Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8764 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-28-2017 8:26 AM
394 online now:
CRR, Faith, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Pressie, RAZD, Riggamortis (7 members, 387 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: superuniverse
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 812,303 Year: 16,909/21,208 Month: 2,798/3,593 Week: 265/646 Day: 28/115 Hour: 2/7

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 151 of 518 (488922)
11-19-2008 4:02 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by roxrkool
11-19-2008 1:21 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this.

Then you are out of touch.

How does anyone confirm the claim about yourself?

We do generally feel that portions of the geologic record are the result of 'mini' catastrophic events, such as localized flooding. How much of the geologic record is represented by these mini catastrophic events, however, is arguable.

No one person speaks for Geology; therefore, to start your comments by saying "we" is horribly inaccurate.

And I never said a word about "mini catastrophic events" or "localized flooding."

As for the "fountains of the deep" portion of your statement. You have been misinformed. That is absolutely not true at all.

You are out of touch. Ridged terrain sea shores is now known to be caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea.

First of all, mountains do not jut up ever upward.

No one said they did. You need to develop better reading skills.

Second of all, some mountains are in fact full of fossils. Some mountains also have fossils only at their bases. Some mountains only have fossils in their middles.

No one denied any of these facts----you have misunderstood.

You again have been misinformed regarding the location of fossils and mountains

You have not read the pertinent exchanges. RAZD and I are discussing layers of fossilized marine life at the tops, attempting to determine the best explanation of said phenomena. If the phenomena was caused by plate conflict, as RAZD asserts, then I have asked why the entire mountain is not embedded with such phenomena since mountains, according to the so called natural explanation, are raised sea floor?

RAZD says said layers could not have been formed in a year, that they were formed in a time scale corresponding to uniformitarian expectations. But if the phenomena at issue is only located at the tops then catastrophic upheaval is certainly a viable explanation. Of course, as far as I am aware, science does not know how a wide spectrum of rocks and material behave in churning waters, and how the same settles.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 1:21 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by rueh, posted 11-19-2008 4:11 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded
 Message 156 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 5:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 166 by edge, posted 11-23-2008 11:21 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 152 of 518 (488923)
11-19-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by bluescat48
11-19-2008 7:18 AM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
So explain why there are no chordate fossils in the area explained? If the results were from your mythological global flood there should be fossils of all types of sea creatures not just arthropods, mollusks & worms.

Why do we find sea shells in abundance on sea shores?

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by bluescat48, posted 11-19-2008 7:18 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
rueh
Member (Idle past 1106 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 153 of 518 (488924)
11-19-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2008 4:02 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Ray writes:

RAZD and I are discussing layers of fossilized marine life at the tops, attempting to determine the best explanation of said phenomena.

Hello Ray. Do you have any examples of mountains that only contain fossilized marine life at their peaks and nowhere else along them?
Ray writes:

Ridged terrain sea shores is now known to be caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea.

Do you mean waves instead of fountains?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:15 PM rueh has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 154 of 518 (488925)
11-19-2008 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by rueh
11-19-2008 4:11 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Do you have any examples of mountains that only contain fossilized marine life at their peaks and nowhere else along them?

No.

I am assuming. I have asked RAZD basically the same question.

Do you mean waves instead of fountains?

Except for waves caused by avalanche----no.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by rueh, posted 11-19-2008 4:11 PM rueh has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 4:20 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 341 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 155 of 518 (488926)
11-19-2008 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2008 4:15 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Obviously Ray, you need to define what "Ridged terrain sea shores" are because no one seems to know what the heck you are referring to.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 341 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 156 of 518 (488927)
11-19-2008 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2008 4:02 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
rox: Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this.

Then you are out of touch.


I certainly could be uninformed regarding terminology used outside my area of expertise, however, my statement stands. I have never heard of ridged terrain sea shores.

And I never said a word about "mini catastrophic events" or "localized flooding."

You wrote:

"being caused by mini, isolated events of fountains of the deep suddenly bursting open and upward"

Those sudden bursts are "mini catastrophes" and unless you are referring to sudden bursts of air or gas, a sudden burst of water upon the surface of the ground would cause localized flooding.

You are out of touch. Ridged terrain sea shores is now known to be caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea.

I've searched through several of my sedimentology, sedimentary environments, and facies models books and not one of them references "ridged terrain sea shores" or "fountains of the deep." Please define the terms and cite modern relevant references.

No one said they did. You need to develop better reading skills.

You did in fact make that statement. YOU stated, "your explanation of plates jutting ever upward makes ancient sea floor the mountain tops of today."

RAZD stated no such thing. YOU did. So stick that friggen' obnoxious blowhard attitude where the sun don't shine.

RAZD and I are discussing layers of fossilized marine life at the tops, attempting to determine the best explanation of said phenomena. If the phenomena was caused by plate conflict, as RAZD asserts, then I have asked why the entire mountain is not embedded with such phenomena since mountains, according to the so called natural explanation, are raised sea floor?

Yes, and since you are obviously aware of the fact that fossils don't solely occur at the tops of mountains, why is this line of questioning important?

RAZD says said layers could not have been formed in a year, that they were formed in a time scale corresponding to uniformitarian expectations. But if the phenomena at issue is only located at the tops then catastrophic upheaval is certainly a viable explanation.

Again, if fossils don't only occur on tops of mountains, why is this important?

Of course, as far as I am aware, science does not know how a wide spectrum of rocks and material behave in churning waters, and how the same settles.

If you want to know what geologists know, take some classes or pick up some books. Geologists have been modeling these things for decades. The science of geology has a pretty good idea of how rocks, sediment, debris, etc. behave in all sorts of water environments.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 4:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-19-2008 6:22 PM roxrkool has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 546 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 157 of 518 (488929)
11-19-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by roxrkool
11-19-2008 5:41 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
rox writes:

cfo writes:

rox writes:

Hmmmm... I've been a geologist for 15 years and I have never ever heard of this.


Then you are out of touch.

I certainly could be uninformed regarding terminology used outside my area of expertise, however, my statement stands. I have never heard of ridged terrain sea shores.

Not that Google is the absolute authority but I googled "ridged terrain sea shore" and "ridged terrain" AND "seashore" which resulted in 0 results. This sounds like a made up creationist concoction along with "fountains of the deep" i.e. "hydroplate theory" in which a great layers of liquid water (much thicker than our present day water tables) existed below the Earth's crust.

In fact, I believe this hydroplate theory is the counterpart to the creationists canopy theory in which they believed that before the time of the flood a great canopy of water vaper enveloped the earth. And yes I use the word "theory" loosely here to retain their own wording.

See the following reference for more info:

Hydroplate Theory: http://creationwiki.org/Hydroplate
Canopy Theory: http://creationwiki.org/Canopy_theory

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by roxrkool, posted 11-19-2008 5:41 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by roxrkool, posted 11-20-2008 2:11 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18665
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 158 of 518 (488930)
11-19-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


fountains don't make mountains
Thanks Ray,

Commentary presupposes ...
Are you aware that modern geology ...
RAZD: your explanation of plates ...

Please stop whining about what science and other people say and start dealing with the evidence directly. None of this addresses how a flood explains the fossils.

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?

Strangely we do see this, among other layers showing other types of events, from volcanic lava and ash to layers showing non-marine life.

Leonardo da Vinci figured it out.

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.

Interestingly there have been no known instances of fountains making hills, to say nothing of mountains, so this explains neither fossils nor mountains.

This would account for thick layer, or layers, or the phenomena seen.

Astonishingly it doesn't, because the layers contain complete ecosystems of in situ mature marine growth, complete with roots for plants and burrows for animals.

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.

Except, incredible as it may seem, it is not just at the tops, but in multiple layers throughout mountains. With different life forms in some layers compared to other layers. Creationists tend to only look at the tops, science tends to look at the whole mountain. Nor is it "one uniform process" as there are multiple sequences involved.

Surprisingly, just saying that a single "great upheaval" made the mountains also doesn't explain how it is caused by a flood. The general action of flood is to cover the flooded bottom with sediment and debris in a mixed up random manner, and to erode land where there is currents in the flood, washing the debris indiscriminately downstream. Everything ends up jumbled together in the valleys, not on the tops of hills (to say nothing of mountains).

How does a flood create mountains?

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.

Curiously, the point of this thread is to deal with the rest of the mountain of evidence, evidence that shows multiple sequences of marine growth in several diverse layers throughout the mountains, and often interspersed with sequences of non-marine life in between the layers of marine growth. How does one upheaval explain this?

Argument from Popularity is not always a fallacy. Reference available upon request.

Actually it is always a logical fallacy. That does not mean that it is necessarily false, just that it cannot possibly be necessarily true, so you cannot use it as proof of reality. Like your ad hominem arguments they just don't mean squat when it comes to providing substance, evidence, hard facts, to back up your claims.

The fossils are hard rock evidence of multiple layers of multiple sequences of marine growth.

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.

Argument from incredulity and ignorance coupled with the another ad hominem and a bit of ad lapidem fallacy thrown in for good measure ...

Curiously, such tectonic movements are recorded today on mountaintops all over the world, showing that such mountain building is still going on, on Mt Everest and elsewhere. Such rates as are recorded today are entirely sufficient to build the mountains in question given the time frame of their existence.

Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood.

And yet, interestingly, you have failed to show how it could happen. Without any mechanism for a flood causing upheaval you don't have an explanation, rather what you have is wishful thinking.

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 yet, astonishingly, your "explanation" is no more credible than what I gave as examples. All you have done is try to dodge the issue with a hand waving "great upheaval" wishing-it-were-so story. Can you tell me where the "great upheaval" is mentioned in the published accounts? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : sub


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 9:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 11:15 PM RAZD has responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 159 of 518 (488938)
11-19-2008 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
11-19-2008 7:31 PM


Re: fountains don't make mountains
Thanks Ray,

For what?

RAZD writes:

Commentary presupposes ...
Are you aware that modern geology ...
RAZD: your explanation of plates ...

Bizarre phrase-mining.

Ray writes:

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.

RAZD in response writes:

Interestingly there have been no known instances of fountains making hills, to say nothing of mountains, so this explains neither fossils nor mountains.

Non-sequitur evading context.

And I have said no such things.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2008 7:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 492 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 160 of 518 (488941)
11-19-2008 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by RAZD
11-19-2008 7:31 PM


Re: fountains don't make mountains
And yet, astonishingly, your "explanation" is no more credible than what I gave as examples. All you have done is try to dodge the issue with a hand waving "great upheaval" wishing-it-were-so story. Can you tell me where the "great upheaval" is mentioned in the published accounts? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along.

"Great upheaval" is a phrase meant to be understood as a synonym for the Great Genesis Flood.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2008 7:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-19-2008 11:39 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 162 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2008 8:26 AM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3798
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 161 of 518 (488946)
11-19-2008 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2008 11:15 PM


CFO suspended for 1 week
See here.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 2
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 11:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18665
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 162 of 518 (488959)
11-20-2008 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object
11-19-2008 11:15 PM


take a while to think about it
Thanks again Ray,

I'll let you think about this while you are suspended.

Message 159

For what?

For participating and providing your insight into how a flood can explain the evidence.

Bizarre phrase-mining.

Just pointing out that the comments that continue from those quick quotes were irrelevant to the question of how a flood can explain the evidence.

Non-sequitur evading context.
And I have said no such things.

So you agree that "fountains of the deep" do not explain fossils on mountaintops.

Message 160

"Great upheaval" is a phrase meant to be understood as a synonym for the Great Genesis Flood.

Previously (Message 141) you stated that the "great upheaval" explained how the mountains formed during the flood, now you say

"great unheaval" = Genesis Flood

and we are back to the problem of explaining how a flood creates mountains.

You complained when I pointed out that one type of creationist "explanation" was circular, claiming that things appear the way they are because of the flood and the reason we know this is because the flood occurred and they appear the way they are, and yet your own explanation (Message 141) is just that:

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.

You then went on to point out that there were two sources of flood waters: rain and fountains.

Neither have been known to produce mountains, so this still does not explain how the mountains were formed.

Then you said the mountains were caused by the "great upheaval" which you now say = Genesis Flood, and we are back to no explanation for how the mountains formed.

So how do the mountains form?

Were the fossils on and in the sediment the mountains were formed from before or after the flood event?

If before, then why is their existence on mountains any more proof of a flood than sediments with grass and non-marine life? Remember that the fossils on the mountaintops are supposed to be evidence of the flood.

If after, then how did they grow in such profusion and depth in the short time of the flood?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clarity

Edited by RAZD, : more clarity


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 11:15 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 341 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 163 of 518 (488976)
11-20-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by DevilsAdvocate
11-19-2008 6:22 PM


Re: Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
The only think I can think of that even comes close to CFO's "ridged terrain sea shores" ("caused by fountains of water bursting upward out of the sea") are mud volcanoes.

Some links:

Mysterious Phenomena Fascinate Scientists and Tourists
Here's the dirty truth about mud volcanoes


This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-19-2008 6:22 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

    
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3513
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 164 of 518 (489010)
11-21-2008 12:35 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


Mt. Everest has 500+ feet of limestone
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?

RAZD, in message 1, was rather focused in on considerations of the immediate surface, but he did go a little deeper:

RAZD, in message 1, writes:

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form,...

Finding on-line information on Mt. Everest geology and fossils seems to be a tough thing, but I did find this page:

quote:
Layer three begins at 27,500 feet, the first 500 feet of which consists of yellow limestone known as the Yellow Band. This feature actually slices through Everest at an angle and is most pronounced on the North Face. (On the south side, it's visible around 24000 feet.) Above the Yellow Band is more limestone but here the color is dark grey; it can be seen most prominently in the First and Second Steps of the Northeast Ridge.

So we have a 500+ foot thickness of limestone making up the top portion of Mt. Everest. Now I don't have information on the fossil nature of this limestone, but the limestone itself is a considerable thickness of marine deposited sediment. Marine limestone is widely regarded as being a direct or indirect result of lime secretion by organisms.

Quoting my message 4 of this topic:

Percy writes:

The more familiar example is sea shells on mountain tops. Young earth creationists see this as evidence for a huge global flood lasting maybe a year, and it is. But you dig down a foot and find more shells, and that's evidence for a somewhat longer flood. Then you dig down 10 feet and find more shells, and that's evidence for a very long flood. And then you dig down 100 feet and find more shells, and now the flood hypothesis begins to feel a bit odd since these shells are encased in the mountain, indeed make up a measurable proportion of the mountain, and it doesn't make sense that the shells of successive generations of sea shelled creatures would deposit themselves on the sea floor in the shape of a mountain.

But sea shells on the surface are still evidence of a possible flood. And if digging had revealed no evidence of shells beneath the surface, guess what? The flood hypothesis would have to be considered a viable alternative, especially if other mountains around the world revealed the same pattern. So it absolutely isn't true that there is no evidence for Noah's flood. It's just that the evidence supporting the flood has more than one possible interpretation, and only when added to the other evidence does it become clear that there was never any such flood.


Source

My "bolding in red" - The difference between marine fossils merely being on a mountain topic, and marine fossils being part of the makeup of the entire mountain.

Comments from geologists or other geotypes welcome.

Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Coragyps, posted 11-21-2008 10:19 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5273
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 165 of 518 (489021)
11-21-2008 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 164 by Minnemooseus
11-21-2008 12:35 AM


Re: Mt. Everest has 500+ feet of limestone
Bill Birkeland, whose presence I miss around here, did some Mt Everest posts long ago:
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=86&m=25#25 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=86&m=25#25">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=86&m=25#25

I had it in my mind that he had also posted something about metamorphosed limestone up on Everest, but I can't find it....

Oh, yes, I can!!!
www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=113&m=16#16 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=113&m=16#16">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=113&m=16#16

Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-21-2008 12:35 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
910
11
1213
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017