Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8960 total)
28 online now:
jar, JonF, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (4 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 869,857 Year: 1,605/23,288 Month: 1,605/1,851 Week: 245/484 Day: 21/42 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 17 of 518 (471010)
06-14-2008 12:17 AM


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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2008 4:30 AM Jason777 has responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 18 of 518 (471011)
06-14-2008 12:24 AM


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by lyx2no, posted 06-14-2008 2:11 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 25 of 518 (476198)
07-21-2008 10:11 PM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by bluescat48, posted 07-22-2008 1:41 AM Jason777 has responded
 Message 32 by dokukaeru, posted 07-22-2008 3:38 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 190 by RAZD, posted 05-19-2017 10:41 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 26 of 518 (476202)
07-21-2008 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by RAZD
06-14-2008 4:30 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2008 4:30 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 08-03-2008 9:47 PM Jason777 has responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 30 of 518 (476282)
07-22-2008 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by bluescat48
07-22-2008 1:41 AM


Sorry about that,my bad.

ref;

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by bluescat48, posted 07-22-2008 1:41 AM bluescat48 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2008 2:30 PM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 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

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 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

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 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

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 48 of 518 (482753)
09-17-2008 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by AdminNosy
09-15-2008 8:21 PM


Re: Advice for you Jason
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by AdminNosy, posted 09-15-2008 8:21 PM AdminNosy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by Coragyps, posted 09-17-2008 8:27 PM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 50 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2008 9:05 PM Jason777 has responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 51 of 518 (482782)
09-18-2008 12:07 AM


Catastrophic evidence in the tapeats sandstone
www.grisda.org/origins/05039.htm - 26k

Percy,
Here is a link to see some of the granite boulders,etc.

Thanks

{Off-topic material hidden - Adminnemooseus}

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


  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 52 of 518 (482784)
09-18-2008 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by AdminNosy
09-17-2008 9:05 PM


Re: Staying on Topic
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).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by AdminNosy, posted 09-17-2008 9:05 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 76 of 518 (485086)
10-05-2008 1:23 AM


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.


Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by anglagard, posted 10-05-2008 3:56 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 78 by Coragyps, posted 10-05-2008 9:10 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 79 by lyx2no, posted 10-05-2008 11:19 AM Jason777 has not yet responded

  
Jason777
Member (Idle past 3260 days)
Posts: 69
Joined: 11-08-2007


Message 80 of 518 (485171)
10-05-2008 11:44 PM


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?

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by obvious Child, posted 10-06-2008 3:26 AM Jason777 has not yet responded
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2008 7:50 AM Jason777 has not yet 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