be lifted 5 miles into the sky.

Perhaps Dynamo would like to argue in dYank's place? Dynamo seems to be able to argue without getting angry or calling people Satan's Children, a definite plus. I, for one, would try to carry on a civil conversation with Dynamo if he feels up to the task.

quote:

---

Why are the seashells on mountain tops (the ones that we actually see) not evidence of a global flood?

---

Because of the fossils origin. The fossils found loose on mountaintops are actually caused by erosion. The fossils originate IN THE MOUNTAIN, in large deposits of limestone. As the limestone erodes the fossils are dropped onto the ground. Mt. Everest, for example, is made up of large sections of limestone. These limestone sections are full of fossils. So not only are there fossils ON Mt. Everest, but there are fossils in the MIDDLE of Mt. Everest. If there were loose sea shells above any layer containing marine fossils on any tall mountain you may have an argument.Another interesting situation is found in the area I live in. The Snake River used to be a lot higher than it is now. Because of this you can find fish fossils on top of the bluffs surrounding the Snake River. A few buttes are actually called "Fossil Butte". Buttes with this name are kind of like Elm Street, you find one every twenty miles or so. However, the rise in water level needed to cover these Buttes is not adequate to cover the entire Earth.

quote:

---

Yes, but the Flood model proposes that pretty much ALL the layers comprising Mt Everest were deposited during the Flood and then the mountain was uplifted during the receding stages. The fact that there are marine fossils IN the mountain is taken only as stronger evidence for such a scenario.

---

The Flood model predicts that this happened suddenly, which is not evidenced in geology. However, geology has no problem with the uplift of the seafloor. This can occur over millions of years. Mt. Everest, specifically, is the result of India crashing into Asia (in a geologic timescale, mind you). Pretend that your foot is India and Asia is a rug. Now, keeping your foot parallel to the ground, push on the rug. You will notice that ridges form. This is what happened with Mt. Everest, and the Himalayas, over millions of years. In fact, Mt. Everest is still moving, IIRC, at about 2 cm/year upwards.The problem for the Flood theory timescale is that enourmous amounts of energy would be released if this happened in a matter of months. The energy released would not build a mountain but reduce it to molten lava because of the heat produced through friction. You can explain this away as miraculous heat exchange, but then we are no longer trying to arrive at a scientific conclusion.

quote:

---

Well, I can't hope to explain the consequences of CPT (Catastrophic Plate Techtonics) or propose some other theory for the uplift of Mt. Everest. However, this is different than saying that the fossils in the mountains are not evidence of the Flood. Rather, you are saying that IF the fossils are a result of the Flood, then the required and fairly sudden formation of the mountain presents an unsolved problem.

---

Well, given the consequences of CPT, fossils on mountaintops can not be used as evidence until the heat is taken care of. The problem is that for the entire earth to be covered by the amount of water found on earth it has to be relatively flat. So the only reason to have flat land is to account for the water. No evidence is ever given for the land being flat, it is just assumed ad hoc.So now that CPT has the water problem "solved", it has to explain where the mountains came from. For no other reason besides verses in Genesis and the fact that the earth is not flat, the sudden uplift of mountains is hypothesized, again in an ad hoc nature. The only reason for accepting CPT is for compliance to a literal reading of Genesis. None of the evidence points to this occuring, nor is CPT able to deal with the consequences of this mountain building without inserting miracles.I could also claim that if aliens suddenly shaped the earth with gravity rays that mountains would have seashells on them. That would put me on the same evidenciary level as CPT. Cool, huh. So, without a reliable theory on how CPT formed mountains, sea shells can't be used as evidence.