Seashells on tops of mountains.

No, of course not. no-one said that it did.Instead, iceage said that it precluded a violent process of deposition. Why did you just say that? What do you think that the words "varves" and "annular" mean?Hint: you're wrong. 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.

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.

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. 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. 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. The word "no" comes to mind. Here's another word for you to look up."Tsunami". 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".

... 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.

(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. 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.

You know, there is another reason why geologists disagree with you about geology. And do you know what else science says? No. Really. 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. 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. I think you mean permafrost, they were not frozen instantly, and this does not require a magical universal flood.

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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

Your assertions. And your interpretation of them. 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? You have not shown your working. The fact that the shells are undisturbed is real evidence.The fact that water washes things downhill, not uphill, would also be evidence. Evidently not. 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. No. This is why geologists have not debated it since approximately 1832, when Adam Sedgwick admitted he was wrong.

No ... and no. This is wretchedly untrue.Don't try to speak for geologists until you know some geology.

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.

I was unnecessarily brusque. I'm sorry.You should still try to learn some geology before trying to teach others about it.

That's not very detailed. How do you envisage this happening?

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.

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.

No.