Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-22-2019 6:28 AM
46 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 44 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,541 Year: 3,578/19,786 Month: 573/1,087 Week: 163/212 Day: 5/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456
...
35NextFF
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 31 of 518 (476283)
07-22-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Jason777
07-22-2008 2:26 PM


Ah yes:

The uplift chronology of the Tibetan Plateau and its climatic and biotic consequences have been a matter of much debate and speculation because most of Tibet's spectacular mountains, gorges and glaciers remain barely touched by man and geologically unexplored.

If creationists don't like this state of affairs, they could try funding a little geology.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Jason777, posted 07-22-2008 2:26 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
dokukaeru
Member (Idle past 2691 days)
Posts: 129
From: ohio
Joined: 06-27-2008


Message 32 of 518 (476290)
07-22-2008 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Jason777
07-21-2008 10:11 PM


jason777 writes:

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.

The science daily article states that these are plants and animals from lake sediments. That these animals died off 2-3 mya. It only hints at these animals dying off due to changes in their enviroment. Maybe the Earth and Planetary Science journal this article sites may elaborate. So as with all of palentology, dates may be revised. It is not evidence of rapidly moving tectonic plates, only a revision of when the plataeu has moved to an elevation high enough that these organisms could not survive. It may not even affect when the begining of the collision of the two plates occured(according to wiki about 70 mya).
It also does not change the marine strata that have been found folded into the mountain range.
It certainly does not call into question dating methods used the way you suggest(that radiometric is fundamentally wrong). As Dr. Adequate points out there is much debate over himalayan orogeny due mostly to the lack of research so it is common sense that as new evidence comes out dates will be revised.

One last point, if you look at Mt. Everest 8848 meters above sea level(wiki), and divide by the current rate of elevation increase,.005meters/year(wiki), that would have only taken 1,769,600 years. This is certainly flawed since the rate of elevation increase is probably not constant and the height did not start at current sea level, but it does give you an idea of gradualism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Jason777, posted 07-21-2008 10:11 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 33 of 518 (477500)
08-03-2008 9:47 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by Jason777
07-21-2008 10:22 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hey Jason777, sorry to take so long getting back.

Do you know what species of seashells were talking about?There are literally thousands,filterfeeders and photosynthetic,saltwater,freshwater,and brackish.

No I don't know all the species involved, what I do know is that they were marine (saltwater), that there was a variety, that the whole ecology was buried with the shellfish and that it was a mature marine ecology. One of the categories of shellfish included is Brachiopods: they look like clams but are different. One difference is that some grow a stalk that they are attached to the bottom by, and that often this stalk is also preserved intact. Brachiopods are found on Everest among other mountains, generally always in same geological layers on each mountain.

We know they vary in age because of the shell size and the formation of annual layers as the shells grow.

We also know that there is more than one layer, that layer covers layer covers layer.

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Jason777, posted 07-21-2008 10:22 PM Jason777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Jason777, posted 08-04-2008 5:31 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2947 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 34 of 518 (477559)
08-04-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
08-03-2008 9:47 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2008 9:47 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 1:14 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2699 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 35 of 518 (482067)
09-14-2008 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Jason777
08-04-2008 5:31 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Jason mentioned volcanic activity in a previous post. Just thought I'd throw this fact in the mix... In southern Italy you can find marine shells inside volcanic craters. You can also find them along slopes in volcanic tuff, as well as Roman bricks, pieces of pottery etc. Proof that the earth "regurgitates" itself via volcanism.

Creationists, Evolutionist and Geologists alike are often "perplexed" about layers of rock and assume they were "deposited" over great lengths of time, or a relatively short period of time. Early geologists warned about this illusion. Keep in mind ALL rocks at one time were molten, and "deposited" in great mass (the greatest masses occur in fissure eruptions), and when they dry....they stratify due to the intense heat and pressure.

Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV). And the mass part of the destruction was clearly through volcanic activity on a massive, massive scale.

Buon divertimento.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Jason777, posted 08-04-2008 5:31 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Coyote, posted 09-14-2008 1:40 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2008 1:54 PM Architect-426 has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 36 of 518 (482071)
09-14-2008 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Architect-426
09-14-2008 1:14 PM


Nonsense
Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV). And the mass part of the destruction was clearly through volcanic activity on a massive, massive scale.

The global flood is placed, by biblical scholars, at about 4,350 years ago.

That time period is very familiar to archaeologists and sedimentologists around the world (note--archaeologists and sedimentologists, not geologists. Geologists deal primarily with rock, while archaeologists and sedimentologists deal with soils.)

If there was a massive volcanic or flood event it would show clearly in the soil layers.

In the Pacific Northwest the ash from Mt. Mazama, which formed Crater Lake when it blew nearly 7,000 years ago, is found in archaeological sites. It is a useful time marker. Earlier volcanic events, such as Mt. St. Helens, are also visible.

There is no worldide volcanic event, nor a flood erosion/deposition event, about 4,350 years ago.

Why can we see these older events in the soils, going back tens of thousands of years, but can't find a supposedly much larger event that was much more recent?

Answer: It didn't happen. The "flood" is a local tribal myth, not an actual worldwide event.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 1:14 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 37 of 518 (482072)
09-14-2008 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Architect-426
09-14-2008 1:14 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Welcome to the fray, ARCHITECT-426

... as well as Roman bricks, pieces of pottery etc. Proof that the earth "regurgitates" itself via volcanism.

Actually these instances prove nothing other than that Romans used marine shells in bricks, pieces of pottery, etc.

You can also find them along slopes in volcanic tuff, ...

Do you know what "tuff" is?

quote:
American Heritage Dictionary
tuff
n. A rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand to coarse gravel. Also called tufa.

So existing marine deposits in existing sedimentary layers on an existing mountain can be mixed with volcanic ash when the volcano explodes, projecting rocks and ash onto the country side.

In southern Italy you can find marine shells inside volcanic craters.

Which are exposed layers inside or have fallen from the exposed surfaces afterward?

You do understand, don't you, that shells can be melted in furnaces as part of standard manufacturing processes for making lime, and so they would not survive as shells when mixed with volcanic lava. Romans used lime to build their roads.

Perhaps a link would be best to provide some evidence that what you are interpreting actually represents the facts would be in order.

Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV). And the mass part of the destruction was clearly through volcanic activity on a massive, massive scale.

This is a science thread, not a fantasy thread, and as such you would need to provide evidence of actual physical objective reality, not biblical references, to show that such things actually occurred.

Remember, too, that the issue here is that the marine shells are MUCH TOO OLD to be deposited during a biblical flood, and thus they are not evidence for such an event occurred.

Enjoy.

ps - as you are new here, some posting tips:

type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:
quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.

For other formating tips see Posting Tips


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 1:14 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 9:55 PM RAZD has responded

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 589 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 38 of 518 (482074)
09-14-2008 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by bluescat48
06-07-2008 10:08 PM


As I understand it, plate tectonics wasn't really confirmed until the early 60s. Biggest obstacle was that Wegener didn't have a good proposal for how the plates moved (another obstacle was the act of ignoring the hypothesis). He thought the continents kind of moved like icebreakers plowing through the oceanic crust. Granted, the rest of his evidence was fairly spot-on.

Anyhow, it was explained to me in elementary school, but I was born in 87.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by bluescat48, posted 06-07-2008 10:08 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

    
Architect-426
Member (Idle past 2699 days)
Posts: 76
From: NC, USA
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 39 of 518 (482131)
09-14-2008 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
09-14-2008 1:54 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Thanks for the welcome and the tips on the quotes RAZD.

This is a science thread, not a fantasy thread, and as such you would need to provide evidence of actual physical objective reality, not biblical references, to show that such things actually occurred.

Alright, maybe I misunderstood. I thought this whole website is devoted to Creation that is Scripturally based, vs. Evolution based on Darwinism. If we are talking about the flood of Noah here, and the question regarding marine fossils scattered on mountains and all over creation, then it does apply. If you are going to debate the great flood, you have to grasp the entire event and the purpose. I am supporting the flood with real science AND Scripture, is that not what I am supposed to do here? If anyone does not want to hear what I have to say, I will not participate. If you do wish for me to participate, then I will continue to use Scripture along with science, and I will debate politely and respectfully. Its your call....

Which are exposed layers inside or have fallen from the exposed surfaces afterward?

You do understand, don't you, that shells can be melted in furnaces as part of standard manufacturing processes for making lime, and so they would not survive as shells when mixed with volcanic lava. Romans used lime to build their roads.

These fossils are found inside the craters, Somma, Visuvio, Monte Nuovo etc. The bricks are also found in the craters and tuff. I will be there again next month so if I have time I will verify for myself and let you know.

Yes, I have visited many furnaces. Everyone should visit a brick manufacturing plant or a foundry if you have the chance. Intense heat dramatically changes the composition of materials.

There are various types of volcanic eruptions, not just a "lava flow". Depending on the depth of the eruption, type of explosion (stromboli, gaseous, phreatic etc.) the result will be various types of ejections which in turn later crystallize into various types or rock. Volcanos even eject mud and water. Moreover, volcanic dikes spread out from volcanos, and deep down into the earth thus drawing up the local rock and eventually ejecting it out of the vent. So it is not out of the question, that these marine shells or fossils, were mixed in with other rocks and eventually were erupted, in tact. The earth, thru volcanism, becomes very plastic.

If there was a massive volcanic or flood event it would show clearly in the soil layers.

I'm not talking about soil layers but rock. The evidence is below the soil layers, and yes sometimes even above. Also, volcanic activity results in soil, very good soil, that is why the wine from Italy is so wonderful, due to the volcanic soil. Your coffee...volcanic soil. We can open up another topic on this alone so I won't go into depth on this. I can also go on and on talking about Mt. Mazama, but again I think it will be off topic perhaps??

Sorry, many of my geology books are very old so I don't have a link, but I will work on that, I guess I'm "old school". I did find this link regarding fossil shells written in the 1700's by the Italian scientist/naturalist Anton Lazaro. Its quite lengthy and in Italian, sorry. I have not read all of it yet myself.

http://www.ariannaeditrice.it/articolo.php?id_articolo=12121

Cheers everyone.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : No reason given.

Edited by ARCHITECT-426, : typo


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 09-14-2008 1:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2008 7:51 PM Architect-426 has responded

    
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2947 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 40 of 518 (482147)
09-15-2008 5:23 AM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 09-15-2008 6:14 AM Jason777 has responded
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 09-15-2008 10:43 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 41 of 518 (482158)
09-15-2008 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jason777
09-15-2008 5:23 AM


Jason777 writes:

Atually i would be looking for seashell layers millions of years old thick and corals as well.

There are miles-thick marine layers all over the world. These layers form gradually by deposition of the remains of sea life and of suspended inorganic materials, commonly at a rate in the range of 1 to 5 centimeters per thousand years.

You won't find miles-thick coral layers because each species of coral has a limited range of depths at which it can flourish, plus the surface of the water represents a height limit. Coral beds are built from the sea floor upward by living creatures, much different from other layers that form as creatures living above die, as is the case with the much thicker limestone layers. Nonetheless, coral layers tracing all the back to the Cambrian have been found.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jason777, posted 09-15-2008 5:23 AM Jason777 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Jason777, posted 09-15-2008 3:53 PM Percy has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 182 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 518 (482185)
09-15-2008 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Jason777
09-15-2008 5:23 AM


Assumptions again
There are a few assumptions that go with dating fossil marine layers,but nowhere near as many as there is with radiometric dating etc.

Are you making the common creationist mistake of equating "assumptions" with "wrong?"

If so, you are making an argument that is weak even for a creationist.

If you think some of the assumptions involved in radiometric dating are wrong, perhaps you could show how and why they are wrong.

I would prefer you address this to radiocarbon (C14) dating, as that is a field that I know.

But it might be best if you find a still-active thread dealing with radiocarbon dating and add to that rather than doing so here.

I look forward to helping you understand C14 dating better, and realizing that "assumption" does not automatically mean "wrong."


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Jason777, posted 09-15-2008 5:23 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 2947 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 43 of 518 (482248)
09-15-2008 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Percy
09-15-2008 6:14 AM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Percy, posted 09-15-2008 6:14 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Percy, posted 09-15-2008 7:36 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 09-15-2008 8:15 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 47 by AdminNosy, posted 09-15-2008 8:21 PM Jason777 has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18309
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 44 of 518 (482308)
09-15-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Jason777
09-15-2008 3:53 PM


Hi Jason,

I'm not able to find anything on the web that even remotely resembles your description of the Tapeats. Where are you getting your information from?

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Jason777, posted 09-15-2008 3:53 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19756
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.5


Message 45 of 518 (482314)
09-15-2008 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Architect-426
09-14-2008 9:55 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Thanks ARCHITECT-426,

Alright, maybe I misunderstood. I thought this whole website is devoted to Creation that is Scripturally based, vs. Evolution based on Darwinism.

The forum is divided into three basic categories, one that has science threads, where evidence is required to substantiate an argument, one that has "faith and belief" threads, where the bible citations are given weight and the need to provide evidence is relaxed, and one that is for general purpose (coffee house) discusions and free-for all slugfests.

If we are talking about the flood of Noah here, and the question regarding marine fossils scattered on mountains and all over creation, then it does apply.

But we limit the discussion to those arguments that can be substantiated by actual factual objective evidence, and require that the substantiation evidence be included in the debate.

The destruction of Troy was considered a myth until an archeologist following clues in the myth uncovered a buried city. Finding the historic Troy does not, of course, mean that the heros and gods of the Greek myth are factual, just that Troy did exist and was destroyed and the ground salted.

This is the kind of approach here: looking for the factual evidence that may, or may not, be buried in the story of Noah.

The question posed by this thread, the topic, the theme, of discussion is what is posted in message 1 of the thread (and it is generally a good idea to read the first message on any thread you think about posting on to see what the theme is):

quote:
There are fossil marine deposits on virtually every mountain, including Mt Everest.

These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera. If they are evidence of a world wide flood then:

(1) the flood was much longer in duration than is the published conjecture, or

(2) the marine environment was unusually productive, in which case we come to the problem of trilobites ... and all other extinct marine fauna and flora from the Precambrian through the marine dinosaurs ... not surviving the flood.

Thus you have a logical contradiction.

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.


Simply put: the marine life on mountains is too old, too completely developed into several different complete ecologies, and piled in too many layers to be explained by a single short duration submersion.

Leonardo daVince figured out that the pattern of the fossil record did not meet the criteria of a biblical flood:

quote:
In Leonardo's day there were several hypotheses of how it was that shells and other living creatures were found in rocks on the tops of mountans. Some believed the shells to have been carried there by the Biblical Flood; others thought that these shells had grown in the rocks. Leonardo had no patience with either hypothesis, and refuted both using his careful observations. Concerning the second hypothesis, he wrote that "such an opinion cannot exist in a brain of much reason; because here are the years of their growth, numbered on their shells, and there are large and small ones to be seen which could not have grown without food, and could not have fed without motion -- and here they could not move." There was every sign that these shells had once been living organisms. What about the Great Flood mentioned in the Bible? Leonardo doubted the existence of a single worldwide flood, noting that there would have been no place for the water to go when it receded. He also noted that "if the shells had been carried by the muddy deluge they would have been mixed up, and separated from each other amidst the mud, and not in regular steps and layers -- as we see them now in our time." He noted that rain falling on mountains rushed downhill, not uphill, and suggested that any Great Flood would have carried fossils away from the land, not towards it. He described sessile fossils such as oysters and corals, and considered it impossible that one flood could have carried them 300 miles inland, or that they could have crawled 300 miles in the forty days and nights of the Biblical flood.

Perhaps you can check out the sites where he investigated this matter when you return: it would be pretty cool to walk in his footsteps for a bit eh?

Once we dismiss a flood as the source of marine fossils on mountaintops, we then have the question of how they got there, a question that applies equally for creationist and scientist.

If you are going to debate the great flood, you have to grasp the entire event and the purpose. I am supporting the flood with real science AND Scripture, is that not what I am supposed to do here?

Apply the "Troy" model: let you scripture\myth inform your conjectures, but then find the evidence and test the conclusions against the objective facts of reality. Troy was not found by wishful thinking and making up fantasies.

For instance, you said "Remember, the earth was not only flooded, but utterly destroyed (read Gen. ch. 6 KJV)" - so what is your evidence of this destruction? How can we test for that condition?

The problem I have is that geology and archeology and paleontology and astronomy all have evidence showing a continuous existence of the earth for some 4.55 billion years, and of life on this planet for some 3.5 billion years, with overlapping evidence that does not have any time gaps.

These fossils are found inside the craters, Somma, Visuvio, Monte Nuovo etc. The bricks are also found in the craters and tuff. I will be there again next month so if I have time I will verify for myself and let you know.

This still strikes me as post hoc ergo propter hoc false logic in attributing their existence to being buried deep in the earth, which is your implication yes?

There are various types of volcanic eruptions, not just a "lava flow". Depending on the depth of the eruption, type of explosion (stromboli, gaseous, phreatic etc.) the result will be various types of ejections which in turn later crystallize into various types or rock. Volcanos even eject mud and water. Moreover, volcanic dikes spread out from volcanos, and deep down into the earth thus drawing up the local rock and eventually ejecting it out of the vent. So it is not out of the question, that these marine shells or fossils, were mixed in with other rocks and eventually were erupted, in tact. The earth, thru volcanism, becomes very plastic.

Deep down in the earth the temperature and pressure transform rocks (see metamorphic rock), and thus the marine fossils would be completely altered of not destroyed, and I take if from your argument that this is not the case.

One of the reasons that the scientific age for life on earth is limited to 3.5 billion years is that this is the oldest sedimentary rock known. There are several outcrops of rock that are older, however they are all metamorphic rocks - rocks that have been altered by the temperature and pressure in the earth to the point where evidence of biological life is destroyed.

But let's stop for a moment.

Your argument regarding evidence in volcanoes is completely off topic for this thread, but is interesting to pursue: why not start a new thread on the topic, and focus it on the ability of volcanoes to "regurgitate" the earth:

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

Then we can return to discussing the fact that marine fossils do not, of themselves, argue for a flood event such as portrayed in the Noah story without completely altering the story itself.

Enjoy.


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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Architect-426, posted 09-14-2008 9:55 PM Architect-426 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Architect-426, posted 09-22-2008 6:50 PM RAZD has responded

  
Prev12
3
456
...
35NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019