Seashells on tops of mountains.

You do realize that where we have deserts now was not always a desert, same with mountains? Where I live, in Wisconsin, at one time was under an inland sea and at another time was buried under a mile of ice. Mountains rise as plates collide, areas that were fertile or even under water dry up as the plates move them to less temperate areas.If there was a flood that swept the entire planet, there is way WAY more evidence that should be found. In fact, there is A LOT of evidence against it. Just because you can point to one fact and create a story around it that could support a global flood doesn't mean you get to ignore all the evidence that shows there wasn't one or the other theories that explain that fact, especially if those theories have a lot of evidence for them.

Perhaps evidence is the wrong word. A more apropriate word would be indication. Since the side of this community that the evidences were against would not accept it at evidence nomatter what. Human nature.But as far as indication is concernd* Of course i wouldn't care if we were talking about 1 or 2 deserts or mountaint shee shells. And yes everything was coverd with water according to the bible before the first life was created. And allso according to science.But the shells we are talking about are not millions of years old. But only a few thousands acording to dating.* The fact that there are so many very simmulair flood storys outside the bible shows that they may have had their orgin from a true event.* The earth is still flodded. Infact to 70 percent =P*If the temperature went down only 3 degrees then we would say goodbie to new york that would be sooked.* Some sea depths are 12 kilometers down. If all thoose around the world would expand themself so they become even. The water could easily go up several kilometers. Along with other geologic movements.* There has been more than one finding of some creature freezed in ize instantly. And it is not likely to believe that some of them come from the flood.

Really? Can you back that up?Welcome to EvC, Doubletime!Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.

Welcome to EvC, Doubletime.A small caution. We try to maintain a focus in each thread of conversation here. Everyone messes this up part of the time but please try to do the best you can to stay focussed.Since the topic of this thread is seashells on mountains so your point about frozen critters is off topic (it also happens to be factually incorrect -- that is wrong, that is your source for the information may not be very reliable).Most of your other points are, at best, only vaguely connected to the topic. And most are also wrong too.Thanks for future effort to focus more and check what you post.

(1) Because we know how they actually got there.(2) Because floods don't put shells inside mountains.(3) Because floods wash things downhill, not up.(4) Because if the shells had been transported up, and then into, mountains, by a magic flood, it would have disturbed them, not left them in their beds as they were when they were alive. And we know how those got there too.Do bear in mind that anything that you know about geology is also known to geologists. Indeed, they were the people who found it out and told you.

To address the "no matter what." The "no matter what." is not insignificant. If one were to bother looking at the evidence they would see that it is rather easy to determine under what conditions ( flash flood, bank-over flood, river deposit; in situ lake or stream or river or tidal flat or benthic , or keep going until it's bedtime) the deposit were made. A single condition world wide flood would not be enough to explain all the differing ways the shells on mountain top were deposited. One has to ignore evidence to see a flood; not the other way around.Edited by lyx2no, : typo.

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Yes, all in areas where floods are common but not in mountainous areas.
If the stories were in non-flood areas then there might be some cause for speculation. As for seashells on tops of mountains, they come from different geological eras not 5000 years ago.Edited by bluescat48, : as usual SP

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

You know, there is another reason why geologists disagree with you about geology. And do you know what else science says? No. Really. In the first place, they are not all that similar. As you would know if you had spent any time reading flood myths instead of reading creationist propaganda about flood myths.In the second place, there is another, more probable, reason why such stories are widespread. That would be because a lot of people made the same mistake as you: they saw sea shells on mountaintops, and falsely interpreted this as evidence for a global flood. And all of this is true, but it is a point for geology, not for creationism, since it explains how large areas of what is now dry land could have been inundated without a magic flood. I think you mean permafrost, they were not frozen instantly, and this does not require a magical universal flood.

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.

Hi Doubletime, Message 165
It is evidence that the sedimentary deposition was underwater at some time. It could have been sea floor that has since raised up through geological processes similar to what is observed today, or it could have been due to a flood.If the former, then we would expect to see undisturbed evidence of complete ecosystems, with evidence of mature growth of marine organisms much as we see on sea floors today, and we would expect to see a succession of generations of organisms in multiple layers.If the latter, then we would expect to see disturbed material of all kinds such as the debris that is commonly washed down by floods and piled up in a disorganized mess. We would not expect to find evidence of growth that takes longer than the flood lasts.Curiously, on mountaintop after mountaintop we see the former pattern, and on mountaintop after mountaintop we do not see the latter pattern.Strangely, we see a pattern of generation after generation deposited in layers containing organisms that grow in one place, still attached to their foundations, organisms that are 10, 20 and 30 years old. The layers show a process of continuous deposition with layer after layer of such mature undisturbed growth, evidence that each such sedimentary deposit was underwater for hundreds of years. It doesn't even work as an indication: the age of the organisms growing in place undisturbed means they grew underwater in that location for many many years. I don't know what you call it, but when an area is underwater for several hundred years, I don't call it a flood, I call it seafloor.The question then becomes how seafloor becomes mountaintop. Science has this quirky little thing called invalidation: if a theory is falsified by evidence that contradicts the theory, then that theory is discarded. This doesn't apply just to science, though: maintaining a belief that is contradicted by evidence is delusion.The problem is not just to explain some aspect of some of the evidence, but to explain all of it. The problem of seashells on mountaintops is that the shells are all too old for them to grow during a flood of even one year duration.Not only is there evidence of generation after generation of growth several layers deep, but the organisms show evidence of change over time as one generation succeeds the previous generations, such that there is a clear transition from one layer to the next to the next to the next, but a point is reached where the top layer is significantly different from the lower level.This pattern is also consistent with growth over long time spans while the sediment in question was a seafloor, and it is inconsistent with the mixing that occurs in flood deposits.Can you explain the evidence of 20 or 30 year old brachiopods still fastened by their stalk to the undisturbed seafloor in the deposits on Mt Everest?Can you explain 2 such layers, one on top of the other, yet both showing undisturbed mature growth, not just of organisms, but of the whole ecosystem - plants and animals?Can you explain 10 such layers?Geology does this very simply through tectonics and the mechanism of uplift to form mountains. Such uplift can be measured, and the rates of uplift can be determined and compared with the geological ages of the rocks. Fascinatingly, such comparisons show that the modern observed rates of uplift are more than sufficient to explain how seafloor becomes mountaintop.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) • • •

Actually. I dont believe the daiting is especially correct. But thats for another thread.No but it is not unlikley to tink it was the flodd. Alot of them were frozen instnaly. The mammoth from sybira had grass in his mouth and looked calm.And evolutionist explanation to how the sea shells got their is moslty guesses in the end. They can't know for sure. Lads.My point is that believing in the flodd is not ignorant. In general scientist are closed to the crazy possibility that the flood really happend so alot of them want to find alternative explanations on diffrent matters.

Please, cite the sources of your facts so we can check them. Bare assertions are unhelpful. I would like for example to see the mamoth thing.

Also, it is a science forum so use EVIDENCES and if you could actually answer to the post you are replying to, it would be nice.

Have you ever watched somebody freeze to death? OK, neither have I, but it has been observed and recorded, such as on the Russian Front in both World War I and The Second Great Patriotic War (known to us as "World War II"). You know, where the German mechanized push into the Soviet Union was halted when it got too cold for the tanks to run. There are written accounts of German soldiers freezing to death. As hypothermia set in, they reached a point where they're in a calm, blissful state, just before they die. And, no, they did not freeze instantly.{EDIT: for your edification, please read the Wikipedia article on hypothermia at Hypothermia - Wikipedia. It describes how a person freezes to death, which BTW can happen well above freezing. }

---

You want to fight against evolution? Then you should at least try to do it right, which is something that the vast majority of creationists refuse to do, so all they do is make Christians look like a pack of hypocritical lying idiots. If your goal is not to make Christians look like a pack of hypocritical lying idiots, then shouldn't you consider doing it right instead of oh-so-very wrong like just about every single creationist insists on doing it?Or to formalize it with scripture -- OK, with an ancient Chinese scroll, but you have no doubt heard a small portion of it at some time. As I had posted it on my website (which is down due to AOL having suddenly gone out of the web hosting business):

quote:

---

Ignorance is Not Bliss

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."
    

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B.
Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

You want to fight evolution? Learn it! You want to fight science? Learn it! Or at least those fields of science that you want to fight, such as geology and dating methods. That is called "knowing your enemy". If you refuse to learn anything about that which you are fighting, then you are an idiot. Though you will still have half a chance, provided you know yourself, which you clearly do not.You are just regurgitating creationist crap that you've been fed. Don't! Understand what those claims are saying and where they came from. Also understand why they're wrong. Until you have made that study, you do not understand yourself.You understand neither your enemy nor yourself; in every battle you will be in peril. Or to quote a veteran on your side of this war:

quote:

---

About a year and a half ago, I was a firm special creationist. I am now a believer in evolution; not even sure if God is required. In 1995, Glenn Morton wrote to Stephen Jones about Stephen's provisional acceptance of common descent (as quoted by SJ Sunday, January 11, 1998 5:16 PM), "I know exactly how difficult a paradigm shift like that is." Well, let me tell you, the shift is absolutely devastating. I'm still struggling with all this. I still hold some anger because I believe the evangelical Christian community did not properly prepare me for the creation/evolution debate. They gave me a gun loaded with blanks, and sent me out. I was creamed.

​

Scott Rauch

---

All that the creationists have to offer you are blanks. Hello? How far do you think you're going to get in this battle just firing blanks? If the opponents you encounter don't know anything, you might be able to bluff your way through for a while, but far too many of us do indeed know what's what. In a year and a half, Scott Rauch went from where you are to where you see him at the time of that post. Where will you be in a year and a half, shooting blanks? Think maybe you might want to rethink your strategy?Also, this might come across as a pet peeve, but could you please do something about your spelling? Not being an educator, I cannot tell you how I had learned to read, but I read words. I do not sound everything out inside my head, but rather I see a word and recognize it. So when somebody uses the wrong word (eg, "your" instead of "you're" or "there" instead of "they're" or "their"), it is very confusing. If you want people to understand what you're trying to communicate to them, it's not a good idea to confuse them.Edited by dwise1, : added reference to Wikipedia article

Floods do not freeze things instantly.I can't think of anything that would freeze something as large as a mammoth instantly, but floods definitely don't have this effect. Yeah, sure, I'd look calm if I drowned. I wouldn't panic at all. That's drowning right enough.BTW, how do you know what a mammoth looks like when it's calm?But this is by-the-by. Even if some mammoths were drowned, it wouldn't take a supernatural universal flood to drown them. Real floods actually happen. In the first place, geology and evolutionary biology are two different subjects. You don't need to know anything about evolution to know that water washes stuff downhill.In the second place, no, geology is not "mostly guesses". There's this stuff called "evidence".You've never studied geology, have you? Yes it is. In particular, it requires complete ignorance of geology. And, in the case of this particular argument, ignorance of some fairly basic facts about water. Well yes. Also to the possibility that the moon is made of green cheese.This is because they know that it isn't made of green cheese and that there was no universal flood. And if you had studied the evidence, you'd know that too.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.