Jason777 writes:
I'm still waiting for a plausable explanation why there is only a couple thousand years worth of marine growth up there.
Erosion.
The rest of it must have got hot and evaporated might be self reassuring but it does'nt convince any skeptic like me.
Oh well, erosion occurs despite any disbelief on your part.
I'm certainly not unreasonable,but if some of them were destroyed by heat and pressure then they all would have.
As for being unreasonable, I think that is debatable. As for all geologic processes being limited to heat and pressure alone, that is of course false as you also have, ta-da, erosion.
As the mountain raised slowly out of the water more clams would have grown behind them and you would end up with clams stretching halfway to the stratosphere.
This may be news to you but clams find it very difficult to grow outside of water and exposed to the atmosphere 24 hours a day, as in above sea level. {ABE} Once any upper continental shelf was uplifted by plate collision, there would be no appropriate underwater environment for massive amounts of clams to grow behind such predecessors.
It's as if the mountain sat at the bottom of the ocean for 2 thousand years then suddenly rose to 34,000 ft. before any marine growth had a chance to grow and encrust.
Or among the people who actually have studied geology more like sat on the floor (or more accurately on the upper margins of the continental shelf in most cases) for hundreds of millions of years, then gradually rose to thousands of feet and were then eroded by all that water/snow and glacial ice.
If there is evidence of erosion then there is,if there is,then where is it.
There are several indicators of glacial erosion in the Himalayas. Sharp craggy peaks, U shaped valleys, glacial till, moraines, glacial erratics, and so on. The processes can be seen today, and they have been recorded throughout a considerable part of human history.
You can either believe the fundamental, common-sense, basic physics-based principles of geology that have never been remotely subject to a single counterexample under any laboratory or field conditions or in Loki the trickster god (or similar intentionally deceiving deities) and the great conspiracy of essentially all scientists to make us disbelieve in Loki (or similar intentionally deceiving deities).
Clams grow underwater, not above water. All surface geologic formations not currently subject to deposition are eroding, not growing. Glaciers exist above 15,000 feet near the equator and they erode at the beginning and deposit at the end with obvious tell-tale signs.
That is reality, in contrast to any anti-self examined proclamation such as "I'm certainly not unreasonable."
Edited by anglagard, : add subtitle
Edited by anglagard, : Accuracy. Most clams, if any to my knowledge, don't sit at the bottom of the ocean some 20K feet plus deep.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza