Seashell on mountain tops â€“ How do Young Earth Creationist explain them?
From what I have seen they often make the claim that the Sea Shell fossils found on mountaintops are *obvious* support for a flood but never offer to explain why. I suppose it is the thought the seashells live in aquatic environments and a global flood that covered the mountains somehow explains their existence.
But just how does a single deluge transport immobile animals and marine plants up the higher elevations and even sometimes deposited marine fossils in several different horizons in a single column? Keeping in mind that that some form of violent hydrological transport would contradict other creationists claim that animals are sorted by their ability to escape.
Also most of the strata with seashell fossils are found typically embedded in limestone together with fossilized marine plants, fish teeth, animal burrows which provide strong irrefutable evidence that the strata was at one time a marine environment and not just some debris that was somehow washed in by a catastrophic event.
Leonardo da Vinci during the 15th century and Saint Sterno of the 17th Century had and the foresight and wisdom to recognize that the biblical flood cannot account for existence of the fossil remains of slow-moving mollusks and marine plants embedded in the rocks of mountains. But yet modern day Young Earth Creationist still believe that a flood explains this common phenomena so just what is the YEC detailed explanation.
We find not only clam shells, but delicate structures like crinoids, things that could not possible have survived the violence necessary to transport them to the mountain tops.In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)
Back in the days when I was still a creationist, I offered the flood model as the explanation for fossils found on mountain tops in my geology class. My teacher went up to the board and drew out something like this.
Then she told me that water don't do this.
Obviously, I didn't get it at the time. Took me about a decade to finally realize what she was trying to tell me.
The fossils are not only found on mountain tops, but also are found on elevations that vary some thousands of feet. A world wide flood responsible for the deposition of these fossils would have distributed them at aproximately the same elevations throughout the world. In fact, if such is the case it would probably be the strongest evidence for a world wide flood.
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source
Um, I think you misunderstand the demonstration of that drawing.
I'm not really understanding it either, and I have a geology degree.
Back in message 4 you say:
A world wide flood responsible for the deposition of these fossils would have distributed them at aproximately the same elevations throughout the world.
Are you saying the would be at the same elevations because the same type critters would be at the same depth? You know, shallow water life forms vs. deep water life forms.
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith
"Nixon was a professional politician, and I despised everything he stood for â€” but if he were running for president this year against the evil Bush-Cheney gang, I would happily vote for him." - Hunter S. Thompson
"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
Totally a guess on my part, but the way I read it, he is saying the fossil evidence, if read in the context of a young earth, would require water to conform to the level of the rocks, creating an even depth of water worldwide, since shells and other sea life type fossils are more evenly spread out and not distinguished a elevations. Sorry for the run-on sentence.
If you say the water rose and deposited shells as we see them then the water would have had to reach many different heights in the flood year and stay there. That means the world wide water level would have to vary very (:) ) widely across the globe.
Creationst "flood geology" is crap because it ignores this simple fact."
I have been reading this thread as flood geology is fascinating for me, and it seems that what hasn't been brought up is that the flood doctrine usually states that mountains were formed after the flood. Wouldn't this account for the seashells and wouldn't the water analogy be some form of logical fallacy as it doesn't really pertain to diluvial geology?