Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

seashells on mountains are evidence that those mountains were under the sea.The only differece between uniformatairians and creationist is how long it took for those mountains to go from the bottom of the ocean to 32,000 ft. above sea level.

So basicly,The argument should be "Is there any evidence that tectonic activity increased in the past?"

I recently found out that the himilaya's have been redated to only 2-3 million years old instead of tens of millions as previously beleived.So look no further for evidence of accelerated tectonic movement.I always saw exponential decline in volcanic evidence,now they have found evidence of the tectonic plates themselves moving very rapidly.2-3 million years does'nt fit the biblical account,but it does make one skeptical over the dating methods,considering they have been saying they know they formed tens of millions of years ago.The point to consider is it clearly demonstrates exponential decline and it proves the present is not the key the past.Enjoy.

Hi razd,Do you know what species of seashells were talking about?There are literally thousands,filterfeeders and photosynthetic,saltwater,freshwater,and brackish.If i remember correctly,someone was claiming they are freshwater mountain muscles.Without a being able to identify an exact species all we can do is speculate.Thanks.

Sorry about that,my bad.ref;"fossils found in tibet revise history of elevation,climate"
science daily june 12,2008.

Thanks razd.Actually if i would have noticed trilobites in the thread title i would have known they were marine sediments,sorry about that.Although some species were freshwater.

Atually i would be looking for seashell layers millions of years old thick and corals as well.If they truly have been around and evolving for hundreds of millions of years we should see layers of them miles thick.As razd pointed out the seashells on the mountains are only a couple of thousand years old.One of the reasons i believe in the flood is the accuracy in which we can date layers by the known growth rates of corals.Stoney corals grow very slowly in my reef tank(hahaha)but on average and in the wild we can expect ~3 inches per year.And given the fact that the oldest living reef is only ~4400 years old it's kind of like a no-brainer as to why.There are a few assumptions that go with dating fossil marine layers,but nowhere near as many as there is with radiometric dating etc.

Thats exactly true,but i think your referring to geologic formations and not marine growth.The chalk walls of england and the red wall limestones are products of percipitation from increased ocean temps. and are not being formed in the massive scale that they were in the past (The New Catastrophist,D. Ager,1993).Corals are very limited in the height at which they can grow,but when you look at formations like the tapeats sandstone,which was assumed to be an ancient ocean floor,you see large coral heads scattered and not attached and growing along with massive chunks of granite that weigh tons and had to have been deposited from miles away.Not even the largest hurricane ever recorded could account for such a massive layer of deposition and destruction.These formations are not ancient coral reefs that you can measure the growth rates.Even higher up in the triassic we only find measurable layers hundreds or a few thousand years old,The corals alive today grow on top of other colonies that have died or have been outcompeted,this process can last for hundreds of thousands of years,since even acropora can still photosynthesize at depths reaching nearly 100 feet.And given the fact Charles Darwin found that modern corals are growing on top of extinct rugose corals.Is good enough evidence to me that the rugose corals went extinct only a few thousand years ago.

Sorry about that.As i've told others earlier this is the Geology and the great flood forum and not the place to argue over old earth dating methods that thousands of people have refuted millions of times.The relavence to the actual thread is their are only a couple of thousand years of actual clam growth on the himalayas and how that can be used in the biblical flood model.You can reference the dates and dating forums for further information.Thanks.

{Off-topic material hidden - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic material hidden (try 2).

Thanks.I never did get my PHD in nuclear physics so i usualy just quote from sources who are qualified to do so.But since you offered it as an impossible challenge i might just take you up on it.(hahaha).

I'm still waiting for a plausable explanation why there is only a couple thousand years worth of marine growth up there.The rest of it must have got hot and evaporated might be self reassuring but it does'nt convince any skeptic like me.I'm certainly not unreasonable,but if some of them were destroyed by heat and pressure then they all would have.As the mountain raised slowly out of the water more clams would have grown behind them and you would end up with clams stretching halfway to the stratosphere.It's as if the mountain sat at the bottom of the ocean for 2 thousand years then suddenly rose to 34,000 ft. before any marine growth had a chance to grow and encrust.If there is evidence of erosion then there is,if there is,then where is it.

Sorry coragyps,
Most clams generaly live at a certain water depth,depending on species ofcourse.As the continental shelf rises the clams would move deeper.Does that explain what i'm talking about?