Seashells on tops of mountains.

Hi Chuck77 To let you know, I think you were right in intent, but didn't formulate the issue quite precisely. You are right that we should not be throwing website material back and forth with no additional input, it's not very different from posting bare links. Here's what the forum guidelines say:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.
   ​
6. Avoid lengthy cut-n-pastes. Introduce the point in your own words and provide a link to your source as a reference. If your source is not on-line you may contact the Site Administrator to have it made available on-line.

We have had several creationists post large tracts of copy and paste from creationist websites with no commentary, and the lack of commentary is the issue.When creationists do it, they have been told "we don't debate websites, select the argument that you think is best supported, that you agree with, and that you can argue for, and present it in your own words to debate"Now this is an excellent bit of advice for everyone: first, if you can't paraphrase a comment or statement then you don't really understand it; second it makes you focus on an argument that you can support outside the quoted article; third it makes you consider having additional arguments to reinforce the issue you select. When it comes to Coyote, she is a professional archeologist and can certainly argue for and support any article or issue in archeology, so if challenged with the above comment would have been able to do so, in spades (), but probably just felt it was unjustified.When it comes to posts about archeology and related items like ¹⁴C and other dating methods, findings in archeology, etc. I love to read her posts, as I can usually learn something from them. So the issue is not about the evidence in the post, but the fact that it was presented with no commentary or summation.Enjoy.

Hi again Chuck77 My point here, is that the only "catastrophe" mentioned is flooding, not volcanoes, not earthquakes, so any argument that would incorporate those events into a WWF event is making an interpretation that is not justified by the narrative.http://www.genesis.net.au/~bible/kjv/genesis/

quote:

---

7:10 And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were upon the earth.
7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.

---

No mention of anything but water rising (fountains broken open) and rain falling (sky opened).Doesn't even say there was a violent storm with strong winds, just a lot of rain.So I agree with ICANT that there doesn't need to be an effect that would be noticed in the archeological record. It would have to be a heavy rain to reach the level in the narrative by rain alone, but we also have opened fountains of the deep, so that isn't necessarily needed.(same link)

quote:

---

7:17 And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
7:18 And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
7:24 And the waters prevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.

---

No mention of storm conditions or winds or earthquakes or volcanoes ... and many mountains are higher than 15 cubits⁽¹⁾.So here's another interpretation to consider: IF god caused the red sea to part for Moses, THEN he could have done similar for Noah. Thus he could have 'pushed' the water to just flow uphill from the seas (fountains of the deep), and over the land ("waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth") to the depth of 15 cubits everywhere by the same magic\control used when parting the red sea for Moses. There is enough water in the seas, now, to do this with plenty left over.It's a matter of interpretation of what the bible says, more than it is a matter of how the earth was affected by the flood, imho, and interpretation is subject to human error, yes?(same link)

quote:

---

7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:
7:22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.
7:23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

---

To my mind, this section is rather explicit in describing a massive mass extinction event, with all living things reduced to just the people, animals, etc inside the ark surviving. Thus there needs to be a mass extinction AND a massive (genetic and phylogenetic) bottleneck in all living things in all species at the same time. The evidence just does not show this extent of extinction to all species at one specific point in time. Sorry.Now I need to go buy some coffee ... I just drank my last cup. Catch you later, dude.Enjoy

---

Notes:

​

⁽¹⁾ -
Cubit - Wikipedia

Quote: "The Egyptian hieroglyph for the cubit shows the symbol of a forearm. The Egyptian cubit was subdivided into 7 palms of 4 digits each; surviving cubit rods are between 52.3 and 52.9 cm in length.[1]"
The Egyptian cubit is normally considered the one used in the bible IIRC, so this is 0.526 meters long or 20.7 inches, and 15 cubits would be 25.9 feet deep.

Hi PressieYou can also post her comments to Fundies Say the Darndest ThingsAnd let her know you are doing it ... just to be honest and above board (rather than behind her back)Oh, and say HI for me too.See Fundies Say the Darndest Things - RationalWiki for commentarySome of those comments are priceless and some are just scary.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : hi

Hi Robert Byers, So why weren't those low-lands covered by fossils during the flood and then later raised by your asserted\assumed process? Can you quote chapter and verse that specifically state that such volcanoes existed during or after the flood? I'm just curious about your source.Enjoy.

Hi again Robert Byers, So we should see the evidence of volcanism in the mountains in question, and evidence of lava/ash/cinder cones/etc covering previous layers that were underwater during the flood, yes?So we should still see a layer of seashells under the volcanic layers (or at least under the ash and cinder covered areas, as lava tends to melt seashells), yes? Larger than any earthquakes experienced in modern times, yes?You do know that much smaller tectonic movements are felt around the world today, yes? Any biblical reference for massive earthquakes after the flood? Chapter\verse\quote?Please note that I have asked for this information before: If you are going to claim that "The bible sets boundaries" then you need to be able to show precisely what those boundaries are. So these should be the newest mountains on earth, yes?And they would not show the effects of volcanism, but of rapid upheaval, yes?And the upper surfaces should still have been covered by the flood before the upheaval, yes?So we should still see a layer of seashells on top of these (newest) mountains, yes? But all these land areas were underwater during the flood, yes?Why no layer of sea shells on top of the areas of "general massive earth upheaval" and where "many areas had sediment from land areas" --- or do you agree that the evidence of seashells is not from growth during the flood?Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : added previous unanswered question.

Hi pandion, small point GPS at its normal best accuracy (for civilians) is to the about 3 meters, or about 10 ft. An 8 ft error is normal. Mine shows a circle rather than a point, with the circle radius = accuracy.I've also had mine tell me I was 20ft above sea level when I was standing with my feet in the water at high tide ... didn't know I could fly .Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : flying

Hi ICANT Divided by what? Divided between sons? ... between people? ... between nations?No reference to ground shaking, which is rather symptomatic of earthquakes, yes? Which one?Pangaea - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Pangaea, Panga, or Pangea (pronounced /pnˈdʒiːə/ pan-jee-ə,[1] from Ancient Greek πᾶν pan "entire", and Γαῖα Gaia "Earth", Latinized as Ga) is hypothesized as a supercontinent that existed during the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras about 250 million years ago, before the component continents were separated into their current configuration.[2]

​

Animation of the break-up of Pangaea and the formation of modern continents.

​

The forming of supercontinents and their breaking up appears to be cyclical through Earth's 4.6 billion year history. There may have been several others before Pangaea. The fourth-last supercontinent, called Columbia or Nuna, appears to have assembled in the period 2.0-1.8 Ga.[4][5]

​

... Rodinia, formed from the accretion and assembly of its fragments. Rodinia lasted from about 1.1 billion years ago (Ga) until about 750 million years ago ...

​

... the relatively short-lived supercontinent of Pannotia. ... lasted until 540 Ma. near the beginning of the Cambrian epoch and then broke up, giving rise to the continents of Laurentia, Baltica, and the southern supercontinent of Gondwana.

​

... By the Triassic Period, Pangaea rotated a little, in a southwest direction. The Cimmerian plate was still travelling across the shrinking Paleo-Tethys, until the Middle Jurassic time. The Paleo-Tethys had closed from west to east, creating the Cimmerian Orogeny. Pangaea looked like a C, with an ocean inside the C, the new Tethys Ocean. Pangaea had rifted by the Middle Jurassic, ...

​

There were three major phases in the break-up of Pangaea. The first phase began in the Early-Middle Jurassic (about 175 Ma), when Pangaea began to rift from the Tethys Ocean in the east to the Pacific in the west, ultimately giving rise to the supercontinents Laurasia and Gondwana. ...

​

The second major phase in the break-up of Pangaea began in the Early Cretaceous (150—140 Ma), when the minor supercontinent of Gondwana separated into multiple continents (Africa, South America, India, Antarctica, and Australia). ...

---

In other words, the LAST supercontinent broke up well before the k-t event. Nope. I want to see Robert Byers show where earthquakes are mentioned.Enjoy.

Hi saab93f, and welcome to the fray, Here's a tip:type [qs=pandion]However, ... molten rock.[/qs] and it becomes: Enjoy

Hi again Robert Byers,Still no reference to earthquakes being mentioned in the bible. Assertion of opinion is not fact, and has amazingly minute (if not invisible) ability to alter reality.Do you realize that the rocks that form the rockies date older than the k-t event, yes?Geology of the Rocky Mountains - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The rocks making up the mountains were formed before the mountains were raised. In the north, the rocks were the original continental rocks formed more than one billion years ago. In the south, an older mountain range was formed 300 million years ago, then eroded away. The rocks of that older range were reformed into the Rocky Mountains

​

The Rocky Mountains took shape during an intense period of plate tectonic activity that resulted in much of the rugged landscape of the western North America. The Laramide orogeny, about 80—55 million years ago, was the last of the three episodes and was responsible for raising the Rocky Mountains.[1]

---

So all the rocks are older than the k-t event, and most of the mountain formation occurred before the k-t event, with some occurring during the k-t event and some final touches afterwards -- with the dates involved using the same dating methodology for the mountains and the k-t event.So you still have not answered my questions (Message 281):

1. So we should still see a layer of seashells under the volcanic layers (or at least under the ash and cinder covered areas, as lava tends to melt seashells), yes?
2. Any biblical reference for massive earthquakes after the flood? Chapter\verse\quote?
3. So these ("mountains did not exist day one after the flood ... only came into existence later")should be the newest mountains on earth, yes?
4. And they would not show the effects of volcanism, but of rapid upheaval, yes?
5. And the upper surfaces should still have been covered by the flood before the upheaval, yes?
6. So we should still see a layer of seashells on top of these (newest) mountains, yes?
7. But all these land areas ("so no seashells. Plus many areas had sediment from land areas and not the oceans." were underwater during the flood, yes?
8. Why no layer of sea shells on top of the areas of "general massive earth upheaval" and where "many areas had sediment from land areas" --- or do you agree that the evidence of seashells is not from growth during the flood?

So there should be a buried of seashells and then land layers upside-down from the layers below the seashell layer, with the oldest layers on top, yes? No such thing. Volcanic activity results in (igneous) rock from solidified lava, cinder or ash. IF the land the mountains were formed from, were underwater during the flood ...
THEN there should be seashells around ... yes?Enjoy.

Seashells cannot be evidence of a global flood, because:

• The seashell fossils found, range in age from 1 to 30 years old.
• The seashells are found in multiple layers.
• Each layer shows mature marine growth of entire ecosystems.
• Later layers grow on the debris of previous layers.
• Layers of seashells extend deep inside mountains.
• The combined age of the layers extends into decades if not millenia.
• The purported duration of the biblical flood (~100 days) is too brief for any marine growth to occur, other than what one would see on a ship (some weed and slime).
• The type of growth on ships in a 100 day period is not the type of growth seen in the fossil seashells layers.

Enjoy.

Hi pandion,Just to clarify: The fossils are millions of years old, yes, but the ages at death of the organisms that were fossilized range from 1 to 30 years. We know this because there are growth layering in the organisms. We also know that they grew in mature marine ecosystems because they are preserved together with undisturbed soils (with bore holes) and fragile methods of attachment: brachiopods grow on a stalk attached to the bottom (including some to shells of previous layers of brachiopods). Sea fans and attached brachiopods would not be preserved in any catastrophic turmoil, but they would be preserved by gradual siltation covering them in-situ. When you add up the ages at death of the fossilized organisms, layer by layer, irrespective of the geological age of the layers, you end up with a record of life living and dying that extends -- at a minimum -- over a period of decades if not millenia. The purported length of the flood -- 100 days +/- -- does not provide sufficient time for the accumulated, layered and structured pattern of life, growth and death that appears repeatedly in the evidence to occur.Therefore such evidence cannot support this purported flood event in any rational way.Enjoy.

Hi Robert Byers,The problem with opinions is that they need to be corroborated by evidence to be valid: opinions are notoriously incapable of altering reality or changing evidence of reality.For instance: And, as Dr Adequate has pointed out, there are marine deposits found that are above the k-t line, so your statement is false. Curiously, a single flood is not a segregated flow.and you also claim (Message 309) that there was "a chaos of powerfully moving water could only do such actions of being segregated and desposting material in segregated flows" without any explanation of how this works ... and completely ignoring the fact that there are many evidences of completely undisturbed and fragile marine growth in the fossils -- evidence that would not survive in "a chaos of powerfully moving water" and yet exists. So you are making up fantasies rather than using the bible as evidence, thank you for clarifying that.Enjoy.Edited by Zen Deist, : clrty

Hi again Robert Byers Nope. Which means that seashells are not evidence of the flood -- which, curiously, is precisely my point: evidence of seashells on and in mountains is not evidence of your purported flood because they cannot have occurred during such a short duration event. The seashells did not grow during a short duration turbulent or chaotic flood, but during time periods of many generations of mature growth of marine organisms stretching out over decades and millenia in undisturbed growth -- including fragile organisms and organisms intolerant of silty water. These layers can be dated by relativistic means -- adding up the ages of the organisms in each layer, in much the same way you can count rings in a tree and know the age of the tree when it died even if you don't know the years\ages\eons it lived -- you know the duration of the life of the tree by counting the rings: by adding up the ages of marine growth layer by layer we know the minimum duration of that growth regardless of when it occurred. The duration is consistently and pervasively much longer than your purported flood event, but consistent with geological ages. The way it could be, is that the fossils were laid down in many different events, occurring over millions of years, concurrent with geological actions that result in mountains rising and eroding. Curiously this way is consistent with ALL the evidence.Enjoy.