Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,794 Year: 4,051/9,624 Month: 922/974 Week: 249/286 Day: 10/46 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Seashells on tops of mountains.
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 343 (425227)
10-01-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iceage
10-01-2007 2:17 AM


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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iceage, posted 10-01-2007 2:17 AM iceage has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 343 (425690)
10-03-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by TheWay
10-03-2007 6:51 PM


Re: hi, first post
Hello, TheWay. Welcome to EvC.
...the flood doctrine usually states that mountains were formed after the flood.
Actually, there isn't any the flood doctrine. There have been lots of "theories" about where the water came from and where it went: vapor canopies, ice rings, giant water-filled caverns under the earth. The "mountains formed right after the flood" is one idea among many.
-
Wouldn't this account for the seashells....
No, because like the other ideas I mentions, and other creationist ideas like accelerated radioactive decay, changing speed of light, Grand Canyon carved when it was soft sediment, and so forth, it is pretty easily shown to not have happened. Sudden mountain building would look very different than what we actually do see in the mountains, and, besides, it ends up having to invent totally new physics not to account for evidence, but to try to save a preferred creation myth from the evidence.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by TheWay, posted 10-03-2007 6:51 PM TheWay has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 343 (425722)
10-03-2007 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by TheWay
10-03-2007 7:17 PM


Re: hi, first post
Aren't you assuming that conventional uniformitarian philosophy of geology is true?
What's the alternative? Making stuff up just so we don't have to give up our most cherished myths?
Assuming that the current laws of nature have worked in the past as they do today, and assuming that the processes we see today can give explain the features we see in geology leads to a consistent history of the earth.
If the universe operated very differently from the past than it does today, then it seems unlikely that this "uniformitarian assumption" would lead to such a consistent picture of the past.
In fact, if someone is going to propose that the universe was different in the past than it is today, then that someone is going to have to propose some specific ways in which it was different. But all the proposals that have been suggested, like accelerated radioactive decay or a changing speed of light, would have a lot of affects that we do not see in the geologic or astronomic record.

In many respects, the Bible was the world's first Wikipedia article. -- Doug Brown (quoted by Carlin Romano in The Chronicle Review)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by TheWay, posted 10-03-2007 7:17 PM TheWay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Buzsaw, posted 10-03-2007 10:47 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024