Seashells on tops of mountains.

Welcome to the fray TheWay. type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: type [qs=tom]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

Not the multiple layers of clamshells (from different ages). Not the difference between shellfish in different areas (from different ages). You're assuming that there is a "diluvial geology" that is consistent and that is more than ad hoc answers (and that it explains all the evidence). If you feel there is please present the evidence of it.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No, it assumes first that the evidence is true, all the evidence, and then looks at how that evidence is best explained. So far the best consistent explanation found is in the science of geology.Tell me, have you ever heard of a flood making a mountain? Can you explain how water could do this?btw - what do you think "uniformitarianism" means?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Just to be clear here, you are talking about water moving land around, not by erosion, but by pushing it.Ever seen this happen? Ever tried to push water?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Of what water from what source? Where are these mysterious fountains? And we have examples of geysers throwing fossil shells onto mountains?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Other planets have different atmospheres, and the earth had a different atmosphere before cyanobacteria released oxygen. None of these differences affect dating methods.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So dating techniques only apply after "the big flood" occurred? So other floods occurred after "the big flood" yes? And we can date those because they are after "the big flood" occurred and so the dating techniques are valid?Just trying to follow the train (?) of your logic. Yes, to keep coming up with ad hoc explanations when the facts get in the way.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : add hoc

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So see my comments on: Message 38and Message 66Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

We already have those, they are called hydrothermal vents. They do not re-arrange the seafloor. your favorite sourceand another one:
Deep Sea Hydrothermal Vents

quote:

---

Hydrothermal vents are geysers on the ocean floor.

​

Deep-sea hydrothermal vents form along mid-ocean ridges, the volcanic undersea mountain ranges where new seafloor is created. Before seafloor vents were actually observed, their existence was predicted because new oceanic crust cools more quickly than otherwise expected. Cold seawater penetrates deep into cracks in the earth's crust. Heat from the rock is transferred to the water along with many different kinds of minerals.

​

Once the water is heated, it rises rapidly, rushing out of cracks in the ocean floor. The scalding vent fluid mixes with cold ocean bottom seawater and creates a rising plume of warm water. This plume is often black where it leaves the vent because mineral particles precipitate when hot vent fluid and cold seawater mix.

---

You do realize that hydrostatic force means that such fountains do not throw water into the sky from the ocean bed, that the only reason the water rises is because it is hotter, not at any greater pressure.Now you do realize that IF you are going to turn on the volcanic activity to heat the water to boiling (at that depth) sufficiently to throw material through the entire ocean column, that you will be essentially turning the ocean into a boiling cauldron. Think steamed milk on your latte.But in any event none of these would throw clamshells onto mountain tops. That was sarcasm ray. You need evidence of this happening to even think it could happen. Perhaps a scenario that spontaneously generates clamshells around geysers? After all it's easy with ad hoc {add miracle here} explanations eh? At face value the explanation is that they grew in the sedimentary deposit before it was lithified, while it was shallow water, and then they died, were fossilized when the sediment was lithified, and then transported to the location wherethey were found by plate tectonics.At face value the clams in question are more than a year old, every single one of them, so they could not have grown during your hypothetical flood event. None of the clams found as fossils anywhere on earth could have grown during your hypothetical flood event.How do you explain that evidence?http://oceanlink.island.net/ask/mollusca.html
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/hard_clam.cfmThose rings on the shells are growth rings, ray, annual growth rings (you know like tree rings). You don't even get past the larval stage before the big dryout, so where do all those OLD clams come from ray?Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Buzz had talked about hills becoming mountains. As far as I know clams do not grow on hills.Instead what we have is evidence that there was a mature marine ecosystem with clams and worms and plants of various kinds ... clams that ranged in age from a few years to 20 or 30 years and plants that had roots and fully formed stalks, there were burrows and roots.Do you agree that this is evidence that the sedimentary deposit involved shows that the marine life lived and thrived underwater for 20 to 30 years in that location?Just a question.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Right. You said "fountains of the deep" -- I just pointed out that we have those. From under the sea floor. I pointed you to hydrothermal vents. They are fountains and they come from under the sea floor.There are also cold seeps, but these are not fountains of water:http://www.resa.net/nasa/ocean_methane.htm

quote:

---

... but there is another environment that provides the chemical nutrients to sustain a non-photosynthesis-based form of life. These are the cold seeps and related environments, where oil and methane gas are bubbling up from undersea sediment layers.

---

And there are also springs, but the problem you have with all of these sources of water is basic hydrodynamics. The same kind of thing can be seen in spring fed lakes. In no case is the source of the water higher than all the land, and it is therefor just not capable of covering it. Water does not flow uphill. Nor does water carry things uphill. Yes, the water came from under the ocean floor, and the evidence we have of thermal vents shows that this does involve heating of the water for the water to rise within the existing water column.The fact remains that you claimed this somehow deposits clam shells on tops of mountains. Filling a earth from the bottom of the ocean does not throw material onto peaks of mountains. You need force to do that, geothermal force means that the water would be superheated, but that still does not mean that you can get the water to rise higher than the land. Ah, yes, the debate where you accused me of quote-mining while I actually demonstrated that you were quote-mining (Message 188). The one where I consistently substantiated my position with quotes from several parts of the book and you could only us a conflation of two different paragraphs from one section in the book? The one where I actually showed what Mayr meant (Message 192)?The one where you stopped replying because you had no case ... It moved the whole sedimentary layer from the ocean floor into hills of increasing height as one plate rides up and over another. The same way mountains continue to rise today, and which is actually measured.It does not move just the shells ray, but the earth the shells are buried in and the layers above and below it, the whole continental plate. Except that it doesn't explain (1) how the seashells get to the tops of the mountains and (2) why the seashells are found in a sedimentary layer with the evidence of a mature marine environment with organisms, some of which (clams) lived for 20 to 30 years ... unless the flood lasted a lot longer than advertised. Actually the theory of evolution says nothing about whether there was a flood or not. It is the evidence that does not show there was a flood. False. There are multiple layers that show evidence of being a marine environment, fully developed mature marine environments that lasted for many years. These layers do not show catastrophic events as delicate structures are preserved. These are mixed with layers that show other effects totally unrelated to floods.So ray, how do you explain the evidence of 20 year old clams on tops of mountains?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : reworded for clarity

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

So the evidence of the seashells on top of Mt Everest are due to tectonic activity. For one, because water is lighter than rock sand gravel dirt etc etc etc. and two because the depth of water in the oceans does not cause tectonic activity.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You can present evidence on how "sketchy" these are at the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III). This is off-topic on this thread. No, they compare non-annual to annual varves:

quote:

---

The laminated sediments of the Walensee do not represent deposition of annual cycles and these non-annual varve-like sediments seem to be less regularly rhythmic than the annual varves of Lake Zurich.

---

This is typical creationist "palming the pea" type move, substituting non-annual varves for annual varves and hoping nobody notices. Would you care to take his argument to Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III) and see if it stands up to scrutiny? Particularly the scrutiny of correlations between dating methods? If one pointed out a falsehood in his article would you be skeptical of the rest of it?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

In this case at least one of the differences is rhythm, but you should also ask why they know one is annual and the other is not. For the specific answers to that you will likely need more than the abstract to the article.There are several ways that these may be distinguished, but the clearest is in cases where there are layers caused by alternating deposits that can logically and rationally only be annual.One of these is discussed on the Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III), having to do with several rather simple annual phenomena that give minimum measurements of the age of the earth that still vastly exceed any YEC delusion. A simple google on the term should tell you quite easily. Alternatively you could use wikipedia. Frankly I am astonished at people that don't learn to use the facilities available to them or that don't make even a SMALL effort to even appear to know what they are talking about.Work (physics) - WikipediaIf this is the level of intellect, curiosity, education and honesty you bring to the debate, then I find your answers to be relatively irrelevant and immaterial: they are obviously not well researched nor reasoned, but are ad hoc excuses for assertions of belief rather than knowledge.This topic is about seashells on mountain tops. Can you tell me how evidence of shells buried within a mature marine environment sediment, with clam shells that are 10, 20 and 30 years old, on even flat land is evidence of a hypothetical world wide flood with a postulated duration measured in months?Take your time.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

From Message 53 - the unanswered part is in yellow: At face value the explanation is that they grew in the sedimentary deposit before it was lithified, while it was shallow water, and then they died, were fossilized when the sediment was lithified, and then transported to the location where they were found by plate tectonics. At face value the clams in question are more than a year old, every single one of them, so they could not have grown during your hypothetical flood event. None of the clams found as fossils anywhere on earth could have grown during your hypothetical flood event.

​

How do you explain that evidence?

​

http://oceanlink.island.net/ask/mollusca.html
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/info/hard_clam.cfm

​

Those rings on the shells are growth rings, ray, annual growth rings (you know like tree rings). You don't even get past the larval stage before the big dryout, so where do all those OLD clams come from ray?

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Thanks Peg, Fair enough, that is what plate tectonics shows ... and the fossils in ordered layers on those mountains ... with evidence of the succession of life from generation to generation ... all showing mature development of the whole marine environment in which they lived, with roots and burrows as well as shells. So how long do you think this takes?Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •