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

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 1Thanks

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 1Thanks

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

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: (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: 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 TipsIf 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) • • •

Hey Jason777, 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) • • •

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

Hey Rox, cool to see your boot again. How did the thesis defense go? 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) • • •

Thanks ARCHITECT-426 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. According to the same mythological source, and earthquakes also occur independently of volcanism. 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). 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) • • •

I'd say terminally off topic at this point.Nothing about Trilobites in last several posts.

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: 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) • • •

hey ARCHITECT-426, In other words - a side topic to your side topic on volcanism that doesn't relate to trilobite fossils in sedimentary deposits on mountains. 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) • • •

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) • • •

Hey, ARCHITECT-426 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) • • •

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

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