Seashells on tops of mountains.

Nonsense.The dates range over many millions of years. And they are nowhere near 4350 years ago (the concensus date ascribed to the mythical flood).But if you have scientific evidence to the contrary concerning these fossils that you'd like to present, feel free.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You "belief" is flawed. You appear to have the selective ignorance characteristic of many creationists; if science contradicts the bible then science is wrong. There was no global flood in the past. Its not a matter of belief, its a matter of evidence. The early geologists were mostly creationists, and for many the goal was to document the flood. They gave up in the early 1830s because the evidence showed that there was no flood. Its a myth.As for abiogenesis, all of those 10^50,000 type numbers that creationists and various mathematicians come up with are flawed. Scientists follow the evidence, and if it shows the bible was wrong that is of no consequence to scientists. Creationists, on the other hand, tend to ignore or misrepresent any evidence that shows their beliefs are incorrect. Now which is the more honest approach?

Belief gets in the way of learning.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The oldest written records reliably date past 5,000 years ago. Your question is somewhat garbled, but I assume you are challenging dating methods and claiming that they are unreliable.Better provide some evidence for that claim. So far, all of science is against you. This includes the various radiometric methods of dating, which correlate very well with annular events (tree-rings, varves, corals, etc.).If you are claiming that all of those methods of dating are inaccurate you had best provide some evidence (and see tagline for some guidance).

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

OK, back to the topic.The idea that seashells on mountaintops is evidence for a global flood is instead evidence that creationists:1) Know, or care, little about science and its findings, or the scientific method; and2) Are seeking desperately for any shred of evidence--no matter how flawed or erroneous--that there was a global flood about 4,350 years ago.Creation "science" isn't meant to convince scientists, its meant to confirm the beliefs of true believers and perhaps fool school boards.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Not on this thread--it would be very off topic.But you could start a new thread, it sounds like it could be fun.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Have you any response to the substance of my message?Fossils on mountain tops are anything but evidence for a global flood. Only one little bit of evidence is needed to show that: the fossils are of vastly different ages from one mountain top to the next.If these fossils were from a single global flood they should date to the same year. They don't.

And all of this happened sometime in the last 4,300 years or so?Who don't the geologists, archaeologists and other -ologists know about this?

The bible is an ancient tribal myth. It has a poor track record as a scientific text. The evidence of the earth contradicts many of the things claimed by the bible. This is an example of the myth I mentioned above. You assure us that the flood is at the K-T boundary, just over 60 million years ago, while another poster here assures it is marked by the Cambrian explosion, nearly 500 million years earlier. On the other hand, biblical scholars assure us the flood was closer to 4,350 years ago.This massive disagreement does nothing for the bible's credibility, nor the credibility of those offering these diverse opinions. It would help if there were some empirical evidence to document one of these three choices, but there does not seem to be any.The seashells on mountains is a classic example of trying to force the evidence of the earth to fit into the bible's elaborate myth system. But it just doesn't fit! Biblical literalists have to ignore a lot of empirical evidence, and manipulate a lot more, to come up with "what if" scenarios to try and fit the evidence of the earth into their myth cycle.But it just doesn't work, as everyone but the biblical literalists can clearly see.And what good is a belief that isn't true?

The bible is an ancient tribal myth. It has been shown to be in error in a number of instances.Biblical literalism is better than artificial respiration at keeping ancient beliefs alive, but that doesn't make it so.Evidence for claims? Science has lots of evidence--whole libraries and museums full of evidence.Creationism has only apologetics and religious belief, which doesn't stand up to scientific evidence.Science easily shows that creationism fails.

This is absolutely false. The K-T boundary is over 60 million years ago. The biblical scholars place the flood at about 4,350 years ago. How do you explain that difference? (Answer: you don't--you just make it up as you go.) All nonsense. Belief isn't evidence. (See signature.)