Seashells on tops of mountains.

Did you mention my name?Why would I be insulted by that? The evidence that can be presented here usually is on websites. It's a fact. It's also very limited. That's because scientific research, peer-review and publication is normally (read virtually every time) communicated in articles that don't appear on websites. That's also why creationists usually don't have a clue what happens in the scientific community.If you want evidence, try peer-reviewed scientific literature. Not websites. For geology, try the peer-reviewed scientific journal called the South African Jornal of Geology, http://sajg.geoscienceworld.org/misc/about.dtl.That's science. It doesn't appear on websites. It is distributed, bought and read by peers who know enough about the subject, who are qualified and can critique the work meaningfully and sufficiently. That's how scientific concensus is obtained. If you want something on pseudeo-science, try the creationists website sources. They're always and mostly exclusively on the internet and in churches, and as has been showed to you; they alwys tell porkies. Always. They pretend to be "scientific", while they are anti-science. They pretend to be "scientific": they're not. They pretend to be peer-reviewed: they're not. They tell porkies. That's it.In scientific literature, porkies are pointed out. Quickly. Not to be repeated. On the internet, porkies are repeated again and again. That's why creationists flourish on the internet. That's also why porkies are all creationists have. They've got nothing else.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Added a few sentencesEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

This is one thing I would like to know from creationists: why do we find sea shells both "on top" and in some mountains, but no sea shells either "on top" or within other mountains?Did the "global flood" miss those mountains with no sea shells? How does a global flood explain all those "shell-free" mountains? Just missed by the "flood"?

Never seen any creationist anywhere not ignoring a question like this.

Ha, wait, I got a reply in my e-mail from someone called Faith G. He referred me to this blogspot The Fantasy of Evolution: blah de blah blah blah EvC blah de blah. He calls my questions "silly".From that blogspot I get the following "answer": Another priceless "argument" from that blog: He thinks that deposition of fossils in mountains is "basic evolution"!I answered him as follows : I hope he brings his "arguments" here so that we can comment on them!Sorry, got another e-mail from Faith G where she (very adament about this) threatens to keep on commenting on her blog about us! Be warned. She is going to overturn every natural science in the world on her blog!Edited by Pressie, : Added the priceless argument sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Added last sentenceEdited by Pressie, : Changed a few words

Faith GAm I allowed to publish your e-mails to me here?I can't do it without your permission. Your "arguments" really are very sad and complete porkies.Yet, you pretend that the questions I asked here were straw men. Questions can't be straw men. Answers can be.Are you afraid of being proven wrong?Faith G said that we can't. Sorry.Edited by Pressie, : Edited a few sentencesEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

I don't normally engage in debates with people who belong in mental institutions. (Sorry, I refer to YEC's and ID's now).Let's put it another way: it's futile to engage in a debate with crazy people. I try not to do it, although we do get some of them at EvC.Is she banned here? If she is, I didn't know.Edited by Pressie, : Added a sentence

Obviously you're not a geologist, then. Flood geology is not geology, it's wishful thinking. No science involved in "flood geology". Just an old book. It's easy to state. Evidence is what counts. Any empiracal evidence for a global flood a few thousand years ago? Without evidence it doesn't exist, like the tooth mouse. No, as there's no empirical evidence for such a flood a few thousand years ago. Do you think that all those thousands of experts around the world haven't investigated? Luckily we know what deposits laid down by water look like. Studies of those rocks do count. We don't need analogies. Just facts. Do you think that all those thousands of geologists all over the world don't know what a formation deposited by a flood (big, intermediate, small, local, local, regional, continental, hemispherical, global) would look like? What is a logical falacy is if creationists try to tell you that a pyroclastic deposition was "deposited by a global flood"!

H Zen DiestThe GPS is amazing! It is fantastic when I do cartography. It is accurate to about 10 metres, just as claimed on the box my device was sold in. Just read the instructions. Easy. The GPS is probably the second best thing the US military has ever provided the whole world! The internet is number 1.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

If pigs could fly then the moon would be made of fairy dust.
Any evidence that the KT line is the flood line? Empirical evidence such as rock deposits?
We do have empirical evidence that the KT line is not the flood line, you know, as we have rocks from the KT- boundary that certainly are not food deposits.

What that creationist says is not important. Empirical evidence is. Then why are you participating in this thread? The heading in the OP reads: Seashells on top of mountains.