|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5943 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Seashells on tops of mountains. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 763 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
#4 links to the Virtual Fossil Museum, of which I was unaware three minutes ago.
Thanks a heap, Rox. I'll spend the whole damn weekend there.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1017 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
You're welcome! I think you will enjoy it. It's a fantastic site.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 313 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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. No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Robert Byers,
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. So why weren't those low-lands covered by fossils during the flood and then later raised by your asserted\assumed process?
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. Can you quote chapter and verse that specifically state that such volcanoes existed during or after the flood? I'm just curious about your source. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The bible sets boundaries. The evidence of earth fills in the details. 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.
So the events above the k-t line are post flood events and so the massive volcanoism fits with a general massive earth upheaval. 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?Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3029 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined:
|
quote:Sure. I'll expand. I said, "And yet, sea shells are found on all of the peaks that tower 4 and 5 miles above sea level (I was referring to the Himalayas here) while none are found in the smaller ranges of the western United States (specifically the mountain ranges that I mentioned). By "smaller ranges" I meant that the mountains of western North America are smaller than the Himalayas. On the other hand, there are fossils of fish found in the Rockies. But they are not oceanic species but rather fossils from inland seas, lakes and rivers. They do not resemble the sea shells found in (and I do mean in) the Himalayas. And they aren't found in the tops of the mountains, as is true in the Himalayas and as one might expect if they were buried in the FLUD. They are found in strata well below the peaks - deposited some 50 million years before the peaks of the mountains were deposited. These fossils are of extinct species in every case. It is also interesting to note that the "sea shells" found inside the peaks of the Himalayas are not from any living species of shellfish. The fossils are from species that lived some 200 to 70 million years ago. For example, many Himalayan fossils are from the extinct subclass Ammonoidea of the class Cephalopoda. They went extinct with the dinosaurs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2521 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
The bible sets boundaries. The evidence of earth fills in the details. This is not how evidence works. Evidence dictates what evidence dictates. If you have "boundaries" before collecting evidence, then you are only going to collect evidence WITHIN those boundaries and ignore evidence outside of them. I'll give you an example:"Columbus was the first European to the New World". There is plenty of evidence which supports that claim. However, the fact that there are iron tools, viking settlements and viking documents which predate that claim by several hundred years tells us that Columbus is not _in fact_ the first European. But, if the History Textbook sets the boundaries, then we don't accept the evidence from Nova Scotia because it "doesn't fit". Evidence is evidence of reality. Trying to force it into a non-reality based narrative is just naive.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Robert Byers,
So the events above the k-t line are post flood events and so the massive volcanoism fits ... So we should see the evidence of volcanism in the mountains in question, and evidence of lava/ash/cinder cones/etc covering previous layers that were underwater during the flood, yes? So we should still see a layer of seashells under the volcanic layers (or at least under the ash and cinder covered areas, as lava tends to melt seashells), yes?
... with a general massive earth upheaval. Larger than any earthquakes experienced in modern times, yes? You do know that much smaller tectonic movements are felt around the world today, yes?
The bible sets boundaries. The evidence of earth fills in the details. Any biblical reference for massive earthquakes after the flood? Chapter\verse\quote? Please note that I have asked for this information before:
Message 276: 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. Can you quote chapter and verse that specifically state that such volcanoes existed during or after the flood? I'm just curious about your source. If you are going to claim that "The bible sets boundaries" then you need to be able to show precisely what those boundaries are.
The mountains did not exist day one after the flood in the area we are talking about. tHey only came into existence later. So these should be the newest mountains on earth, yes? And they would not show the effects of volcanism, but of rapid upheaval, yes? And the upper surfaces should still have been covered by the flood before the upheaval, yes? So we should still see a layer of seashells on top of these (newest) mountains, yes?
so no seashells. Plus many areas had sediment from land areas and not the oceans. But all these land areas were underwater during the flood, yes? Why no layer of sea shells on top of the areas of "general massive earth upheaval" and where "many areas had sediment from land areas" --- or do you agree that the evidence of seashells is not from growth during the flood? Enjoy. Edited by Zen Deist, : added previous unanswered question.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pandion Member (Idle past 3029 days) Posts: 166 From: Houston Joined: |
So the events above the k-t line are post flood events and so the massive volcanoism fits with a general massive earth upheaval.
As has been pointed out, the source of the Himalayas is not vulcanism. It's easy to see the difference. There is an area on the Indian sub-continent to the south of the Himalayas that is the result of vulcanism. This area was roughly opposite the Chicxulub impact event some 65 million years ago. The area of massive vulcanism is in India is known as the Deccan Traps. But none of the mountains of the Himalayas is a volcano. That is also true of the mountains that I previously mentioned. There are volcanoes near the coast, but not as far inland as Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho. However, if the massive earth upheaval that you imagine actually happened in the short time that is required to fit into your mythology, that much earth movement would have produced enough heat to reduce the entire surface of the earth to molten rock. You are aware that tectonic movement that produced the Himalayas, Alps, Andes and Rockies produce heat, aren't you? You are aware that India is still moving north and that the Himalayas are still growing. An interesting example of tectonic movement. Recently my son who was stationed in Japan during the earth quake went running. He uses a GPS device to measure how far he runs. The computer program showed that he had run across the tops of several buildings about 8 ft. to the west of where he had actually run. The quake and aftershocks actually moved Japan about 8 ft. to the east.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Robert Byers Member (Idle past 4397 days) Posts: 640 From: Toronto,canada Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024