|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... the unmeasureable force of water gushing upward ... Of what water from what source? Where are these mysterious fountains?
... explains water levels at catastrophic heights and the objects found thereon. And we have examples of geysers throwing fossil shells onto mountains? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... whether a preflood planet earth as well as it's atmosphere would have been different than it is today. Imo that is the big question as to the accuracy of dating methodology. Other planets have different atmospheres, and the earth had a different atmosphere before cyanobacteria released oxygen. None of these differences affect dating methods. Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13017 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.8 |
Hi CTD,
Please keep your discussion focused on the topic of the thread (seashells on mountain tops) instead of on accusations of chicanery and distortion. If you have a complaint about how others are debating then please take it to the moderation thread (General Discussion Of Moderation Procedures 13.0) so that moderators may take care of it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A sure fire indicator is when they try to apply evolutionist "dating" techniques. The only time these could come into play would be in an OEC flood scenario, and those are hard to find. So dating techniques only apply after "the big flood" occurred?
Other distortions I've seen include ... a total lack of any floods after the big one. So other floods occurred after "the big flood" yes? And we can date those because they are after "the big flood" occurred and so the dating techniques are valid? Just trying to follow the train (?) of your logic.
You've got to keep on your toes. Yes, to keep coming up with ad hoc explanations when the facts get in the way. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : add hoc compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheWay Junior Member (Idle past 5866 days) Posts: 27 From: Oklahoma City, Ok Joined: |
Hi Razd, thanks for replying.
razd writes: No, it assumes first that the evidence is true, all the evidence, and then looks at how that evidence is best explained. So far the best consistent explanation found is in the science of geology. I'm not sure what your saying is directly related to my question, perhaps you could rephrase it? My question:
quote: razd writes: Tell me, have you ever heard of a flood making a mountain? Can you explain how water could do this? I highly doubt physics would be on my side if I claimed such a thing. I apologize for not being more specific, as I was referring to the Flood as an event rather than the rainy day most critics think of. First, I would like to add that water would have came up from the ground and from the air. I don't think I would invoke supernatural physics in the processes of the Flood. Although, I am inclined to suggest that since we have never seen something of the Flood's magnitude it would be hard to test against an actual control model.
genesis8 writes: 11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. As we can see, the Bible clearly states that there were fountains in the far reaches of the earth and that these were broken up (which could mean a few things, I will return to this later). Also that the windows of heaven were opened. We could assume many things just from this verse, allow me to provide my hypothesis, this is off topic so I will figure out how to make a thread pertain to the basic fundamentals of the Flood; how it could have happened. I hope you will join me.
Razd writes: btw - what do you think "uniformitarianism" means? My opinion is irrelevant except in contextual usage.Uniformitarianism - Wikipedia(science) Where and how I think this fails is a completely unrelated subject, perhaps we could discuss this in another thread? {Added by edit by Adminnemooseus - See Uniformitarianism} Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added "Uniformitarianism" topic link.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
So see my comments on:
Message 38 and
Message 66 Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Of what water from what source? Where are these mysterious fountains? I already said somewhere beneath the ocean floor.
And we have examples of geysers throwing fossil shells onto mountains? Show me. At face value, seashells found at great heights is evidence of the Great Flood. How do you explain the same evidence? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1426 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Of what water from what source? Where are these mysterious fountains?
I already said somewhere beneath the ocean floor. We already have those, they are called hydrothermal vents. They do not re-arrange the seafloor.
your favorite source and another one:
Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vents quote: You do realize that hydrostatic force means that such fountains do not throw water into the sky from the ocean bed, that the only reason the water rises is because it is hotter, not at any greater pressure. Now you do realize that IF you are going to turn on the volcanic activity to heat the water to boiling (at that depth) sufficiently to throw material through the entire ocean column, that you will be essentially turning the ocean into a boiling cauldron. Think steamed milk on your latte. But in any event none of these would throw clamshells onto mountain tops.
And we have examples of geysers throwing fossil shells onto mountains?
Show me. That was sarcasm ray. You need evidence of this happening to even think it could happen. Perhaps a scenario that spontaneously generates clamshells around geysers? After all it's easy with ad hoc {add miracle here} explanations eh?
At face value, seashells found at great heights is evidence of the Great Flood. How do you explain the same evidence? At face value the explanation is that they grew in the sedimentary deposit before it was lithified, while it was shallow water, and then they died, were fossilized when the sediment was lithified, and then transported to the location wherethey were found by plate tectonics. At face value the clams in question are more than a year old, every single one of them, so they could not have grown during your hypothetical flood event. None of the clams found as fossils anywhere on earth could have grown during your hypothetical flood event. How do you explain that evidence? http://oceanlink.island.net/ask/mollusca.htmlhttp://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/hard_clam.cfm Those rings on the shells are growth rings, ray, annual growth rings (you know like tree rings). You don't even get past the larval stage before the big dryout, so where do all those OLD clams come from ray? Enjoy. compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click) we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
obvious Child Member (Idle past 4137 days) Posts: 661 Joined: |
Seriously, sea shells on the top of mountains is really the least of your problems given the kind of arguments you are making.
1) Water from within the Earth is superheated.2) Releasing that much water from the Earth would boil the oceans 3) Boiling oceans kills all non-thermophilic bacteria 4) You just killed Noah 5) End of the Story 6) Game Over 7) You Lose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
At face value, seashells found at great heights is evidence of the Great Flood. I wonder what you think the words "face value" mean.
How do you explain the same evidence? Using a science known as "geology".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I've told you about this before. You are making elliptical remarks about the fantasy world in your head. Those of us who live in the real world cannot follow this, because we have no idea to what you are referring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
cfo writes: At face value, seashells found at great heights is evidence of the Great Flood. That was the original question in the topic post. Why is that evidence of a Great Flood. How are layers at great heights and far distances from marine environments evidence of a flood? You demonstrated the issue pointed out in the topic - it is always taken at "face value" without explanation or rational. Seashells exist at, well below sea level. In order for seashells to be washed into other areas they would typically and have a tendency to be transported to even *lower* elevations. So if one is going to make the absurd claim these lower layers were elevated via some magical uplift week they would still be at the lower layers of the geo column! *Not* on the crests and ridges of the Rocky Mountains or the rim of the Grand Canyon. Moreover many of these fossiliferous strata at high elevations have evidences, such as bioturbation, that they were living functioning sea floor bottoms. Careful examination will reveal such clues as burrowing, nesting construction, defecation, seasonal layers, mixed and displaced sediment layers from animal activity, etc. Further these fossiliferous layers often consist of thick layers of limestone which is usually for the most part cemented lithified lime mud comprised of marine organisms secreting their shell that settle out of the column. In modern shallow sea beds lime mud is deposited at a rate of something like a few inches or fractional feet per century. These fossiliferous formations represents many years of accumulation. In summary these fossiliferous marine layers bearing testimony to existing for a long periods of time - not being washed in by catastrophe. So question is are these layers before or after the flood? The evidence is against catastrophic short term placement. Edited by iceage, : No reason given. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3069 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
We already have those, they are called hydrothermal vents. They do not re-arrange the seafloor. Never said any such thing. Apparently, you have chosen to adopt a debating tactic that automatically misquotes or misrepresents your opponent. Having endured this approach from you in the Mayr debate, logical persons must conclude that your distortions are caused by the inability to refute. In any case, no sane person would waste their time and attempt to debate under these circumstances.
RAZD talking to himself writes: You do realize that hydrostatic force means that such fountains do not throw water into the sky from the ocean bed, that the only reason the water rises is because it is hotter, not at any greater pressure. Now you do realize that IF you are going to turn on the volcanic activity to heat the water to boiling (at that depth) sufficiently to throw material through the entire ocean column, that you will be essentially turning the ocean into a boiling cauldron. Think steamed milk on your latte. But in any event none of these would throw clamshells onto mountain tops. The water level rose above the mountain tops. The fountains of the deep - their purpose, was to provide a source of water so that the level could attain these heights since, like I said, 40 days and nights of rain could not have accomplished these heights without some other source of water, and I said nothing about temperature of said water from said source.
At face value the explanation is that they grew in the sedimentary deposit before it was lithified, while it was shallow water, and then they died, were fossilized when the sediment was lithified, and then transported to the location wherethey were found by plate tectonics. How did "plate tectonics" place seashells on mountain tops? The Flood is a better explanation, but since evolution ***must*** deny the Flood your reply is of no consequence. Look at the geologic strata of the world, causes: catastrophes of flooding. All layers represent a flood of some sort. This is why God gave the sign of the rainbow to signify that the Flood was the last flood. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
At face value, seashells found at great heights is evidence of the Great Flood. What do you think "at face value" means? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
cfo writes: How did "plate tectonics" place seashells on mountain tops? Uplift. Prior strata are uplifted. It is process that can be observed today. Former clam shell beds have been raised feet above sea level in a single event. I see you ignored my prior post asking specific questions. Logical persons must conclude that your avoidance are the result of your inability to refute.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024