If the marine growth in question occurred during the flood, then there had to be enough time to grow all that complex inter-related ecology, including layers of clams with shells that have growth rings showing 10, 20, 30 years of growth, in an undisturbed environment, and found in many multiples layers.
Thus one possibility is that the flood lasted much longer than the advertised time, in order to provide sufficient time for all this complex growth.
Commentary presupposes said growth to have occurred on location on mountain tops that were under the sea. Why couldn't these growths been transported to the locations in the form we find them by the churning waters in upheaval? Of course you are going to say, or have said, that multiple layers exist, which appears not to have been caused by a Genesis flood since mountain tops under the sea for less than year does not correspond to the phenomena. Genesis specifically states that there were TWO sources causing the flood: torrential rains and fountains of the deep bursting open. The latter is speaking about sources of water originating at the sea bottom causing the levels to rise catastrophically. This would account for thick layer, or layers, or the phenomena seen. I am saying that your emphasis on "multiple layers" presupposes uniformitarian time. A catastrophe like a Great Flood, in view of the facts mentioned, could easily cause these layers, since they only exist at the top.
Are you aware that modern geology accounts for much land terrain or shores near seas as being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward?
RAZD: your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today. If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?
Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.
Creationists claim that these fossils are evidence of the flood. I just want to understand how that works.
What I want to see is an explanation for the obvious solid rock evidence of long term marine growth that is found in multiple layers on many many mountains, an explanation that shows it must be evidence of a flood -- and that no other explanation will cover all the facts as well.
Something a little more thought out than this:
Option 1
(premise a) there are seashells on mountains
(premise b) seashells grow under water
therefore: the mountains must have been underwater
(premise c) can't think of any way to make mountains
therefore: the flood covered the mountains
Something a little less ridiculously circular than this:
Option 2
(premise q) the flood also involved made up tectonic mixing
(premise r) this mixing jumbled all the earths surface, making mountains etc
therefore: what you see is all mixed up from what was before
(unstated assumption used as premise s) ignore layering, ignore sorting of fossils, ignore evidence of dry formations in between marine ones, etc etc etc
therefore: the flood caused everything to look exactly like you see it because if it didn't look like due to a flood that then there could be no flood but there was a flood so therefore it made it look exactly like the way you see it ...
Everything written in the above blue box simply denigrates the Creationist explanation, asserting it not to be a explanation. This is long-winded question begging, RAZD. My previous comments (above) place the ball back in your court. And for the record: the evolution explanation is deranged and unbelievable. It amounts to no explanation since you have mountain tops to have been sea floor caused by slow steady plate conflict----yeah right----simply preposterous. In other words you don't know.
So you go with option #1? That doesn't explain the layers of undisturbed growth of layer after layer of such fossils or the continuity of those layers around the world. I need the details, Ray. See if you can fill it in:
I have made an explanation (above). Continuity is explained by the Catastrophe. Lack of similar phenomena from mountain base to the top falsifies your deranged explanation.
The fallacy of the argument from popularity. Do you really want to go there, and compare which half is which?
Argument from Popularity is not always a fallacy. Reference available upon request.
No, we have one explanation: plate tectonics and the natural history of life on earth preserved in the fossil record as it happened, ...
Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood. Your rebuttal, in its entirety, consists of assuming the logical expectation to not be logical----when it is perfectly logical.
Ray
™ Version 4.2
