Seashells on tops of mountains.

You'd think that would be obvious, but I guess not.Science and religion are fundamentally, intrinsically different. But I guess people still don't understand that.

Hello, Are these in order? Bioturbation doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility for rapid uplift of mountains due to tectonic plate activity. Infaunal and perhaps some epifuanal organisms could have survived the rapid uplift and burrowed while the rock was in plasticity. Mountains during uplift would have almost no deposition of rock. Could you elaborate? Are you referring to a process of lithification? Is this through percolation? Are you repeating yourself for the sake of making a larger post? This seems to indicate another attempt to describe lithification. Am I wrong? Underwater earthquakes form a substantial part of the Flood Event. The heat from radioactive decay? How do fossils attest to their age? Secondary deposits? Could you explain this for me? Varves, ice rings, and dendrochronology are sketchy at best. It seems almost too easy for science, a rarity. Here Lambart and Hsu indicate the questionable variable of "annular" varves in sediment. Mount St. Helens demonstrated that varves can form rapidly. Micheal Oard has shown how assumptions can lead science into logical traps of old earth delusion.I would appreciate that only iceage respond, unless He or I have missed something and it would further discussion. Please no unnecessary rudeness or arrogant comments. I have seen how eager everyone is to jump the creationist. Thanks

---

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

If you want a one-on-one debate, we have a thread for that, its called the great debate, otherwise expect the topic to be responded at large. It seems pretty clearly stated, even quoted by you Friction is totally unrelated to radioactive decay. I get the feeling you don't understand the topic being discussed and are simple repeating what PRATT you have read, yet don't understand.I highly suggest you check out the thread by 'The Matt', explaining the basics of geology, it will help you understand what you are trying to argue against.http://EvC Forum: Geology- working up from basic principles. -->EvC Forum: Geology- working up from basic principles.-x

---

"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould

You can present evidence on how "sketchy" these are at the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). This is off-topic on this thread. No, they compare non-annual to annual varves:

quote:

---

The laminated sediments of the Walensee do not represent deposition of annual cycles and these non-annual varve-like sediments seem to be less regularly rhythmic than the annual varves of Lake Zurich.

---

This is typical creationist "palming the pea" type move, substituting non-annual varves for annual varves and hoping nobody notices. Would you care to take his argument to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and see if it stands up to scrutiny? Particularly the scrutiny of correlations between dating methods? If one pointed out a falsehood in his article would you be skeptical of the rest of it?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.

No, of course not. no-one said that it did.Instead, iceage said that it precluded a violent process of deposition. Why did you just say that? What do you think that the words "varves" and "annular" mean?Hint: you're wrong. No, he's shown that he can evade reality by imagining the possibility of ad hoc explanations of the facts using mechanisms for which there is no evidence.And we could have deduced that just from the fact that he's a creationist.

Hello TheWay Forget rapid uplift for a second.In short:bioturbation rules out rapid burialYou cannot have organism burrowing, nesting, disturbing layers when rapidly being covered by tens, hundreds or thousands of feet of overburden. This is simple impossible and falsifies the rapid burial theories of YEC. There are many many examples of bioturbation within marine deposits world wide.A few images are worth a thousands posts... The above photo is from the Bright Angel Shale formation. This credit for this image is from the Affiliation of Christian Geologists http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/trip/stop2b.htmlA quote from the reference

quote:

---

Some lime mud may have precipitated directly from the seawater. Imagine how many shelly critters had to live and die to create a layer of limestone over 250 feet thick! The mottled texture is the result of marine animal burrowing in the sediment (bioturbation).

---

And here are some really nice images of worm burrows from the same Bright Angel formation. Credit Earth Science World Image BankAnd from the same reference there is this image from the Tapeat Sandstone formation in the sequence below the Bright Angel ... Credit Earth Science World Image BankJust below the very peak of the Everest there is a yellow band of metamorphosed limestone. To create metamorphic rock you need pressure and heat. The implies that the peak of Everest was at one time buried by sediments of the order of thousands of feet. Lower layers of Everest are sedimentary in origin.So the question is how does a short duration flood bury miles of sediments, lithify those sediments, metamorphize those sediments and then uplift these sediments miles upon miles - Within a time frame of a year or so!And remember these sediments have to be lithified/metamorphosed prior to uplift so there is an order sequence of events that are required each involving durations of time. Estimate the wave heights resulting from huge land mass moving miles vertically and horizontally world wide and entire continents motoring around planet. Then try to assume a mythic boat was riding those waves. The heat from good ole fashion work. Work = Force x Distance. Here the force is the frictional resistance along fault lines under massive pressure. The distance is the miles and miles of fault displacement. The Mt Everest faults are shallow angle faults so that to achieve several miles in the vertical would have required several 10's of miles along a low angle. Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.Edited by iceage, : No reason given.

quote:

---

heat generated at faults from the frictional forces.

---

When did I type this? I get the feeling your trying to sound smart.Edited by TheWay, : ad snip

So the difference between annular varves and non-annular varves is regular rhythm?

---

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

You didn't type this, and EighteenDelta did not say that you typed this. He said you quoted it. Reread his Message 122 and you'll see that he's just telling you that the answer to your question was in the text you quoted. Here's that part of EighteenDelta's message: The "heat generated at faults from the frictional forces" portion was from Iceage, you quoted it, then asked if the heat was from radioactive decay.--Percy

Hello Iceage,I am ignoring Dr. Adequates post because it is a bit too crass for me. I wish this forum wouldn't allow this behavior. I honestly fail to see how. Your explanation is: Yet I wonder how you know this? I am not saying your wrong, it just seems that it could be possible. If the case were that the top of Everest, for example, was in fact lithified as conventional geology would have us believe. Could tectonic plates slamming into each other create enough pressure and heat? It implies this through conventional uniformitarian geology. Perhaps they do not? I am only asking you to please humor me, Is it possible? As I am relatively new to this and since this is an open thread could someone perhaps supply some numbers or equations I could check as I have never heard of this before. Thanks. A bit rusty on the physics, but isn't speed a necessary factor in this equation? Or is distance what you are using to denote this? I can imagine that placed on a graph with the right calculations that everest could be conceived, although it's initial slope could have been more obtuse at first and then subsequently what we see now. Just an idea. Thanks for the discussion.

---

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

I'm sorry I misunderstood.

---

"Sometimes one pays most for the things one gets for nothing." --Albert Einstein

I've looked upthread a bit to see if I can find what is bothering you.Is this it?

quote:

---

Hint: you're wrong.
  —Dr A

---

or

quote:

---

And we could have deduced that just from the fact that he's a creationist.
  —Dr A

---

from:
Message 125I'm afraid that if you find this difficult to take then this is not the place for you. We do try to watch the language that people use but it is acceptable to pull no punches and to be a bit acerbic.Generally, the best approach is to try to ignore the chitter chatter and pay attention to the meat of posts. Attack the facts and reasoning supplied.If someone criticizes one of your sources by calling them names (like creationist) then you may point out that no specific issues were sighted that makes your source wrong.You might also do well to understand that some of the posters here happen to know the science rather well. Since you clearly know effectively nothing about it you might take the opportunity to learn. If you wish to use creationist web sites as support you should know in advance that everything there has been rigorously ripped to pieces many times. A lot of it has been put out of it's misery decades ago. This makes it very difficult for you. You are not likely to bring up anything new so everyone has had fun with these things before. Unfortunately some individuals allow their impatience to get the better of them and get a bit snarky right up front. This leaves you wondering "What the heck did I do?". It isn't you. You are just resurfacing silly stuff and it is the material that they are reacting too.In any case if msg 125 was difficult for you then I'm afraid you will be made very unhappy when people less patient than Dr A reply to some of the material you might dredge up. It's odd that the "evo" side manages to let comments like "you will burn in hell" slide off them while the "creo" side often gets all hurt feelings like if they are simply told that their facts are wrong. Why is that?Meanwhile the admins will watch that it doesn't get too nasy.

Yes, well, thanks for ignoring my posts for being "crass".I still think that you should look up the words you're using, because annular means "in the shape of a ring". The word you're looking for is "annual".I hope that this information may prompt you to look up the meaning of the word "varve", which I also drew to your attention. It does not mean "stratum", that's why geologists use two different words for these two different concepts.

The same way that you know this yourself, if you think about it. Worms can't burrow through soft mud if that soft mud has a thousand feet of rock over it, 'cos that would squash them flat. Now show us that the top of Mount Everest lies at the border of two tectonic plates.Oh, wait, you can't.I'd thought I'd seen enough of creationist antics, but if you guys are going to try to call plate tectonics to your aid, I'm going to stick around a little longer. The stuff that works, yes.But I guess that it doesn't imply this according to a hypothesis which you can't actually state but which you're still happy to make up in your head as you go along. The word "no" comes to mind. Here's another word for you to look up."Tsunami". No. Work = Force x Distance. Time does not enter into the equation. That's why the equation does not mention time in any way.------------------------------------------------------------------Pardon me for being "crass". But there's so much you don't know about, and this is excusable, only you don't know about it and yet you're still talking about it. Some people might call that "crass".

In this case at least one of the differences is rhythm, but you should also ask why they know one is annual and the other is not. For the specific answers to that you will likely need more than the abstract to the article.There are several ways that these may be distinguished, but the clearest is in cases where there are layers caused by alternating deposits that can logically and rationally only be annual.One of these is discussed on the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), having to do with several rather simple annual phenomena that give minimum measurements of the age of the earth that still vastly exceed any YEC delusion. A simple google on the term should tell you quite easily. Alternatively you could use wikipedia. Frankly I am astonished at people that don't learn to use the facilities available to them or that don't make even a SMALL effort to even appear to know what they are talking about.Work (physics) - WikipediaIf this is the level of intellect, curiosity, education and honesty you bring to the debate, then I find your answers to be relatively irrelevant and immaterial: they are obviously not well researched nor reasoned, but are ad hoc excuses for assertions of belief rather than knowledge.This topic is about seashells on mountain tops. Can you tell me how evidence of shells buried within a mature marine environment sediment, with clam shells that are 10, 20 and 30 years old, on even flat land is evidence of a hypothetical world wide flood with a postulated duration measured in months?Take your time.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
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.