|
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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Are these in order? Bioturbation doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility for rapid uplift of mountains due to tectonic plate activity. No, of course not. no-one said that it did. Instead, iceage said that it precluded a violent process of deposition.
The heat from radioactive decay? Why did you just say that?
Here Lambart and Hsu indicate the questionable variable of "annular" varves in sediment. Mount St. Helens demonstrated that varves can form rapidly. What do you think that the words "varves" and "annular" mean? Hint: you're wrong.
Micheal Oard has shown how assumptions can lead science into logical traps of old earth delusion. No, he's shown that he can evade reality by imagining the possibility of ad hoc explanations of the facts using mechanisms for which there is no evidence. And we could have deduced that just from the fact that he's a creationist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So the difference between annular varves and non-annular varves is regular rhythm? Yes, well, thanks for ignoring my posts for being "crass". I still think that you should look up the words you're using, because annular means "in the shape of a ring". The word you're looking for is "annual". I hope that this information may prompt you to look up the meaning of the word "varve", which I also drew to your attention. It does not mean "stratum", that's why geologists use two different words for these two different concepts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Yet I wonder how you know this? The same way that you know this yourself, if you think about it. Worms can't burrow through soft mud if that soft mud has a thousand feet of rock over it, 'cos that would squash them flat.
Could tectonic plates slamming into each other create enough pressure and heat? Now show us that the top of Mount Everest lies at the border of two tectonic plates. Oh, wait, you can't. I'd thought I'd seen enough of creationist antics, but if you guys are going to try to call plate tectonics to your aid, I'm going to stick around a little longer.
It implies this through conventional uniformitarian geology. The stuff that works, yes. But I guess that it doesn't imply this according to a hypothesis which you can't actually state but which you're still happy to make up in your head as you go along.
Perhaps they do not? I am only asking you to please humor me, Is it possible? The word "no" comes to mind.
As I am relatively new to this and since this is an open thread could someone perhaps supply some numbers or equations I could check as I have never heard of this before. Thanks. Here's another word for you to look up. "Tsunami".
A bit rusty on the physics, but isn't speed a necessary factor in this equation? No. Work = Force x Distance. Time does not enter into the equation. That's why the equation does not mention time in any way. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pardon me for being "crass". But there's so much you don't know about, and this is excusable, only you don't know about it and yet you're still talking about it. Some people might call that "crass".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If this is the level of intellect, curiosity, education and honesty you bring to the debate ... ... then he may be a creationist. Damnit, even if he has forgotten all the physics he learnt in high school, which evidently he has, then he could still have looked it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Now for a more seriuos notes. I 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. (1) Because we know how they actually got there. (2) Because floods don't put shells inside mountains. (3) Because floods wash things downhill, not up. (4) Because if the shells had been transported up, and then into, mountains, by a magic flood, it would have disturbed them, not left them in their beds as they were when they were alive.
But except for mountain peaks i can remember reading about shells being found in deserts to. and in my school they even have fosils of sea creatures found in desert. And we know how those got there too. Do bear in mind that anything that you know about geology is also known to geologists. Indeed, they were the people who found it out and told you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Perhaps evidence is the wrong word. A more apropriate word would be indication. Since the side of this community that the evidences were against would not accept it at evidence nomatter what. Human nature. You know, there is another reason why geologists disagree with you about geology.
Of course i wouldn't care if we were talking about 1 or 2 deserts or mountaint shee shells. And yes everything was coverd with water according to the bible before the first life was created. And allso according to science. And do you know what else science says?
But the shells we are talking about are not millions of years old. But only a few thousands acording to dating. No. Really.
The fact that there are so many very simmulair flood storys outside the bible shows that they may have had their orgin from a true event. In the first place, they are not all that similar. As you would know if you had spent any time reading flood myths instead of reading creationist propaganda about flood myths. In the second place, there is another, more probable, reason why such stories are widespread. That would be because a lot of people made the same mistake as you: they saw sea shells on mountaintops, and falsely interpreted this as evidence for a global flood.
The earth is still flodded. Infact to 70 percent =P If the temperature went down only 3 degrees then we would say goodbie to new york that would be sooked. Some sea depths are 12 kilometers down. If all thoose around the world would expand themself so they become even. The water could easily go up several kilometers. Along with other geologic movements. And all of this is true, but it is a point for geology, not for creationism, since it explains how large areas of what is now dry land could have been inundated without a magic flood.
There has been more than one finding of some creature freezed in ize instantly. And it is not likely to believe that some of them come from the flood. I think you mean permafrost, they were not frozen instantly, and this does not require a magical universal flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
No but it is not unlikley to tink it was the flodd. Alot of them were frozen instnaly. Floods do not freeze things instantly. I can't think of anything that would freeze something as large as a mammoth instantly, but floods definitely don't have this effect.
The mammoth from sybira had grass in his mouth and looked calm. Yeah, sure, I'd look calm if I drowned. I wouldn't panic at all. That's drowning right enough. BTW, how do you know what a mammoth looks like when it's calm? But this is by-the-by. Even if some mammoths were drowned, it wouldn't take a supernatural universal flood to drown them. Real floods actually happen.
And evolutionist explanation to how the sea shells got their is moslty guesses in the end. In the first place, geology and evolutionary biology are two different subjects. You don't need to know anything about evolution to know that water washes stuff downhill. In the second place, no, geology is not "mostly guesses". There's this stuff called "evidence". You've never studied geology, have you?
My point is that believing in the flodd is not ignorant. Yes it is. In particular, it requires complete ignorance of geology. And, in the case of this particular argument, ignorance of some fairly basic facts about water.
In general scientist are closed to the crazy possibility that the flood really happend ... Well yes. Also to the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese. This is because they know that it isn't made of green cheese and that there was no universal flood. And if you had studied the evidence, you'd know that too. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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 ^^ Your assertions. And your interpretation of them.
WoW you write long posts. The flood was when it rained for 40 days. I guess soem areas were more peacefull then others. Perhaps you should spell this out more clearly. First you were maintaining that the shells were washed up the mountains by the flood. Now, confronted with the evidence that they were buried undisturbed, you maintain that the flood need not have disturbed them. In which case: (1) Do you accept that the flood did not wash them up the mountains? (2) How do you now suppose that the shells got in the mountains?
And science is simply selectively crazy. They beleive in abogenisis wich is atleast 10^50 000 times more crazy than the flood. You have not shown your working.
But doesn't believe in the flood happening in the past. 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. The fact that the shells are undisturbed is real evidence. The fact that water washes things downhill, not uphill, would also be evidence.
TBH i have read alot but im still not to wellinformed about this topic. Evidently not.
And it stills seems that in many way the weak majority of modern scientist seek any explanation that is agaisnt the bible. No. It would be correct to say that all geologists know that there never was a universal flood. But they would know this if the book of genesis had never been written. It has nothing to do with distaste for the myths of one particular religion and everything to do with the evidence.
In the end alot of this stuff is still upp for debatte. No. This is why geologists have not debated it since approximately 1832, when Adam Sedgwick admitted he was wrong.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Limestone is just decayed coral that has hardened over time. It has to be first out of the water to be limestone. No ... and no. This is wretchedly untrue. Don't try to speak for geologists until you know some geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
All the sediment and the shells went with them during the process of subduction. Seashells on mountaintops are the end product. You have confused subduction with uplift. Really, get a geology textbook, read it, and until then maintain a discreet silence. It pains me to see someone on the evolution side of the argument being as ignorant as a creationist. Stop it. My advice to you would be the same as my advice to them: shut up, go away, and learn something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Oh, hello... Pleasure to meet you too! Thanks for the warm welcome to EvC, Doctor. It sure is swell to meet so many wonderful and learned people here, such as yourself! I was unnecessarily brusque. I'm sorry. You should still try to learn some geology before trying to teach others about it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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? That's not very detailed. How do you envisage this happening?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My question is not very detailed? Im sorry but it wasn't mean to be very detailed. It's Just a question. How do I envisage my question being more detailed? The next time I ask a simple question I will add more detail than is apperantly needed. Well then, as it stands, your question is: could there be ... some sort of mechanism ... which would allow you to reconcile flood geology with this fact about geology. In which case the best answer I can give is that I can't think of one and nor apparently can you. If you could propose some mechanism in particular then we could think about whether it would work.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
And yet, sea shells are found on all of the peaks that tower 4 and 5 miles above sea level while none are found in the smaller ranges of the western United States. Well since creationist water washes sediment upwards, clearly those mountains aren't tall enough to have any marine deposits. The layers of seashells must be somewhere above them, and presumably have thus far been mistaken for clouds by godless scientists blinkered and prejudiced by their uniformitarianismist assumptions about gravity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The mountains above the k-t line are the ones I mean. Yes there are fossils but they are within largely structures from volcanic action. No.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024