|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Peg,
the bible is not a science book and doesnt claim to be but when it does touch on science, its always accurate So when it matches something we know from science it is accurate, and when it doesn't, then that is because it doesn't claim to be a science book? How can you tell if this is just a ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy or not? I noticed you did not answer about the length of time needed to form the marine deposits on mountaintops - is that one of the areas where it doesn't claim to be a science book? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : / 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hey Peg,
actually i recall mentioning how mountains rise and fall of mountains into the sea... the earth is always moving as we know and there are are mountains deep down in the ocean beds and some have been pushed up to above the surface Which is where we started: how can you tell whether this is just an ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy or not? The question is what kind of time frame you think this occurs over, and how consistent is that with observations. Note that the evidence contains many layers of many generations of marine organisms in a mature ecosystem.
... and hence I would always first assume that scientists may have the wrong idea... they have been known to change their opinions on things as their knowledge increases So the scientific ideas about the age of the earth are going to change the depth and diversity of layers of marine life? Or is it just that you don't want to play fair and consider that your personal (non-scientific, untested) ideas may also be wrong? Would you change your ideas as your knowledge increases or would you reject an increase in knowledge that contradicts your ideas?
Off topic material hidden. Use "Peek" to read. seriously, i dont claim to understand it all, but i am 100% convinced ... If you don't understand it all how can you be certain of anything? Would not a better approach be open minded skepticism of all ideas?
just as a non believer would do in reverse when it comes to creation Do you reject the creation portrayed in the other religions? If so, then how is that different?
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
duplicate deleted
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
thanks Peg, had trouble with my connection last night
the scientific ideas just may change...they have changed in the past, they are always changing. Do you know of a single instance where they have changed drastically versus refined the concepts? Age of the earth for instance keeps getting refined. It is like finding the value for π - we can't find an exact number but we can continually refine the value we have.
And yes, i would have my understanding adjusted if there was evidence to the contrary. Good. Then you accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that for at least 3.5 billion of those years life has existed? The evidence of seashells on mountain tops is part of that evidence of age that adds up to an old earth.
Off topic material hidden. Use "Peek" to read. yes i do reject the creation stories of other religions. So you are special pleading your version of creation then. Enjoy. Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Peg,
absolutely! we dont know the exact age of the earth, but we know that each creative period spanned a very long time. Great.
Off topic material hidden. Use "Peek" to read. you've gotta admit, the bibles creation explanation hold a hell of a lot more reality then any of those other myths. Um, actually, no - I do not need to admit any such thing. Why would you think so? Other creation stories work as powerful metaphors regardless of their scientific factuality.
Piltdown man! the find was asserted to be a vital “missing link” between man and beast. And yet the Piltdown man did not change the basic concept of man descending from a common ancestor with apes, rather the details have been filled in and they were what showed that the Piltdown man had to be a hoax. Refinement of the concept goes on today and we now have a fairly complete lineage: 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1
Don't you agree that the concept of descent of man and ape from a common ancestor is still alive and well? Science adds knowledge by the process of testing concepts against evidence, and even when concepts are invalidated by evidence this adds to our knowledge of reality. By this process our understanding of reality is refined and improved.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given. 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Doubletime,
Message 165I can't really see why this is not classified as very strong evidence that a worldwide flood that took place in the not to distant past had happend. Of this is a strong indication for the bible but from a 100 percent objective scientist it would only do as proof for a worldwide flood. Not that worldiwide flood but some flood. It is evidence that the sedimentary deposition was underwater at some time. It could have been sea floor that has since raised up through geological processes similar to what is observed today, or it could have been due to a flood. If the former, then we would expect to see undisturbed evidence of complete ecosystems, with evidence of mature growth of marine organisms much as we see on sea floors today, and we would expect to see a succession of generations of organisms in multiple layers. If the latter, then we would expect to see disturbed material of all kinds such as the debris that is commonly washed down by floods and piled up in a disorganized mess. We would not expect to find evidence of growth that takes longer than the flood lasts. Curiously, on mountaintop after mountaintop we see the former pattern, and on mountaintop after mountaintop we do not see the latter pattern. Strangely, we see a pattern of generation after generation deposited in layers containing organisms that grow in one place, still attached to their foundations, organisms that are 10, 20 and 30 years old. The layers show a process of continuous deposition with layer after layer of such mature undisturbed growth, evidence that each such sedimentary deposit was underwater for hundreds of years.
Perhaps evidence is the wrong word. A more apropriate word would be indication. It doesn't even work as an indication: the age of the organisms growing in place undisturbed means they grew underwater in that location for many many years. I don't know what you call it, but when an area is underwater for several hundred years, I don't call it a flood, I call it seafloor. The question then becomes how seafloor becomes mountaintop.
Since the side of this community that the evidences were against would not accept it at evidence nomatter what. Human nature. Science has this quirky little thing called invalidation: if a theory is falsified by evidence that contradicts the theory, then that theory is discarded. This doesn't apply just to science, though: maintaining a belief that is contradicted by evidence is delusion. The problem is not just to explain some aspect of some of the evidence, but to explain all of it. The problem of seashells on mountaintops is that the shells are all too old for them to grow during a flood of even one year duration. Not only is there evidence of generation after generation of growth several layers deep, but the organisms show evidence of change over time as one generation succeeds the previous generations, such that there is a clear transition from one layer to the next to the next to the next, but a point is reached where the top layer is significantly different from the lower level. This pattern is also consistent with growth over long time spans while the sediment in question was a seafloor, and it is inconsistent with the mixing that occurs in flood deposits. Can you explain the evidence of 20 or 30 year old brachiopods still fastened by their stalk to the undisturbed seafloor in the deposits on Mt Everest? Can you explain 2 such layers, one on top of the other, yet both showing undisturbed mature growth, not just of organisms, but of the whole ecosystem - plants and animals? Can you explain 10 such layers? Geology does this very simply through tectonics and the mechanism of uplift to form mountains. Such uplift can be measured, and the rates of uplift can be determined and compared with the geological ages of the rocks. Fascinatingly, such comparisons show that the modern observed rates of uplift are more than sufficient to explain how seafloor becomes mountaintop. Enjoy.
... 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: also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window. For other formating tips see Posting Tips 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Doubletime,
Actually. I dont believe the daiting is especially correct. But thats for another thread. Yes, and there are several threads that will explain the dating methods to you in great detail. One thread where no creationist has yet been able to show that the dating methods are wrong is the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread. It uses simple understandable systems, systems that also provide correlations from one to the other, and where your task, should you choose to participate on that thread, is to explain not just why each method is wrong and how, but why the correlate. It is easy to make up "what-ifs" to conjecture why one method could have errors, but it is another to explain why the errors particular to one method are matched in correlation with another method. Perhaps I'll see you there.
No but it is not unlikley to tink it was the flodd. ... ... IF you agree that the "flodd" was a peaceful inundation of a low lying area that lasted several hundred years at a minimum, just as we see today on seabeds around the world, ... however, as noted previously, I don't call such events "floods" I call them seafloor. But if you are claiming that it is evidence of a cataclysmic event, washing up and over mountains, then there should be evidence of the cataclysm, not of peaceful, undisturbed life covering many generations, undisturbed by outside influences. And if the flood lasted less than a year, there should be NO evidence of seashells that are 10, 20, or 30 years old from organisms that grow annual rings in their shells, and live at the end of a stalk attached to the bottom while these shells grow - stalks also found still attached to the bottom in the fossil beds. There should be debris from several ecosystems mixed together, and there should be a lack of layers. Such evidence of cataclysm is missing from these beds of seashells in layer after layer after layer on mountaintop after mountaintop. One needs to look at the effect of floods on the lands flooded in modern times and then look to see if similar evidence is apparent in the layers after layers of seashells on the mountaintops. It isn't, and for that reason it IS "unlikley to tink it was the flodd" - because you don't have evidence of any effect of a flood, just evidence of peaceful undisturbed life in mature ecosystems spanning many generations.
And evolutionist explanation to how the sea shells got their is moslty guesses in the end. Evolution has nothing to do with it, for mountain forming is part of geology. You are confusing all of science with evolution, while evolution is only a part of science. Evolution explains why the layers have a progression of life from one generation to the next, it does not explain why the seashells are on mountaintops. We see exactly this same progression of life from one generation to the next when we take samples of seafloor around the world: it is the same process, and the only thing this tells us is that the life that left the seashells behind was of a similar nature, undisturbed mature ecosystems of life evolving from one generation to the next, forming layer after layer after layer in the sediments on the seafloors. We see this progression of changing forms in the fossils of the Foraminifera, where there is a 65 million year record of the gradual progression from one species to the next, such that the bottom layer organisms are not found in the top layer, nor are the top layer organisms found at the bottom, even though there is no break is the transition from one generation to the next. These are free swimming organisms with a hard shell, and the shells of dead organisms fall to the seafloor and accumulate over time. We see the same pattern of growth and evolution shown in the forams repeated in the White Cliffs of Dover and the shells left behind by the Coccolithophores. Coccolithophores free floating organisms that also have a hard shell, and these shells also fall to the seafloor when the organism dies and accumulate over time. For this reason, both Foraminifera and Coccolithophores are both used as index fossils to gauge the relative ages of sedimentary layers. Evolution of the living forms, and deposition of the shells from the dead organisms on the seafloor over time explains the layer after layer of shells AND the gradual progression in form from one layer to the next. Thus evolution shows that the process that formed the layers of foraminifer, also formed the layers of the Cliffs of Dover, but it does not explain why the Cliffs of Dover are above sealevel: that is geology. Plate tectonics and the process of uplift explain how and why sections of the earths crust that were once seafloor can be raised up into mountains. The process is slow, but fairly steady, and it can be measured today: the region that includes Mt Everest is still rising today. This rate of rise compared with the age of the fossils shows that it is possible for the mountain to have risen to the present height in the time available. Height, rate of uplift, age all correlate.
My point is that believing in the flodd is not ignorant. Sadly, it is. Ignorant means being uninformed. Particularly, it means being uninformed of contradictory evidence that makes a concept nonviable. In this case, being uniformed of the fact that the evidence of the seashells, including may decades old individuals, in generation after generation of growth in a mature (fully developed) ecosystem, make it impossible for the shells to have grown on top of those mountains during a flood that did not last one year.
In general scientist are closed to the crazy possibility that the flood really happend ... In general science - all science -- is closed to crazy ideas that are not supported by any evidence. In specific science -- all science -- is closed to ideas that are invalidated by contradictory evidence, as is the case here: the evidence of the seashells, including may decades old individuals, in generation after generation of growth in a mature (fully developed) ecosystem, make it impossible for the shells to have grown on top of those mountains during a flood that did not last one year. It's called the scientific method.
... so alot of them want to find alternative explanations on diffrent matters. The task of science in general is to find working explanations for the evidence around us. This includes how mountains form, and how life evolves from one type of organism to another, generation after generation. Science only cares about concepts that work, that make predictions, and that can be tested for validity.
... it was the flodd. Alot of them were frozen instnaly. While the mechanism of organisms freezing to death is explained by dwise1 (Message 179), there is another aspect of this statement that bears scrutiny: floods don't cause freezing. You just cannot cause sudden freezing and ice formation with moving water. Enjoy. 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Doubletime,
WoW you write long posts. That's so I can document in detail, with evidence to support it, where and why you are wrong. Think of it as a condensed course in reality. When you also state a number of assertions that are wrong, it takes more than a single line to show the errors in your thinking.
About the daiting i believe it is strange that the oldest scriptures are 5000s years. Scientist says the first farmers began 5000-12000 years ago. We believe the modern civilization started 5000-7000 years ago. While the Co14 method says that humans were atleast 40 000 years old... Something is not right here. I wonder what ^^ Age and dating methods are not the topic of this thread. If you want to pretend you know something about dating methodology, then there are a couple of threads you can discuss this. One I have given you before, and it appears that you have not taken up the challenge. Here's another one: Message 165, as it deals specifically with 14C dating.
And science is simply selectively crazy. They beleive in abogenisis wich is atleast 10^50 000 times more crazy than the flood. Argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Note that abiogenesis is ALSO not the topic of the thread, and we'd like you to stick with the topic long enough to answer the questions raised by your posts. Trying to introduce other topics is an attempt to distract people from the fact that you have not answered a single question yet about the errors in your belief.
The flood was when it rained for 40 days. I guess soem areas were more peacefull then others. And then there was a period of several months before the theoretical flood subsided. This time would also qualify as peaceful, however when you total all that time up you don't even get to one year of growth, to say nothing of 30+ years per layer for layer upon layer upon layer. In other words you just do not have enough time, with this theoretical flood, to produce the development of a mature ecology of marine growth composed of multiple generations of organisms 10, 20 and 30 years old. Therefore these seashells could not have been produced by the flood and thus they are not evidence of a global flood. Do you understand that this evidence contradicts your theoretical flood, rather than support it? And if you cannot account for the seashells on mountaintops with growth during the flood, then you need to develop an alternative way for previous marine growth to be miraculously lifted up and put on the mountaintops. Note that floods do not cause mountain formation, they erode mountains - so you don't have a mechanism to make mountains - and you cannot use plate tectonics to form mountains, as you just don't have time for it to result in hills to say nothing of mountains.
nd atleast im not ignorant having read so much that evolutionist wrote. ... TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic. Do you realize that someone who is ignorant about a topic, is completely unable to determine how ignorant they are: to be able to know that, you would have to know enough that you would not be ignorant.
I read their explanations to " all the fosils sea shells in the mountains and other stuff " that can be said to indicate the flood. But i didnt see any real evidence at all. Color me surprised. This is a typical reaction to new information, especially information that contradicts firmly held beliefs. It's a result of cognitive dissonance. Questia
quote: That places brachiopods on Mt Everest. Brachiopod - Wikipedia
quote: This shows that brachiopods are permanently fixed by a pedicle to the seafloor as they grow. The age of individuals can be measured by a couple of different methods. One method uses growth rings: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01866p150.pdf
quote: The problem is that intermediate rings are mixed with the pronounced growth rings, possibly from lunar cycles affecting food supply, possibly from storms (for shallow seafloor inhabitants). Taking a "worst case" scenario from this we would be looking at a minimum of 8 years for fully developed brachiopods growing generation after generation in a mature ecosystem. The other approach is to use shell size: http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/.../1/v23n3-337-343.pdf
quote: So you see a distribution of shell size that is related to the age of the individual organism, with many individuals up to 5 years old and some up to 10 years old, and one that is 13 years old, for this one species of shallow seafloor brachiopod. Notice how this correlates with the above article ("In general, the estimated age for shallow water brachiopods is 8—15 years"). Here is a drawing of the typical shells in question:
quote: Note that you can see 5 or 6 pronounced growth rings, with several intermediate rings, correlating with an age of 5 or 6 years for the individual shown. This means that this shallow seafloor species regularly produces individuals that are 5 to 10 years old in undisturbed mature marine ecosystems. Note that even two year old brachiopods alone invalidate your position that they grew during a flood of a shorter duration, and that the existence of multiple layers of such mature ecosystem growth, including individuals 10 years old or older, make it an impossible concept that they all grew, one layer after the other, during a flood that lasts less than one year.
... But i didnt see any real evidence at all. I trust this lays it out for you, in a way that is clear and unambiguous, showing that the age of the individual organisms alone, mean that they cannot be evidence of a shorter duration event, and demonstrating that the multiple layers of such growth, each layer possessing evidence of 5 or 10 year old individuals -- as a worst case -- means that it is completely untenable to claim that this is evidence of a flood of less than one year. Do you or do you not agree that this evidence invalidates the idea that such seashells are evidence of a flood of less than one year duration? Enjoy. 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Doubletime,
It has been a while since you participated on this thread, and in the meanwhile you have participated on other threads. I take this as tacit admission that Message 189 cannot be answered by your conjectures and ad hoc explanations of the evidence, and thus you accept that the shells on mountaintops are not evidence of a great flood for the simple reason that they don't fit the profile necessary for a great flood.
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic. And it stills seems that in many way the weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible. In the end alot of this stuff is still upp for debatte. Hopefully you have become more educated about the topic and realize that you were wrong. Curiously, the fact that people do not accept the evidence that exists in the real world does not mean that their attempts to invalidate it through debate affect reality in any way. A lot of concepts are up for debate, facts are not. It is a fact that the earth is old, it is a fact that life on earth is old, it is a fact that seashells on mountaintops is evidence of an old earth without a great flood. Enjoy. 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Doubletime, you're babbling.
The flodd was supposed to have lasted for 40 days. No, that was the period of rainfall. However the flood lasted less than a year at best. Therefore any shells that grew in-situ to 5 or more YEARS cannot be evidence of the flood. The shells on Everst are Brachiopods, they grow in-situ attached to the ground by a stalk. The fossils show this stalk connection intact. This evidence contradicts any concept that they grew during the flood.
Wich means the earth would have been coverd by water. No, it just means that it rained for 40 days and some land was flooded. Curiously this kind of flooding still occurs.
Therefore the sea shells still with air trapped inside could easily end up in mountains and deserts. Living sea shell don't have air trapped inside. Fossil evidence contains shells that died underwater. No trapped air there either. Fossil evidence also has objects like sea fans. No trapped air there. Floating shells does not explain the evidence. The evidence contradicts your ad hoc made up explanation.
The earth is still flodded to about 70 percent. and? Last time I checked 70% does not equal 100%
Several times in the history of the earth the earth has been fully coverd with water. Nope. Different parts have been underwater at different times, but at no time has all of it been underwater.
But nvm I would like to focus on religiuos topics now Good - then you can abandon all your ridiculous assertions that are based on fantasy instead of reality, including the ones about human evolution, abiogenesis, and what is taught in science classes in schools. So I don't expect to see you posting on any science threads or anything but faith and belief topics. Because you are basically admitting that you are unable to participate in the level of reality necessary to post on science threads. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : addd 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi traste, looking for possible explanations?
My reply: Are mountains stable in their shapes? That's not a reply, that's a question. Generally speaking the question is not about already formed mountains, but the geology that forms mountains: is the geology of land masses stable enough over a 12,000 year period that rapid formation of new mountains with sedimentary layers containing seashells would not occur? Yes: there is no known process of forming mountains with many sedimentary layers, like Mt Everest, in a short period of time.
What a confident statement, I really hate people reason in this way. Then I trust we won't find you making confident assertions that are not substantiated with evidence.
Have you really know that the oldest writen record was not 5000 years old or you are just stupid? The earliest written language is just a little over 5000 years old List of languages by first written accounts - Wikipedia
quote: However the cave paintings at Lascaux France are dated significantly older: Lascaux - Wikipedia
quote: And there are cave paintings older than that: Cave painting - Wikipedia
quote: So while they may not be a written language, they do certainly provide information, and they were evidently made by humans to communicate something. And if we are looking for evidence of human culture, there are many objects that date even older than the paintings. What this has to do with explaining how seashells get on tops of mountains, though, I can't figure out.
Have you really know that the dating methods are not reliable in some way? If you want to discuss the reliability of dating methods, there are several threads where you can do so, such as Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, however this too is not the topic of this thread.
Message 1quote: That's the topic, that's the question. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : qsoute 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I've often found that volubility and ignorance are positively correlated. This should be kept as a reminder that it is not creationism, per se that engenders such reactions as seen here, but the ignorance of science and the basic facts, for the next time we see a oh poor me you are attacking me because I am a creationist whine. Uplift causes mountains to be made of mollusc hills, and this process is still evident in the Himalayas and the Rockies. Everest and the Colorado Plateau are still undergoing uplift, measured these days by GPS transmitters. Subduction can lead to uplift of the land over the subducted material, and this can form mountains, but it is not the only cause. Enjoy. 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Am I voluble? No just posting off topic and (like others) without reference to a rather idiotic subtitle. The topic is seashells on mountaintops. The subtitle, back 204 messages ago was just saying hi, and it is no longer relevant. Enjoy 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 (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Lindalou,
This is some of the evidence you asked about. You'll have to look up articles on them to find others - see Message 189
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Chuck77,
I think most of the answer has been given, but there is one aspect that is not fully covered by those answers.
Couldn't the time it took to form the mountains, while in the process of going upward with all of the catastophic events going on have accumulated/incorporated all that marine life thoughtout the mountains while forming? If you are thinking that the marine fossils come from actual marine growth in the bottoms of seas, which was then pushed up with the formation of the mountains, then they are not evidence of a flood, but evidence of mountain formation. We see this mountain formation today, still slowly going on. Mt Everest is getting higher, and curiously, the rate of growth it currently has is sufficient to explain it's height in the time that this process has been going on -- according to geology and the evidence in the rocks. Curiously, mountains are not known to be formed by floods, so you need some additional mechanism to explain that. And if the mountains are formed by other means, then why do I need the flood to explain them, and then how is this evidence then for a flood?
... with all of the catastophic events going on ... I haven't seen any documentation on catastropic events -- just rain for 40 days and nights, and the sewers backing up (oh wait that was Bill Cosby ... ) So what "catastrophic events" were involved? Chapter and verse? Enjoy.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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024