Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
195 online now:
DrJones*, Faith, JonF, PaulK (4 members, 191 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,489 Year: 1,237/23,288 Month: 1,237/1,851 Week: 361/320 Day: 61/72 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 70 of 518 (484615)
09-29-2008 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by IchiBan
09-29-2008 9:53 PM


NOT about WHEN ...
Curiously the topic is NOT about When the flood occurred.

The topic is about explaining the evidence of marine fossil life on mountain tops.

Message 1

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by IchiBan, posted 09-29-2008 9:53 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by IchiBan, posted 10-01-2008 8:59 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 73 by IchiBan, posted 10-01-2008 10:37 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 71 of 518 (484616)
09-29-2008 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Coyote
09-29-2008 10:22 PM


Not about WHEN ...
Curiously the topic is NOT about When the flood occurred.

The topic is about explaining the evidence of marine fossil life on mountain tops.

Message 1

Thanks


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Coyote, posted 09-29-2008 10:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 74 of 518 (484897)
10-02-2008 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by IchiBan
10-01-2008 10:37 PM


Re: NOT about WHEN ...
Now why should myself/we accept your two contradicting propositions, when there could be many more?

Feel free to open a new topic to discuss whatever you want to.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by IchiBan, posted 10-01-2008 10:37 PM IchiBan has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by IchiBan, posted 10-12-2008 3:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 75 of 518 (485031)
10-04-2008 1:42 PM


BUMP FOR Zothar
Zothar has posted a new topic on post new topics, and has been told there is an existing thread on his topic. This is another one, and perhaps he can help us refocus on the original post, Message 1:

quote:
These fossil deposits are all of mature marine life, clams many years old, etcetera. ...
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.

This is Zothar's post, Creation: Prove me Wrong:

I'm gonna say this right out: im a creationist. a seventh day adventist, to be specific.

that being said, no, im not trying to force my beliefs down your throat, so please don't accuse me of that. no, im not saying that im more righious than you. im pretty low on the totem pole myself, so dont think im barking at you guys. this is just my opinion.

ok, lets start with the basics:

Creation: a supernatural God created everything on earth, thus intellegent design. LIFE on this world started about 6000 years ago. (note: i did not say that everything is 6000 years old; im saying that life started then. matter was here loooong before that). there was a worldwide flood that destroyed the entire earth exept for Noah and his family and the animals on the ark.

now evedence for creation is everywhere. im sure youve all heard the shells on top of mountains one (and by the way, ive never heard that one refuted). so if anyone wants to prove me wrong on this, feel free.

im open to any criticism, as long as it deals with my beliefs in creation. anything else i will probibly ignore. that is for a different discussion.

(bold for empHAsis)

Welcome to the fray Zothar,

The evidence proves you wrong or it proves the creation story version wrong (see Message 1), which do you prefer?

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

If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):


... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds
clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

Edited by RAZD, : link


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) • • •

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 82 of 518 (485188)
10-06-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Jason777
10-05-2008 11:44 PM


Hey Jason777,

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?

They do move -- horizontally. They do this by reproduction and the new clam larva finding bottom at the right depth before growing into clams etc. fixed to the bottom. Thus there is a continual supply of fully mature marine environment at the right depth in the oceans.

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 80 by Jason777, posted 10-05-2008 11:44 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 88 of 518 (485848)
10-12-2008 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by IchiBan
10-12-2008 3:03 AM


false dichotomy or not?
Hello IchiBan,

Perhaps I need to make the issue a little clearer for you, and fill in some of the logical basis for my original scenario/s.

IchiBan writes:

Your scenarios amount to a False Dichotomy.
Message 73About the thread topic.
Now why should myself/we accept your two contradicting propositions, when there could be many more?
Message 67Dates of events or phenomena can get rather squishy the further back we go, and so you accept a consensus to work with for a date of 4350 years ago.
Do you accept or reject the work of biblical scholars, and to what degree, or is it just on a flood date of 4350 years ago?


RAZD writes:

Message 70The topic is about explaining the evidence of marine fossil life on mountain tops.
Message 74Feel free to open a new topic to discuss whatever you want to.

The topic of this thread is explaining the complete picture of the evidence of shells on mountain tops:

msg 1 writes:

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.

Your task, should you choose to undertake it, is to explain how this evidence is evidence of a great flood, rather than of normal tectonic processes operating over millennium after millennium.

If this growth occurred during, and therefore is evidence of, a biblical flood, then you are left with two scenarios noted before:

msg 1 writes:

(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.

If you think this is a false dichotomy, then feel free to propose a scenario that (a) has a short duration flood in accordance with the published conjecture, and (b) accounts for the layers growing in situ and undisturbed for millions of years, and (c) accounts for the multiple layers of mature marine growth of marine organisms, and (d) accounts for the succession of the types of organisms over those millions of years.

If this growth did not occur during this conjectured flood, then it is not evidence of a world wide, cover everything, flood, but of another process altogether.

Enjoy.

ps - Zothar (see Message 73) just presented the usual creationist argument, based on the most simplistic use of part of the evidence, and did not consider the depths and variety of the evidence that exists. He certainly has not responded here to engage with the full depth of the evidence, and I trust you will attempt to do better.


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 86 by IchiBan, posted 10-12-2008 3:03 AM IchiBan has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 92 of 518 (485926)
10-13-2008 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by roxrkool
10-12-2008 11:16 PM


Re: How long under water is the issue here.
Hey Rox, cool to see your boot again. How did the thesis defense go?

2) the Appalachians are cored by metamorphic rocks, not volcanic, and were formed via tectonism (i.e., continent-continent collision); and

3) neither the Himalayas, Alps, nor the Tibetan Plateau are volcanic systems, but also the result of tectonism.

Which, of course, explains why the marine fossils are in the sedimentary layers of these mountains, while the lack of volcanism in those areas refutes the concept of the fossils being thrown out on top (even though this can't explain the ordering in mature sediments and several other more temperate problems).

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 90 by roxrkool, posted 10-12-2008 11:16 PM roxrkool has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by roxrkool, posted 10-14-2008 12:37 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 100 of 518 (486096)
10-15-2008 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Architect-426
10-15-2008 5:53 PM


Re: flood == volcanic destruction? <---Big Time Super-Mega!!! = bedtime story.
Thanks ARCHITECT-426

What else do you suppose "with the earth" could be? It does not say "with a bunch of rain". Yes it did rain of course, but that was a result of the destruction (volcanic) action, and then the mega tsunamis causing the waters to rise. Read on in Scripture, you'll find it, seek and you will find my friend....keep in mind, the word "volcano" did not exist in Hebrew (volcan was the roman god of fire).

So it is your interpretation that volcanism was used even though the bible does not explicitly so state.

My interpretation is that this is just a mythological story embellished from previous versions from earlier cultures and that was based on a local flood.

Certainly we do not have any factual information here.

I recommend reading the book of Job. He lived shortly after the flood. Quakes and volcanism go hand-in-hand as you probably know that St. Helens blew its lid after a series of quakes. Quakes are also referred to quite a bit in Scripture by the way.

According to the same mythological source, and earthquakes also occur independently of volcanism.

And yes, sea water was the source of the tsunami. If a "little" volcano like Krakatoa can cause this much devastation, just think what a mega Krakatoa could do! What I meant was Krakatoa eruption X 1000 X dozens of global localities for a "series" of explosions = mega disaster. I'm actually working on the numbers so I will need more time on this...

And you are still woefully short of the required destructive energy, by magnetudes.

The second problem is that you still do not explain any of the evidence we see in the geological record - none of it. All this topsy-turvy world being thrown from one end of the globe to the other may make for a nice bed-time story, but it does not explain the extensive sedimentary beds of peaceful mature marine growth that occurred over thousands of years of gradual deposition on tops of other layers of peaceful mature marine growth.

Strangely, volcanic layers are infrequent contributors to the geological record, and few (if any) reach the global distribution that the Yucatan meteor event reached (and that was pretty thinly spread).

Of course its old. How old? Well it looks like that debate will go on into infinity. For me, I'm not going to take any assumptions as hard facts simply because the "known" conditions are, in fact UNKNOWN, added to imperfect rock samples, added to imperfect humans, added to imperfect equipment, then you get FAAAR from perfect results. Then come the "fudge factor"...

Current scientific thinking is that it is a little over 4.55 billion years old. Curiously the errors and mistakes can be corrected by repeating the analysis. Strangely different systems used agree on the dates. Interestingly no creationist can explain the correlations ...

But that is getting off topic on this thread, see Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) for an example of some, and to continue any discussion on this issue (tree rings agree within 37 years after 8,000 years AND they correlate with climate and 14C levels, and that's just the beginning).

Here we need an explanation of the existing factual layers of sedimentary marine deposits that show thousands of years of peaceful uninterrupted mature marine growth.

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 94 by Architect-426, posted 10-15-2008 5:53 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 110 of 518 (486209)
10-16-2008 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Minnemooseus
10-08-2008 1:15 AM


Re: Way off-topic, and probably very wrong
I'd say terminally off topic at this point.

Nothing about Trilobites in last several posts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Minnemooseus, posted 10-08-2008 1:15 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 115 of 518 (486433)
10-20-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
10-20-2008 1:12 PM


Re: The date of the flood - not necessary yet?
Hey Coyote,

I don't think we need to focus on this issue yet, rather I would like to see a mechanism for flood → movement of layers of rocks → present day formations. Once we have a mechanism for transporting whole layers of rocks with sedimentary layers virtually intact, then we can look at when those layers formed and when they may have been so transported.

In that regard I will go along with Architect-426's Message 113 on his 4 points:

msg113 writes:

1. Origins and various mountain formations.
2. How fossils are formed/made.
3. The mechanisms of transporting, placing, or mixing of these fossils in the rocks.
4. How the Flood did, or did not, have anything to do with the placement of fossilized specimens on mountains.

We can also break (1) down into subcategories:

(a) volcanic origin, occurring on a fairly regular basis throughout the geological history (evidence of Hawaii Islands for instance), but which can be fairly recent, and

(b) tectonic origin, occurring by gradual processes of uplift and earthquake and other associated plate boundary effects, which can be ongoing (such as is measured in places like the top of Mt Everest and the high point in the ridge crossing the Grand Canyon), but won't produce mountains during a human lifetime (or even generations).

(c) mixtures, where the mountain is formed mostly by the second process, but also has evidence that volcanic activity occurred in its past (ash, tuff, lava layers between sedimentary layers).

Further we can stipulate that as volcanic mountains do not contain sedimentary layers, they (and their formation) is relatively irrelevant to the issue of moving these large continuous, multiple layers of sedimentary fossil bearing rocks to mountain tops.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : counting


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 114 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 1:12 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Coyote, posted 10-20-2008 3:33 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 127 of 518 (488757)
11-16-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Architect-426
11-16-2008 2:56 PM


nothing about trilobites
hey ARCHITECT-426,

This can potentially open up a bigger discussion of which rocks are “volcanic” and which are “not”. ...

In other words - a side topic to your side topic on volcanism that doesn't relate to trilobite fossils in sedimentary deposits on mountains.

Go to Forum Proposed New Topics to post new topics.

You could just use Message 123 as your topic and carry on from there.

Topics are limits to ~300 posts, and of late there has been zero discussion of trilobite fossils and other sedimentary deposits on mountaintops and an explanation of how they got there.

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 123 by Architect-426, posted 11-16-2008 2:56 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 128 of 518 (488758)
11-16-2008 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Buzsaw
11-16-2008 5:58 PM


so what about them trilobites eh?
I've been reading quite a bit in this thread and so far have read no statements by any creationists claiming that the earth is young.

Curiously the OP does not require one or the other, rather it has to do with explaining the diversity of sedimentary fossils on mountain tops and how a Y/O/G creationist would explain this fact.

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 126 by Buzsaw, posted 11-16-2008 5:58 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Buzsaw, posted 11-17-2008 10:14 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 139 of 518 (488867)
11-18-2008 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Architect-426
11-18-2008 4:12 PM


Re: Plate Tectonics - Where's the "V"?
Hey, ARCHITECT-426

Here is a simple pragmatic kinetic energy equation you may remember from physics 101; KE=1/2 x M x V (squared)

Ever seen an iceberg? Same material, different density. Push two continents together, some goes down and some goes up. What pushes them together? currents. Oh look there goes some "V" now ...

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 131 by Architect-426, posted 11-18-2008 4:12 PM Architect-426 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 140 of 518 (488869)
11-18-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 4:36 PM


Still no creationist explanation of fossilized marine life on mountaintops.
Hello Ray,

How does this follow from your premise?

Simple.

Message 1

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,


If the marine growth in question occurred during the flood, then there had to be enough time to grow all that complex inter-related ecology, including layers of clams with shells that have growth rings showing 10, 20, 30 years of growth, in an undisturbed environment, and found in many multiples layers.

Thus one possibility is that the flood lasted much longer than the advertised time, in order to provide sufficient time for all this complex growth.

What contradiction?

Actually there are two:

(1) The length of the flood needed to grow the marine growth seen in the fossil beds on the mountain tops versus the length of the flood in the published documents. Long vs Short.

(2) Super fast vital prolific robust growth during a short flood to cause the amount of marine growth seen, surviving all the turmoil of the flood to lay down the required layers in their undisturbed format, and then total mortality of over 99.99% of the species involved. Lively vs Dead.

How do these assertions harm a Genesis flood?

Creationists claim that these fossils are evidence of the flood. I just want to understand how that works.

What I want to see is an explanation for the obvious solid rock evidence of long term marine growth that is found in multiple layers on many many mountains, an explanation that shows it must be evidence of a flood -- and that no other explanation will cover all the facts as well.

Something a little more thought out than this:

Option 1
(premise a) there are seashells on mountains
(premise b) seashells grow under water
therefore: the mountains must have been underwater
(premise c) can't think of any way to make mountains
therefore: the flood covered the mountains

Something a little less ridiculously circular than this:

Option 2
(premise q) the flood also involved made up tectonic mixing
(premise r) this mixing jumbled all the earths surface, making mountains etc
therefore: what you see is all mixed up from what was before
(unstated assumption used as premise s) ignore layering, ignore sorting of fossils, ignore evidence of dry formations in between marine ones, etc etc etc
therefore: the flood caused everything to look exactly like you see it because if it didn't look like due to a flood that then there could be no flood but there was a flood so therefore it made it look exactly like the way you see it ...

And we haven't even gotten to how these layers then became fossilized solid rock. Supposedly by the pressure of the water that is pushing up the mountains?

The Creationism explanation is the Great Flood.

So you go with option #1? That doesn't explain the layers of undisturbed growth of layer after layer of such fossils or the continuity of those layers around the world. I need the details, Ray. See if you can fill it in:

Option 3

Ray's in depth explanation:...............................................................
..
..
..
..

Half of all adults in the U.S. accept the Creationism explanation.

The fallacy of the argument from popularity. Do you really want to go there, and compare which half is which?

Once again: we have one set of evidence and two major explanations.

No, we have one explanation: plate tectonics and the natural history of life on earth preserved in the fossil record as it happened, ...

... and we have one assertion. Until you actually explain the evidence you do not have an explanation.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : 1too


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 132 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 4:36 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20475
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 158 of 518 (488930)
11-19-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Cold Foreign Object
11-18-2008 10:53 PM


fountains don't make mountains
Thanks Ray,

Commentary presupposes ...
Are you aware that modern geology ...
RAZD: your explanation of plates ...

Please stop whining about what science and other people say and start dealing with the evidence directly. None of this addresses how a flood explains the fossils.

If true then said mountains should be filled with layer after layer of fossilized marine life----not just the tops. How do you explain this alleged inconsistency?

Strangely we do see this, among other layers showing other types of events, from volcanic lava and ash to layers showing non-marine life.

Leonardo da Vinci figured it out.

Genesis specifically states that there were TWO sources causing the flood: torrential rains and fountains of the deep bursting open. The latter is speaking about sources of water originating at the sea bottom causing the levels to rise catastrophically.

Interestingly there have been no known instances of fountains making hills, to say nothing of mountains, so this explains neither fossils nor mountains.

This would account for thick layer, or layers, or the phenomena seen.

Astonishingly it doesn't, because the layers contain complete ecosystems of in situ mature marine growth, complete with roots for plants and burrows for animals.

Since the phenomena in question is at the tops, and only the tops, it is still better explained as the result of one great upheaval, instead of one uniform process drawn out over immense time.

Except, incredible as it may seem, it is not just at the tops, but in multiple layers throughout mountains. With different life forms in some layers compared to other layers. Creationists tend to only look at the tops, science tends to look at the whole mountain. Nor is it "one uniform process" as there are multiple sequences involved.

Surprisingly, just saying that a single "great upheaval" made the mountains also doesn't explain how it is caused by a flood. The general action of flood is to cover the flooded bottom with sediment and debris in a mixed up random manner, and to erode land where there is currents in the flood, washing the debris indiscriminately downstream. Everything ends up jumbled together in the valleys, not on the tops of hills (to say nothing of mountains).

How does a flood create mountains?

I have made an explanation (above). Continuity is explained by the Catastrophe. Lack of similar phenomena from mountain base to the top falsifies your deranged explanation.

Curiously, the point of this thread is to deal with the rest of the mountain of evidence, evidence that shows multiple sequences of marine growth in several diverse layers throughout the mountains, and often interspersed with sequences of non-marine life in between the layers of marine growth. How does one upheaval explain this?

Argument from Popularity is not always a fallacy. Reference available upon request.

Actually it is always a logical fallacy. That does not mean that it is necessarily false, just that it cannot possibly be necessarily true, so you cannot use it as proof of reality. Like your ad hominem arguments they just don't mean squat when it comes to providing substance, evidence, hard facts, to back up your claims.

The fossils are hard rock evidence of multiple layers of multiple sequences of marine growth.

And for the record: the evolution explanation is deranged and unbelievable. It amounts to no explanation since you have mountain tops to have been sea floor caused by slow steady plate conflict----yeah right----simply preposterous. In other words you don't know.

Argument from incredulity and ignorance coupled with the another ad hominem and a bit of ad lapidem fallacy thrown in for good measure ...

Curiously, such tectonic movements are recorded today on mountaintops all over the world, showing that such mountain building is still going on, on Mt Everest and elsewhere. Such rates as are recorded today are entirely sufficient to build the mountains in question given the time frame of their existence.

Sea phenomena on mountain TOPS is a logical expectation of a Great Flood.

And yet, interestingly, you have failed to show how it could happen. Without any mechanism for a flood causing upheaval you don't have an explanation, rather what you have is wishful thinking.

Everything written in the above blue box simply denigrates the Creationist explanation, asserting it not to be a explanation. This is long-winded question begging, RAZD. My previous comments (above) place the ball back in your court.

And yet, astonishingly, your "explanation" is no more credible than what I gave as examples. All you have done is try to dodge the issue with a hand waving "great upheaval" wishing-it-were-so story. Can you tell me where the "great upheaval" is mentioned in the published accounts? Or are you just making stuff up as you go along.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : sub


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 141 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-18-2008 10:53 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 9:58 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 160 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-19-2008 11:15 PM RAZD has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020