Seashells on tops of mountains.

How did "plate tectonics" place seashells on mountain tops?

The Flood is a better explanation.

Look at the geologic strata of the world, causes: catastrophes of flooding. All layers represent a flood of some sort.

sidelined writes:I am going to ask you to clarify what effect you think a pre flood earth and its atmosphere could have upon dating methodologies.

Ringo, if the mountains rose as per Psalms 108 that means they were lower before they rose as per the ASV Bible which imo is the most accurate having been translated from the older manuscripts than the KJV.

Using logic and reasoning all I can offer as a layman is that a greenhouse canopy type atmosphere would have had different properties than ours which would likely affect the whole ecosystem of the planet which in turn would likely render modern dating methodoly inaccurate.

This would likely be the reason that humans lived multiple century lives as per the Biblical record.

Nuggin writes:I like this term of yours "Flood sense". I think I'll use it.
So, Buz, your hypothesis is that all the worlds big mountain ranges (particularly those with shells in and on them) were formed during the Flood.Therefore, they should all the same age.Thus, they should all have the same types of fossils on/in them.And, those comprised of the same materials should show the exact same amount of erosion.Right? I mean, that all makes sense. I don't know if it makes "Flood sense"

The Galley Hill Skeleton was found 8 feet deep in gravels at Swanscombe, Kent, in 1888. The gravels are Middle Pleistocene, that is to say of early palaeolithic age; and there has been a long con[2]troversy as to whether the human bones had been naturally buried in the gravels when they were laid down by the Thames, a quarter of a million years ago, or whether they had been buried artificially at a comparatively recent date. We collected a number of fossil animal bones from these early palaeolithic gravels, a number from later palaeolithic (i.e. Upper Pleistocene) deposits in neighbouring pits, and some from recent deposits, including part of a Saxon skeleton. These were analysed in the Government Laboratory and it was found that all the undoubted early palaeolithic bones contained around 2 per cent. fluorine, the later palaeolithic around 1 per cent., and those from recent deposits 0.3 per cent. or less, down to 0.05 per cent. Some spare scraps of the Galley Hill Man had been left in the Museum Collection by one of the original investigators, and we submitted these for analysis. They showed around 0.3 per cent. fluorine. Yet the skeleton had been found in gravels in which the genuine fossil animal bones show 2 per cent. fluorine. Clearly the skeleton is not a quarter of a million years old as has been alleged, but is a comparatively recent burial, almost certainly less than 10,000 years old.

I found a site which may offer some reasons for dating variations relative to contamination within the same fossil beds.

Jar, likely you will agree that the mountains were uplifted via tectonic activity relative to movement/collision of tectonic plates which formed the planet's present morphology. Is that correct?

If that is the case, the question is what caused the movement and uplift due to the plate collision etc.

We Bible-creos go with the Bibical historical record as we apply reason and logic factoring in all the corroborating data that gives us reason to lend credence to that record. That historical record factors in a global flood. This topic is not about plate tectonics perse, so don't expect me to digress into that topic to any significant extent.

jar writes:And where is your evidence there ever was a "greenhouse canopy type atmosphere" (whatever the hell that means) and the model that explains it?Where is the evidence that it would effect dating methods and the model that explains it?Where is the evidence "that humans lived multiple century lives" and the model that explains it?

ar, likely you will agree that the mountains were uplifted via tectonic activity relative to movement/collision of tectonic plates which formed the planet's present morphology. Is that correct?
If that is the case, the question is what caused the movement and uplift due to the plate collision etc.

I said I apply reason and logic to all the corroborating evidence for the Biblical historical record. Since you vehemently deny that we Bible-creos use reason and logic, there's no logical reason for us to discuss it.

I said I apply reason and logic to all the corroborating evidence for the Biblical historical record.

jar writes:Slowly, very slowly as we have seen.