Buz's seashell claim

I dion't want this claim to go unanswered just because a thread was closed, so I'm reposting it here.Buzsaw had claimed that the fact that we find seashells on the tops of mountains was indicative of the Noachian flood.I had pointed out that whaere we find seashells on the tops of mountains we also find evidence of uplift due to tectonic activity. I and others also pointed out the absence of other organisms that would have been deposited there if flood waters did the sorting, and that the geologic column is consistent, as far as the organisms it contains, at lower elevations.Buz, I was hoping you would address these counter claims or retract yours.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

Also, aren't those fossils actually encased in rock (i.e., limestone, shale,...)? I mean, it's not like all those shells, etc. are loosely scattered across the mountain tops, which is what I would expect.

Does anyone know of a description of the type of shells found on specific mountains?

Until Buz tells us just what he is claiming there isn't much to discuss here.He has been unable to do this for weeks so I wouldn't expect any results.

I know that El Capitan, the highest peak in Texas, has as its top 1600 feet a reef of primarily calcareous sponges, largely in the positions in which they grew. There's a lot of broken shell bits throughout, too, as one would expect for a reef growing close to the surface where there's wave action. I'd have to go find the monograph I read all that in to get any details, though.

I probably should start a "Book NooK" topic on this book...The book is a compilation of some of his previous books, plus some new material. About 700 pages; $35.00(US) when I bought it a number of years back - A not overly technical book - Strongly recomended.Anyhow, on page 124 he's talking about the formation of the Himalaya Mountains.

quote:

---

When the climbers in 1953 planted their flags on the highest mountain, they set them in snow over the skeletons of creatures that had lived in the warm clear ocean that India, moving north, blanked out. Possibly as much as twenty thousand feet below the seafloor, the skeletal remains had formed into rock. This one fact is a treatise in itself on the movements of the surface of the earth. If by some fiat I had to restrict all this writing to one sentence, this is the one I would choose: The summit of Mt. Everest is marine limestone.

---

Moose

quote:

---

.....it's not like all those shells, etc. are loosely scattered across the mountain tops, which is what I would expect.

---

Whether by flood or by whatever, in order to fossilize, these organisms had to be burried suddenly and that indicates catastrophy. They don't just lie around for eons on the surface until they fossilize. On the surface it doesn't take long for them to decay.

quote:

---

I had pointed out that whaere we find seashells on the tops of mountains we also find evidence of uplift due to tectonic activity. I and others also pointed out the absence of other organisms that would have been deposited there if flood waters did the sorting, and that the geologic column is consistent, as far as the organisms it contains, at lower elevations.

---

If the organisms are fossilized there had to be a catastrophy at or before the time of the uplift in order to fossilize them. As I stated in the closed thread, your ideology determines how you interpret them. I interpret them, as well as the uplift by attributing this all to the Naoic flood. I believe it makes more sense than your interpretation.

quote:

---

...in order to fossilize, these organisms had to be burried suddenly and that indicates catastrophy. They don't just lie around for eons on the surface until they fossilize. On the surface it doesn't take long for them to decay.

---

Indeed, fossils have a tough time being preserved on land surfaces, but... What we are talking about are marine fossils - The animal lived beneath the sea.The material remains of the creature is probably Calcium Carbonate. This material will not decompose (rot) by (general) biological processes. It can be destroyed by 1) Solution - but they are in a carbonate saturated environment, or 2) Physical distruction (crushing, abrasion, etc.) I put the "general" above, because this physical discruction can have a biological component. But essentially, a shell is just another piece of limestone.Catastropic processes are not required for preservation. Indeed, a limestone deposit is very much an indicator of a quiet marine environment - there is little non-carbonate detritus being introduced.Moose

But if your interpretation was correct, we'd see other sea life besides sea shells, like whales and modern fish. Instead all we see are species of sea life that lived in the Indian ocean millions of years ago, when Everest was sea floor - and nothing more modern than that.So, if it's all from an indiscriminate Noaic flood, why don't we find contemporary sea life? I'd say the long-term, geologic explanation makes more sense. Your model predicts things that we don't find.

You're right, generally, dead organisms will not last a long time on the surface without quick burial - unless they are in a desert environment or undersea. There is a huge difference between, say dinosaur fossils, and sea fossils (e.g., fossil reefs, oyster beds, etc.). Dino fossils are generally better preserved if buried quickly; however, fossil reefs (in limestone), clams, brachs, oysters, etc., do not require quick burial since they have calcium-based skeletons or exo-skeletons, which do not break down easily (ever?) in sea water.For example, fossil reefs grow slowly over a period of years and only grow in certain latitudes and water depths/temperatures. How does your flood model explain this when it would take more than a year to grow a large reef and fossilize it? In addition, your flood model needs to explain how thousands of feet of limestone were deposited (rates range from 1.0 cm to 2.5 m per 1,000 years) which may or may not be overlain or underlain by thousands of feet of shale (averaging <1.0 cm per 1,000+ years), and they can also contain abundant fossils. Not to mention such things as chalk and chert deposition which have even slower sedimentation rates.FYI, the Mancos Shale in North America is 5,400 feet thick in the Piceance Basin of Colorado. And you expect us to believe the flood could deposit this formation in one year? And that's only one Formation amongst thousands.edited to add: Darn! I took too long![This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-16-2003]

'Buzsaw had claimed that the fact that we find seashells on the tops of mountains was indicative of the Noachian flood.'its not the seashells that swing it for me ,its the bloody big ark on Ararat lol

Oh? Which ark is that? You mean the so-called "Ark" that's just some funny-shaped rocks?

'Oh? Which ark is that? You mean the so-called "Ark" that's just some funny-shaped rocks?'i've just looked at some pics at (photos)Noahsarksearch.com .
ok , i admitt no one is certain but there have been eyewitnesses,make what you will of it.

Some online refs for the Capitan Reef:
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/roth.htm
http://www.geocities.com/earthhistory/reef.htmThe rest of that site is excellent as well - the author is pretty amazing in the depth and breadth of his research into some pretty heavy geology, considering he's just an amateur at it all.
Read them over, Buz and Wiz, and tell me what you think.