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

The topic is explaining why or why not sea shells on mountain tops are evidence for a global flood.

Actually it is about how logically silly the argument for a global flood based on shell fossils on mountain tops is, based on the evidence of the shells alone. We don't need plate tectonics to show that the argument is worthless from shells alone.

Leonardo DaVinci figured it out, and he didn't need plate tectonics.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/vinci.html

Thanks.

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by Admin, : Make link active.

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?"

The argument would have to be "Is there any evidence that tectonic activity increased in the past to the point that the heat generated boiled away the oceans and melted the crust?

Because that is what would have to happen to get the world down and back again in a year.

---

Kindly

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

There is a spider by the water pipe.

Hello Jason777

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.

Not really. The difference between the non-uniformitarians and creationists also differ on how long it took ... in fact there is only one small group of people that think it was due to a single short event. Leonardo da Vinci figured it out that there could be no single event that could explain the layer after layer after layer of marine fossils.

"Uniformitarianism" isn't needed to look at the evidence with clear eyes and an open mind.

The difference between the evidence based researcher and the gullible creationist is actually in how long - how many humdreds and hundreds of years - each of the many many sedimentary layers that have marine fossils were under water.

The fossil layers each contain mature organism shells, shells where the organism lived for 20 to 30 years in a stable environment, types of organisms that are fragile, yet reached maturity, types of organisms that spend months in a free-swimming larval stage before becoming attached to the bottom surface, and which have then grown to maturity before dying, before being buried by more layers of organisms that go through the same whole process again, and again, and again.

If I've got only four layers, each containing fossils that lived for 25 years, one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see that we are dealing with an area that was under water for at least 100 years. If I've got a hundred such layers, then I do not need to be a "uniformitarian" to come to the conclusion that we are dealing with an area that was underwater for 2,500 years.

That is the kind of thing that this evidence shows, and not a simple event whose time span is measured in days.

So the question is, how do you explain the evidence -- the evidence of long periods underwater -- with creationism?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

If there is evidence for a geologic column, which represents epochs of earth's erosion, then there is reason to assume that there were no mountains before, and they later rose from subduction, still leaving the trilobites in the same strata that is now a mountain. If not, then one would have to consider how trilobite are hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, in a land-locked environment, such as Tibet or Afghanistan.

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Hey Nem,

If there is evidence for a geologic column, which represents epochs of earth's erosion, then there is reason to assume that there were no mountains before, and they later rose from subduction, still leaving the trilobites in the same strata that is now a mountain.

You are mixing "geological column" with "plate tectonics" when they aren't necessarily linked, but reading through the misunderstanding we can still get to this point.

If not, then one would have to consider how trilobite are hundreds of miles from the nearest ocean, in a land-locked environment, such as Tibet or Afghanistan.

True, but one would also have to consider that this same evidence shows hundreds of years duration that the various layers were underwater, and that where non-marine layers divide marine layers, one would have to consider various mechanisms that could account for multiple occurances as well.

If you use a flood hypothesis for causing this evidence, then you have to consider that this means (A) multiple floods and (B) each flood lasting hundreds of years.

I am not aware of any means by which this is evidence for a "noachian flood" of only a few hundred days, tops, are you?

Don't you have to conclude that this is evidence of something that is demonstrably NOT a "noachian flood" because it does not match the storyline at all, yes?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

You are mixing "geological column" with "plate tectonics" when they aren't necessarily linked, but reading through the misunderstanding we can still get to this point.

Perhaps I didn't explain as best I could. You may have understood, but I wouldn't anyone else not understanding me. I should probably clarify. What I meant was that if it can be determined that the trilobites on say, Mt. Everest, are further down in the strata, and not intermingled with contemporary creatures, there would not be any reason to assume a global flood. And least not in this instance.

True, but one would also have to consider that this same evidence shows hundreds of years duration that the various layers were underwater, and that where non-marine layers divide marine layers, one would have to consider various mechanisms that could account for multiple occurances as well.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Can you expound for me?

I am not aware of any means by which this is evidence for a "noachian flood" of only a few hundred days, tops, are you? Don't you have to conclude that this is evidence of something that is demonstrably NOT a "noachian flood" because it does not match the storyline at all, yes?

Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that if a Noachian flood did in fact occur in the manner the bible states, for a relatively short amount of time, there should not be as much marine diversity as there is found on the mountains? Am I getting that right?

*side note* I heard that the cancer is in remission. That is wonderful news! May it stay in remission for the rest of your natural life. Keep fighting the good fight. :)

---

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that if a Noachian flood did in fact occur in the manner the bible states, for a relatively short amount of time, there should not be as much marine diversity as there is found on the mountains? Am I getting that right?

Correct.

*side note* I heard that the cancer is in remission. That is wonderful news! May it stay in remission for the rest of your natural life.

Thanks. Although I won't rule out unnatural life either ... ;)

Edited by RAZD, : .

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

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.

Hey, Jason, you want to provide evidence for anything you're saying? OR shall we just rely on your doubtful memories of what you think people have told you?

NJ writes: Alright, I think I'm beginning to understand you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are saying that if a Noachian flood did in fact occur in the manner the bible states, for a relatively short amount of time, there should not be as much marine diversity as there is found on the mountains? Am I getting that right?

That would only be true if the earth is young like the YEC's say.

It's old and according to Pangea most of it has been covered with water for a very long time.

God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

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.

Where did you find this out? This is a science forum evidence is needed.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Sorry about that,my bad.

ref;

"fossils found in tibet revise history of elevation,climate"
science daily june 12,2008.