What is your best arguments against a world wide flood.

I captured that when it was posted. Thanks for compiling it.
I may not think they are all equally telling or well stated, but it is a long list to be dealt with. thanks again.

and you've been sold a load of c...

quote:

---

do we have 1 third of the Himalayas covered with seashells?

---

Booboo what kind of shells are those? Are they of species that are currently alive? If not why not?Are they from species found rather deeper in the geologic layers anywhere else?Others have already told you about plate tectonics. Had you really not heard of that? I'd find that astonishing.

I'm afraid you need specific references on work done by people who know what the shells are. Not your guesses.

I don't happen to know what kind of seashells they are but here's what I suggest they are.The shells at high alitudes in the Himalayas are all of types extant at or before the time when the continent of India started to run into Asia. There are none from species only alive after that.This is my prediction. If it is true then you have to explain why your flood of only 4500 years ago did that. If you can't offer an explanation of similar power to the plate tectonic one you will have lost.

Ok, what is the "important" evidence? You've posted a whole bunch of stuff here. I think most or all of it has been shot full of holes. Are there any "important" ones left that need more work?

Are you trying to tell me that BBC lost a whole mountain while never losing a debate? Amazing! And my late wife used to accuse me of not being able to find things.