Seashells on tops of mountains.

Thanks Peg, So when it matches something we know from science it is accurate, and when it doesn't, then that is because it doesn't claim to be a science book? How can you tell if this is just a ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy or not?I noticed you did not answer about the length of time needed to form the marine deposits on mountaintops - is that one of the areas where it doesn't claim to be a science book?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : /

---

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) • • •

Hey Peg, Which is where we started: how can you tell whether this is just an ad hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy or not?The question is what kind of time frame you think this occurs over, and how consistent is that with observations. Note that the evidence contains many layers of many generations of marine organisms in a mature ecosystem. So the scientific ideas about the age of the earth are going to change the depth and diversity of layers of marine life?Or is it just that you don't want to play fair and consider that your personal (non-scientific, untested) ideas may also be wrong? Would you change your ideas as your knowledge increases or would you reject an increase in knowledge that contradicts your ideas?
Off topic material hidden. Use "Peek" to read.
Enjoy.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

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) • • •

duplicate deletedEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.

thanks Peg, had trouble with my connection last night Do you know of a single instance where they have changed drastically versus refined the concepts? Age of the earth for instance keeps getting refined. It is like finding the value for π - we can't find an exact number but we can continually refine the value we have. Good. Then you accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that for at least 3.5 billion of those years life has existed?The evidence of seashells on mountain tops is part of that evidence of age that adds up to an old earth.
Off topic material hidden. Use "Peek" to read.
Enjoy.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

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) • • •

Thanks Peg, Great.
Off topic material hidden. Use "Peek" to read.
Enjoy.Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.

---

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) • • •

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) • • •

Thanks Doubletime, Yes, and there are several threads that will explain the dating methods to you in great detail. One thread where no creationist has yet been able to show that the dating methods are wrong is the Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 thread. It uses simple understandable systems, systems that also provide correlations from one to the other, and where your task, should you choose to participate on that thread, is to explain not just why each method is wrong and how, but why the correlate. It is easy to make up "what-ifs" to conjecture why one method could have errors, but it is another to explain why the errors particular to one method are matched in correlation with another method. Perhaps I'll see you there. ... IF you agree that the "flodd" was a peaceful inundation of a low lying area that lasted several hundred years at a minimum, just as we see today on seabeds around the world, ... however, as noted previously, I don't call such events "floods" I call them seafloor.But if you are claiming that it is evidence of a cataclysmic event, washing up and over mountains, then there should be evidence of the cataclysm, not of peaceful, undisturbed life covering many generations, undisturbed by outside influences.And if the flood lasted less than a year, there should be NO evidence of seashells that are 10, 20, or 30 years old from organisms that grow annual rings in their shells, and live at the end of a stalk attached to the bottom while these shells grow - stalks also found still attached to the bottom in the fossil beds.There should be debris from several ecosystems mixed together, and there should be a lack of layers. Such evidence of cataclysm is missing from these beds of seashells in layer after layer after layer on mountaintop after mountaintop. One needs to look at the effect of floods on the lands flooded in modern times and then look to see if similar evidence is apparent in the layers after layers of seashells on the mountaintops.It isn't, and for that reason it IS "unlikley to tink it was the flodd" - because you don't have evidence of any effect of a flood, just evidence of peaceful undisturbed life in mature ecosystems spanning many generations. Evolution has nothing to do with it, for mountain forming is part of geology. You are confusing all of science with evolution, while evolution is only a part of science. Evolution explains why the layers have a progression of life from one generation to the next, it does not explain why the seashells are on mountaintops.We see exactly this same progression of life from one generation to the next when we take samples of seafloor around the world: it is the same process, and the only thing this tells us is that the life that left the seashells behind was of a similar nature, undisturbed mature ecosystems of life evolving from one generation to the next, forming layer after layer after layer in the sediments on the seafloors.We see this progression of changing forms in the fossils of the Foraminifera, where there is a 65 million year record of the gradual progression from one species to the next, such that the bottom layer organisms are not found in the top layer, nor are the top layer organisms found at the bottom, even though there is no break is the transition from one generation to the next.These are free swimming organisms with a hard shell, and the shells of dead organisms fall to the seafloor and accumulate over time.We see the same pattern of growth and evolution shown in the forams repeated in the White Cliffs of Dover and the shells left behind by the Coccolithophores. Coccolithophores free floating organisms that also have a hard shell, and these shells also fall to the seafloor when the organism dies and accumulate over time.For this reason, both Foraminifera and Coccolithophores are both used as index fossils to gauge the relative ages of sedimentary layers.Evolution of the living forms, and deposition of the shells from the dead organisms on the seafloor over time explains the layer after layer of shells AND the gradual progression in form from one layer to the next. Thus evolution shows that the process that formed the layers of foraminifer, also formed the layers of the Cliffs of Dover, but it does not explain why the Cliffs of Dover are above sealevel: that is geology.Plate tectonics and the process of uplift explain how and why sections of the earths crust that were once seafloor can be raised up into mountains. The process is slow, but fairly steady, and it can be measured today: the region that includes Mt Everest is still rising today. This rate of rise compared with the age of the fossils shows that it is possible for the mountain to have risen to the present height in the time available. Height, rate of uplift, age all correlate. Sadly, it is. Ignorant means being uninformed. Particularly, it means being uninformed of contradictory evidence that makes a concept nonviable. In this case, being uniformed of the fact that the evidence of the seashells, including may decades old individuals, in generation after generation of growth in a mature (fully developed) ecosystem, make it impossible for the shells to have grown on top of those mountains during a flood that did not last one year. In general science - all science -- is closed to crazy ideas that are not supported by any evidence. In specific science -- all science -- is closed to ideas that are invalidated by contradictory evidence, as is the case here: the evidence of the seashells, including may decades old individuals, in generation after generation of growth in a mature (fully developed) ecosystem, make it impossible for the shells to have grown on top of those mountains during a flood that did not last one year. It's called the scientific method. The task of science in general is to find working explanations for the evidence around us. This includes how mountains form, and how life evolves from one type of organism to another, generation after generation. Science only cares about concepts that work, that make predictions, and that can be tested for validity. While the mechanism of organisms freezing to death is explained by dwise1 (Message 179), there is another aspect of this statement that bears scrutiny: floods don't cause freezing. You just cannot cause sudden freezing and ice formation with moving water.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) • • •

Hi Doubletime, That's so I can document in detail, with evidence to support it, where and why you are wrong. Think of it as a condensed course in reality. When you also state a number of assertions that are wrong, it takes more than a single line to show the errors in your thinking. Age and dating methods are not the topic of this thread. If you want to pretend you know something about dating methodology, then there are a couple of threads you can discuss this. One I have given you before, and it appears that you have not taken up the challenge.Here's another one: Message 165, as it deals specifically with 14C dating. Argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Note that abiogenesis is ALSO not the topic of the thread, and we'd like you to stick with the topic long enough to answer the questions raised by your posts.Trying to introduce other topics is an attempt to distract people from the fact that you have not answered a single question yet about the errors in your belief. And then there was a period of several months before the theoretical flood subsided. This time would also qualify as peaceful, however when you total all that time up you don't even get to one year of growth, to say nothing of 30+ years per layer for layer upon layer upon layer. In other words you just do not have enough time, with this theoretical flood, to produce the development of a mature ecology of marine growth composed of multiple generations of organisms 10, 20 and 30 years old. Therefore these seashells could not have been produced by the flood and thus they are not evidence of a global flood.Do you understand that this evidence contradicts your theoretical flood, rather than support it?And if you cannot account for the seashells on mountaintops with growth during the flood, then you need to develop an alternative way for previous marine growth to be miraculously lifted up and put on the mountaintops.Note that floods do not cause mountain formation, they erode mountains - so you don't have a mechanism to make mountains - and you cannot use plate tectonics to form mountains, as you just don't have time for it to result in hills to say nothing of mountains. Do you realize that someone who is ignorant about a topic, is completely unable to determine how ignorant they are: to be able to know that, you would have to know enough that you would not be ignorant. Color me surprised. This is a typical reaction to new information, especially information that contradicts firmly held beliefs. It's a result of cognitive dissonance.Questia

quote:

---

ABSTRACT-A small fauna of 11 species belonging to 10 genera of Permian Brachiopoda from the lower part of the Qubuerga Formation outcropping near Shengmi village in the Qomolangma region of southern Xizang (Tibet) is figured and new taxa are described. New taxa are Quinquenella semiglobosa and Costatumulus shengmiensis. The fauna is most likely of Wuchiapingian (Djhulfian) age as indicated by the majority of the brachiopod species.

​

THE INACCESSIBILITY of the area near Mt. Qomolangma (Mt. Everest) of Xizang (Tibet) has resulted in relatively little geological work being undertaken in the area prior to this study.

---

That places brachiopods on Mt Everest.Brachiopod - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Brachiopods (from Latin brachium, arm + New Latin -poda, foot) are a small phylum of benthic invertebrates. Also known as lamp shells (or lampshells), "brachs" or Brachiopoda, they are sessile, two-valved, marine animals with an external morphology superficially resembling bivalves to which they are not closely related.
...
A second major difference is that most brachiopods are attached to the substrate by means of a fleshy "stalk" or pedicle. In contrast, although some bivalves (pelecypods such as oysters, mussels and the extinct rudists) are fixed to the substrate, most are free-moving, usually by means of a muscular "foot".

---

This shows that brachiopods are permanently fixed by a pedicle to the seafloor as they grow. The age of individuals can be measured by a couple of different methods. One method uses growth rings:http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01866p150.pdf

quote:

---

No age data is available for deep-sea brachiopods, but estimates could be made from the pronounced growth rings which imply seasonality of food supply, even at abyssal depths of more than 4000 m. The high numbers of evenly spaced (seasonal?) growth bands (between 20-30/mm) observed for Melvicalathis specimens (Fig. 2A, 2B; 4D; 6A, 6B) indicate that an adult 4—5 mm in length might be 80-100 years old. This is comparable with estimates for the life spans of some small deep-sea bivalves (Thistle 2003). However, according to Paine (1969) brachiopods can produce non-annual growth lines (observed in the shallow water species Terebratalia transversa), which may substantially reduce the above age assumption. In general, the estimated age for shallow water brachiopods is 8—15 years (Doherty 1979; Thayer 1981; James et al. 1992). Based on growth ring analysis, Curry (1984) suggested a possible age of 30 years for shallow water species settling in deeper waters. An increasing longevity of brachiopods with depth would fit the model of the deep sea as an environment of slow metabolism and correspondingly slow reproduction and would correspond to the observed number of growth rings and assumed age in Melvicalathis specimens.

---

The problem is that intermediate rings are mixed with the pronounced growth rings, possibly from lunar cycles affecting food supply, possibly from storms (for shallow seafloor inhabitants).Taking a "worst case" scenario from this we would be looking at a minimum of 8 years for fully developed brachiopods growing generation after generation in a mature ecosystem.The other approach is to use shell size:http://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/.../1/v23n3-337-343.pdf

quote:

---

The excellent agreement between samples taken four years apart but on approximately the same date in the modal positions suggest that the modes do represent periods of maximum recruitment, and that their displacement can be attributed to growth. These relationships are plotted in Figure 4, which thus represents the growth of a modal individual in its first 57 months. Another way of expressing growth is to plot on the curve the largest-sized individual found in each collection, assuming maximum possible age. Since we are now evaluating maximum, not modal, growth, it is not surprising that the two largest individuals from the 5Yryear maximum age samples fall above the curve. The two 10year- old maximum age individuals, and the one from Alki representing an "infinitely" old brachiopod (13 years), all fall close to an extrapolation of the curve, at about the same size, indicating either that growth in length and width may cease, or that mortality pressures are so intense that the probability of a Terebratalia living more than 10 years is extremely low.

---

So you see a distribution of shell size that is related to the age of the individual organism, with many individuals up to 5 years old and some up to 10 years old, and one that is 13 years old, for this one species of shallow seafloor brachiopod. Notice how this correlates with the above article ("In general, the estimated age for shallow water brachiopods is 8—15 years"). Here is a drawing of the typical shells in question:

quote:

---

---

Note that you can see 5 or 6 pronounced growth rings, with several intermediate rings, correlating with an age of 5 or 6 years for the individual shown. This means that this shallow seafloor species regularly produces individuals that are 5 to 10 years old in undisturbed mature marine ecosystems.Note that even two year old brachiopods alone invalidate your position that they grew during a flood of a shorter duration, and that the existence of multiple layers of such mature ecosystem growth, including individuals 10 years old or older, make it an impossible concept that they all grew, one layer after the other, during a flood that lasts less than one year. I trust this lays it out for you, in a way that is clear and unambiguous, showing that the age of the individual organisms alone, mean that they cannot be evidence of a shorter duration event, and demonstrating that the multiple layers of such growth, each layer possessing evidence of 5 or 10 year old individuals -- as a worst case -- means that it is completely untenable to claim that this is evidence of a flood of less than one year.Do you or do you not agree that this evidence invalidates the idea that such seashells are evidence of a flood of less than one year duration?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) • • •

Hi Doubletime,It has been a while since you participated on this thread, and in the meanwhile you have participated on other threads.I take this as tacit admission that Message 189 cannot be answered by your conjectures and ad hoc explanations of the evidence, and thus you accept that the shells on mountaintops are not evidence of a great flood for the simple reason that they don't fit the profile necessary for a great flood. Hopefully you have become more educated about the topic and realize that you were wrong.Curiously, the fact that people do not accept the evidence that exists in the real world does not mean that their attempts to invalidate it through debate affect reality in any way.A lot of concepts are up for debate, facts are not. It is a fact that the earth is old, it is a fact that life on earth is old, it is a fact that seashells on mountaintops is evidence of an old earth without a great flood.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) • • •

Hi Doubletime, you're babbling. No, that was the period of rainfall. However the flood lasted less than a year at best.Therefore any shells that grew in-situ to 5 or more YEARS cannot be evidence of the flood. The shells on Everst are Brachiopods, they grow in-situ attached to the ground by a stalk. The fossils show this stalk connection intact.This evidence contradicts any concept that they grew during the flood. No, it just means that it rained for 40 days and some land was flooded. Curiously this kind of flooding still occurs. Living sea shell don't have air trapped inside. Fossil evidence contains shells that died underwater. No trapped air there either. Fossil evidence also has objects like sea fans. No trapped air there.Floating shells does not explain the evidence. The evidence contradicts your ad hoc made up explanation. and? Last time I checked 70% does not equal 100% Nope. Different parts have been underwater at different times, but at no time has all of it been underwater. Good - then you can abandon all your ridiculous assertions that are based on fantasy instead of reality, including the ones about human evolution, abiogenesis, and what is taught in science classes in schools.So I don't expect to see you posting on any science threads or anything but faith and belief topics.Because you are basically admitting that you are unable to participate in the level of reality necessary to post on science threads.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : subtitleEdited by RAZD, : addd

---

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) • • •

Hi traste, looking for possible explanations? That's not a reply, that's a question.Generally speaking the question is not about already formed mountains, but the geology that forms mountains: is the geology of land masses stable enough over a 12,000 year period that rapid formation of new mountains with sedimentary layers containing seashells would not occur? Yes: there is no known process of forming mountains with many sedimentary layers, like Mt Everest, in a short period of time. Then I trust we won't find you making confident assertions that are not substantiated with evidence. The earliest written language is just a little over 5000 years oldList of languages by first written accounts - Wikipedia

quote:

---

c. 3100 BC Sumerian Jemdet Nasr see Sumerian cuneiform; "proto-literate" period from about 3500 BC (see Kish tablet)

---

However the cave paintings at Lascaux France are dated significantly older:Lascaux - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Lascaux is the setting of a complex of caves in southwestern France famous for its Paleolithic cave paintings. The original caves are located near the village of Montignac, in the Dordogne dpartement. They contain some of the most well-known Upper Paleolithic art. These paintings are estimated to be 16,000 years old. They primarily consist of realistic images of large animals, most of which are known from fossil evidence to have lived in the area at the time. In 1979, Lascaux was added to the UNESCO World Heritage Sites list along with other prehistoric sites in the Vzre valley.[1]

---

And there are cave paintings older than that:Cave painting - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Cave paintings are paintings on cave walls and ceilings, and the term is used especially for those dating to prehistoric times. The earliest known European cave paintings date to Aurignacian, some 32,000 years ago. The purpose of the paleolithic cave paintings is not known. The evidence suggests that they were not merely decorations of living areas, since the caves in which they have been found do not have signs of ongoing habitation. Also, they are often in areas of caves that are not easily accessed. Some theories hold that they may have been a way of transmitting information, while other theories ascribe them a religious or ceremonial purpose.

---

So while they may not be a written language, they do certainly provide information, and they were evidently made by humans to communicate something.And if we are looking for evidence of human culture, there are many objects that date even older than the paintings.What this has to do with explaining how seashells get on tops of mountains, though, I can't figure out. If you want to discuss the reliability of dating methods, there are several threads where you can do so, such as Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, however this too is not the topic of this thread. Message 1

quote:

---

Seashell on mountain tops -- How do Young Earth Creationist explain them?

​

From what I have seen they often make the claim that the Sea Shell fossils found on mountaintops are *obvious* support for a flood but never offer to explain why. I suppose it is the thought the seashells live in aquatic environments and a global flood that covered the mountains somehow explains their existence.

---

That's the topic, that's the question.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : qsoute

---

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) • • •

This should be kept as a reminder that it is not creationism, per se that engenders such reactions as seen here, but the ignorance of science and the basic facts, for the next time we see a oh poor me you are attacking me because I am a creationist whine.Uplift causes mountains to be made of mollusc hills, and this process is still evident in the Himalayas and the Rockies. Everest and the Colorado Plateau are still undergoing uplift, measured these days by GPS transmitters.Subduction can lead to uplift of the land over the subducted material, and this can form mountains, but it is not the only cause.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) • • •

No just posting off topic and (like others) without reference to a rather idiotic subtitle.The topic is seashells on mountaintops.The subtitle, back 204 messages ago was just saying hi, and it is no longer relevant.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) • • •

Lindalou,This is some of the evidence you asked about. You'll have to look up articles on them to find others - see Message 189

Hi Chuck77,I think most of the answer has been given, but there is one aspect that is not fully covered by those answers. If you are thinking that the marine fossils come from actual marine growth in the bottoms of seas, which was then pushed up with the formation of the mountains, then they are not evidence of a flood, but evidence of mountain formation.We see this mountain formation today, still slowly going on. Mt Everest is getting higher, and curiously, the rate of growth it currently has is sufficient to explain it's height in the time that this process has been going on -- according to geology and the evidence in the rocks.Curiously, mountains are not known to be formed by floods, so you need some additional mechanism to explain that.And if the mountains are formed by other means, then why do I need the flood to explain them, and then how is this evidence then for a flood? I haven't seen any documentation on catastropic events -- just rain for 40 days and nights, and the sewers backing up (oh wait that was Bill Cosby ... )So what "catastrophic events" were involved? Chapter and verse?Enjoy.