Seashells on tops of mountains.

I speculate the point is that seashells are not found on low mountains here and there and so if creationists are saying that seashells on the great mountains are from the flood and that from the chaos of water moving then WHY not the small mts.?
Fair enough.
the answer would be either these low mts were not in a area that got covered by water carrying sea shells.
Another answer , mine, would be that these low mts only appeared after the flood as a part of the great upheavel that occured a few centuries after the flood.
The whole backbone of North america exploded and crumpled and from this came many of the mts there.
So no seashells on top.

The mountains above the k-t line are the ones I mean. Yes there are fossils but they are within largely structures from volcanic action.
Then some movement of sediment from uplifting mountains. No water involved here.The evidence is what is described in the field of the types of structures and fossils found.
I just give a different, more accurate, interpretation.Since the evidence is that great volcanic action occurred then one merely concludes it was in a instant and this from a great upheaval of earth here and there.The earth would of been still unsettled centuries after the flood.This would explain why there are not seashells on these low mts if the biblical flood was throwing them around or the mountains were raised from a flooded world.
simply the mountains are from later events as evidenced by being in areas covered with volcanic material.

Sorry Moderator.
I meant that for the following poster.
I hope that poster can simply read this post without me repeating it.By the way lately my replys to my email come up different.
I can't immediately pop into them like before.
Yuck.

The bible sets boundaries. The evidence of earth fills in the details.
So the events above the k-t line are post flood events and so the massive volcanoism fits with a general massive earth upheaval.The mountains did not exist day one after the flood in the area we are talking about. tHey only came into existence later.
so no seashells. Plus many areas had sediment from land areas and not the oceans.

The bible is evidence to those who know its true. It claims to be a witness.
To say only non biblical evidence may apply is to make a statement on this witness.
Anyways it comes down to your side to show good evidenve for claims.
Creationism easily shows this fails.

The boundaries are the timetable for events.
The evidence for the k-t line being the biblical line is the nature of the rocks. Above the line they are more volcanic or less strong indicating different processes of power. THen the fossil life assemblage makes a clear difference that otherwise would be if from the one biblical flood event.Whatever is the rock type below the k-t line in these regions indicates its deposition nature. so simply it didn't include the sea areas materials if they are missing.
Then the later upheaval may first of covered the land with sediment from the upheaval in the land or from massive volcanic sediment .
Then also from this the mountains rose without seashells being around.

Its relative to the k-t line.
if above then it was a later event. if below it was from the flood event.
the mts are from the flood year and the breakup of the continents.
If above then from lesser earth upheavals here and there.
Its the fossil life that is the clue to dating things.Interesting about your sons experience and the eight feet.

I always say the evidence is in the fauna fossil record. In short the reason they push for a k-t line is the reason i use. except i say its the flood line.
The same great events separating fossil assemblages above the k-t line is the measuring stick I use.
This is the evidence in the field.
Then I add interpretation of the data.
Yet its not accurate to say I'm not providing evidence.
Its the same field evidence for everyone.

Too many questions.Its fine about when the mountains were made.
Yes those below the k-t line were from the flood year. those above from later events. I understood many are from above the k-t line.Marine deposits, like shells, would only be found below the k-t line.
So if they are not there its because the mts came later or that area did not receive marine deposits during the flood.
Simple concept.
nothing I say has to do with bible verses except biblical boundaries.

Nope.
Seashell ages are irrelevant to the flood or just wrongly dated.
Segregated flows would deposit shells etc in segregated layers like everything else.
It could only be that way.

Such a chaos of powerfully moving water could only do such actions of being segregated and desposting material in segregated flows.

The biblical flood would not sort things like modern rivers etc.
This is a great chaos of immense powerful water.
Its sorting is by slabs as big as counties.
not by critters.
if the k-t line is the flood line then there would not be such a fauna mixture. The world before was not the world after.

I have dealt with these things.The k-t line issue is about WHY this creationist says its the flood line. not why it is evidence for a flood. tHats been my answering.
Questions drift here but I stayed on my point.The seashells thing is recent and I made little reference to it.
the dating of seashells is based on presumptions about age/decay which creationists don';t accept.
I have no interest in seashells and was politely answering someone.I said the chaos of a great flood can and did order things BELOW the k-t line. Not above. in fact thats my point. above the line is not the same mechanisms as below. its about volcanic stuff and a little action from the seas.