If there wasn't a flood, how do you explain Dinosaur fossils found on Mt. Everest.
I think you meant why are there Sea Shell Fossils on Mt. Everest.
Also note there are Sea Shell Fossils on upper rim of the Grand Canyon over 10000 ft above sea level, I know I have collected them.
However, how is this evidence of a world wide flood?
Just how did those immobile sea shells get transported way up the sedimentary column? As you search for this answer, keep in mind the other creationist arguement of hydrologic sorting to explain why dinosaurs and mammals are distinct in the fossil record as well as why Trilobites never mix with dinosaur or mammal fossils.
Sea shell fossils on mountain tops is evidence of uplift - a process at work today.
Well, how would YOU explain them? It's scientifically impossible for a animal to just die from old age or a heart attack or something an turn into a fossil...Fossils can only be made in the presence of a lot of mud and pressure
Only impossible in Creationist literature.
Fossilization of an organism requires certain factors and it is an exceptionally rare occurrence. For an organism to be fossilized, the remains need to be covered by sediment quickly after death such as a sand storm, flood, mass wasting, earthquake, volcanic eruptions, etc. Other conditions can produce fossils such as an organism sinking to an anoxic environment such as to the bottom of a lake or sea.
Today there are discoveries of partially fossilized specimens. I have several in my collection. For example, I have some charcoal wood sitting here on my desk that I found buried underneath a Columbia Plateau pillow lava flow that occurred probably 15 million years ago. The wood most likely was at the bottom of a pond or river and the lava flow did not complete incinerate the wood being protected by water and mud. This wood would have someday been fossilized.
Also there are many examples of 1000's of year old buried forest that are get uncovered by storms or excavations. These forest demonstrated that organic material can survive very long periods. These buried forests are tomorrow's fossilized forests. Many examples occur in the Pacific Northwest and here is an example dating from the ice age:
Also note these are "polystrate fossils" in the making....
So how else would you suggest that a fossil made it to the top of a mountain?
Uplift and mountain building, a process occurring today. There have been many documented accounts of mussel-shell beds raising 10 feet from a single earthquake! More modest events are noted all the time.
When I see a sudden change in the earth's features, I like to ask why. Why did a lazy, meandering river suddenly become a rushing rapids flowing as straight as a stick for four miles? And what made that river suddenly fall 185 feet, then again meander calmly down to the Snake River? ( Doesn't sound like uplift to me, taking billions of year to create such a fascinating site )
Asking why is good. The sudden change was due to the well documented Missoula Floods. Check out the Palouse Falls wiki.
Erratics. You've all haerd of Basin City right? Well it is built on gravel beds. Some local farmers sometimes find huge boulders in their fields - not just the basalt rock that we would expect in this area, but granite and metamorphic rock as well. These unusual rocks must have come from far away in the mountains. Geologists can trace them to their source in the Okanogan Highlands or even the Rocky Mountains. Since these rocks are out of place here in the Pasco Basin, they are called erratics. How did such large boulders move here from so far away? It doesn't sound like uplift to me.
You are correct that is not uplift.
But who was suggesting that glacial deposits were the result of uplift. Uplift explains sea shell on mountain tops not glacial erratics.
I live on a big pile of glacial erratics and gravels mostly the result of the Missoula floods. I can dig a hole in my backyard and find well rounded rocks that I recognize from regions to the north and north-east well up into Canada. This is not uplift but glaciers and the resulting flooding that occur over *tens of thousands* of years - that is why these hard stones of granite, siltstones, quartzite, basalt are so well rounded - a single cataclysmic flood does not explain this.
Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
These CR Basalts were highly fluid lavas that spread out quickly from linear vents, possibly at some great distance from these outcrops.
Highly fluid, in fact stunningly so. I am unable to conceive of these basaltic flows that must of have had the viscosity of water and filled entire drainages with basalt 1000's of feet thick. I live on northwest margin of the Columbia complex and the basalts in our region originated from vents 100's of miles to the east.
These are really quite young rocks.
Yep Miocene the bulk around 17 to 12 mya.
I am just guessing but the terracing in the picture may be the result of the river getting a grip on the material at the interface between two flows. There are dozens of layers in the region and between each there are often ash, aggregate and paleosols providing a foot hold for erosional elements.
Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
There is no evidence of major uplift here.
Then how did the river come to be a couple hundred feet below the level of the land? Subsidence of an adjacent region into which the river flows with backcutting upriver of a series of waterfalls and/or fast-flowing sections?
This region was not significant uplifted but filled in.
The region experienced massive infilling of cubic miles of extremely fluid lava flows that filled in former valleys and drainages so that only the highest summits and ridges remained. In some areas the basalt is miles thick. In fact, little is known of the basement formations below the basalt in vast regions because the coverage is so complete and deep.
The Columbia river with the help of glacial outflows and dozens of Missoula super floods cut new channels thru the young basalt on its way to the Pacific.
This still gives me no picture of how the ledges formed.
The ledges probably formed because the various layers are distinct with a contact zone that often consists of ash (probably from a preruption activity), sediments, palagonite (result of the meeting of lava and water). As the river or floods cut through basalt they would erode differentially between the layers due to this discontinuity and form ledges? Just a guess.
Re: Please Explain the Following Evidence From Geology
Anglagard's point 21 is wrong
I don't believe it is. The Palouse River canyon is not an incised meander river canyon.
The river channel below the falls, where it is a straight shot for miles is a good example what to expect from a catastrophic flood (in this case the Missoula floods). The Missoula flood diverted the older Palouse river course forming a 90 degree diversion and made a relatively straight shot to the Snake .
See the link to the Palouse river Google map in Message 68
If there was a worldwide flood I think you would see a lot more of that and a lot less incised meandering examples such as the Goosenecks - I don't think you would see anything like the Goosenecks.
I still don't understand the explanation for what caused this meandering downcutting
The Goosenecks are entrenched, and has maintained its basic shape for a very long time and with a decidedly V shape, while the Palouse has significantly milder radiused bends and is more U shaped with a local floodplain. All rivers have bends of some degree as due to river hydrological factors.
Most of the earth's crust consists of sedimentary rocks.
Well duh! large deposits of sedimentary rocks is *outstanding* evidence of a very old earth. It is hard to have a 5 billion year old planet with a vigorous atmosphere and not have a lot of sedimentary rock.
Vast deposits of this sedimentary rock such as sandstone consists of very fine particles that also was solid rock of a different composition at one time. Wearing done this material to fine particles takes a very long time and is not the work of a super flood. Other sedimentary rock consists of microfossils such as chalk and diatoms that could not have come from a super flood.
The Matt and Percy are correct on this the crust proper only consists of a small amount of sedimentary rock concentrated as expected on the surface. I was responding to the surface and near surface composition which large deposits of sedimentary rock is what would be expected on a old planet.
Rep I encourage you to do your digging and check out the validity of their claims.
Well the second item has an external link that provides a rational and reasonable explanation that destroys their implied conclusion. If not deceit then willful ignorance.
Why couldn't it take thousands Such as 6,000- 12,000?
Sure it is possible. It is probably an error and a bad assumption to assume present day uplift rates. To get to the bottom of the actual rates would take investigating other source of evidence and look for corroboration of data. The uplift rates could have been much faster or slower in the past. However take 25000 ft / 12000 yr gives around a 2 ft per year, double it to account for erosion and you have 4 ft/year. That is very geological active that is not noted in historical time by the surrounding civilizations. I believe that such wild runaway uplift would leave other forms of evidence.
Further such rapid uplift rates and young age would result, I believe, in much more uniform geology. Take any surface geology map for any mountaineous area and I am always amazed at the complexity with dozens of different formations of widely different composition. If you research these different formations you learn that they were each formed is widely different conditions. This complexity and diversity argues for an old earth.
No doubt. That's only a wild guess and is very much incorrect.
The point is that if these mountains ranges are as young as suggested the uplift rates would be very large. Erosion is a factor that only increases the necessary uplift rates to reach the elevations of such ranges and makes claims of a young age only more fanciful and unrealistic.
Since the whole goal of evolutionists is to deny God
with the evidence of a global flood in all the sedimentary rock layers all over the world, which is where they even find these bones, then not even CONSIDERING that those bones are nothing more than pre-flood humans whose skeletal remains have been crushed and distorted by the bilions of gallons of water that overwhelmed them, is not the sign of people seeking the truth.
Please Refpunk educate yourself on that which you rail against. Abyssal ignorance combined with smug confidence is an ugly scene.
Hydrostatic pressure does not crush and distort solid objects. There are perfectly preserved dinosaur fossils with no distortion.
You need to understand that fossils are very well compartmentalized with the geological column. That is large mammal fossils are never found in place with dinosaur fossils. Also trilobite fossils are never found with mammal, bird or even dinosaur fossils. This presents a huge problem to flood believers. They have presented several absurd unworkable solutions to fix this problem.
But history and reality does verify the flood accounts.
The opposite is true.
Try to find what you consider the most powerful evidence for the flood and explore it, learn about it and attempt to present it.
oh yeah. I started to respond a while back but I felt like I was defending a spherical earth to a flat earther. I suspect Refpunk is a troll because I refuse to believe that anyone is that .... oh .... um .... well I don't want to violate the forum rules.
1. Angular unconformities â€“ Angular unconformities are where sediments are laid down in layers, then tilted and eroded, then new sediments are deposited on top. How does a global flood simultaneously deposit, tilt, and erode in the same exact place?
Hills and rock formations would have settled and been compacted during the flood to some degree due to the pressure of being under water.
This is complete nonsense. The pressure due to water is insignificant of the pressure due to rock. Go take as ocean floor sample 5 miles from surface you will find soft mud.
When mountains and other geological structures were raised up some rock formations were tilted and as waves of water went over them some earth would have been eroded and more earth from other sources would have been deposited by more wave action.
This is further nonsense. First mountains around the world are of various ages. Second the material in angular unconformities is cemented (lithofied) and in many cases metamorphosed. This requires high pressure, heat and time, not hydrostatic pressure.
In the case of the Grand Canyon the flood may have not caused the Canyon itself although there are fossils of sea creatures there.
And tracks of terrestrial animals, eolian dunes, rain drops, etc.
Some people believe it was from an ancient lake when a dam burst but I havenâ€™t looked into it.
At the bottom of the Grand Canyon is a huge Angular Unconformity. How does your model build this...
On creationwiki.org there is a response to an article about the Grand Canyon on talk origins which mentions angular unconformities
With a completely inadequate and absurd response. Go read their response
The angular unconformity could result form the sediment being laid down at an angle and simply sloped at this point, or it could have been pushed up after being laid down and eroded by changing currents or tidal changes. This could have occurred during the Flood, but before the overlaying sediment was laid down.
The Vishnu group that forms the foundation to this unconformity consists of high-grade metamorphic rocks (gneiss,schist,quartzite) that requires high heat, high pressure and time. The Vishnu group also has intrusive dikes of younger granite and pegmatite.
If you can't describe how a flood could create an angular unconformity forget about trying to explain the rest.
Angular unconformities falsify a flood all on their own.