Evidence for and against Flood theories

In another thread d yankee posted: It seems these are considered to be evidence for a flood.In this thread we can, one at a time, consider these and see how well these support the flood or another theory.This will overlap with a number of other threadsMy first question for d yankee is:There are fossil sea shells high in mountains all over the world. In what way is this evidence for a flood?What would the flood model predict that we would find when examining these in detail and how would it differ from the current model of geology (plate tectonics)?This is how different ideas are sorted out. We find a different prediction of them and see what we find in the real world.Warning! Yankee-- your websites haven't handled this well at all. They ignore some important points. But you were the one who posted the above so now it's your problem.

You'll have to pull the relevent points from it yourself.I think I have, at one time, gone over that film, I'm not going to again if you can't be more specific. There should be no need to anyway, you can tell us.So far all you can say is that you don't know much about what the flood model has to say. That's a bit of a weak start isn't it?There wasn't any original post that went into details of the shells. In fact, I've never, ever seen any creationists give any details. It turns out that the details are damaging to the idea of a flood and it should be no surprise that I am leading the literalists (d yankee specifically) in that direction.The person who I aimed this at originally (d yankee) claimed to know a lot about the sciences so I expect him to have some answers. I don't recall you making any such strong claim so if you need to say you don't know or don't have an answer I don't see that as a problem.If you don't know exactly what the world was like "pre flood" you may use the scientific approach. You postulate a number of ideas of what is might have been like and then see if any of them are suported by the evidence. If one or two don't work you try some more.Good luck. There is not need to make up a name for the joined continental masses. The times that has happened all the land masses have names already.

It is always fun!

Now that you're back I have to apologize for suggesting that you might be a hit and run or bluffer. You can pick up here.

How about we remain patient and let a literalist explain the sea shells?I'd hope TheLiteralist (literally ) might take it on since he seems to be about as reasonable a creationist has we've had for a bit. I even agree with some of his posts (which I will get to later). I'm back to suspicious that d yankee will prove to be more like the usual creo poster.

Try here:
http://www.colby.edu/~ragastal/Taphonomy.htmThe term you want is "taphonomy" if you google that you will get a lot m ore than you wanted to know about fossilization.

And that is all we want. If something beyond science is brought in as an explanation then we have stripped the "science" off the term creation-science.Most of us aren't arguing about religious beliefs (though you may not see that easily). We are arguing about trying to put them in the science classroom. If you admit that it isn't science then there is no reason to fight about it. Your right to believe what you want is something most of us support rather strongly.What we do not support is the dishonest attempt that some make to pretend that there is any form of "science" that can support these beliefs and against those who wish to disrupt the classroom with their lies.btw:
I find you attitude as refreshing as it is unusual. You actually understand that you don't know something.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 01-04-2005 20:09 AM

Oh, they could be. But not the seashells we actually see in the mountains.

Life position means that in some cases they are in the position they were as they lived. Both individually and as colonies (I believe)In addition there is an important prediction that has to come from any flood model. What would be the nature of the shells? That is what species would they be?Let me suggest that they would be a mix of many kinds. Some no longer existing (for some unknown reason) and some of modern varieties.However, what is actually found in the mountains?Take a guess?

Mostly the life position means articulated. If the shells have been dead for anytime the ligaments holding them together go and the become disarticulated. I am, however, not an expert."giant oysters"?? Explain please?

I guess this is one example.The question is why are the kinds of shells ordered the way they are. Where are the modern shelled creatures entombed in the mountains?When the giant oysters were buried reasonably quickly (as they would have to be I think, you are right). Why are there no modern species buried the same way?

Are you forgetting that corals can be dated? That they have been measurably in place for many, many thousands of years.

Yes, you're right. They could be older than a flood if they could survive it.We seem to have reason to think that they can't survive it and that they are very old too. One of the hundreds and hundreds of reasons for deciding there was no flood. Somewhat the same process you're ancestral literalists of a couple some hundred years ago went through and realized they had to give up biblical literalism in this area.