Hello RAZD,
This is an example really and quite simply how the two sides interpret the exact same evidence but the interpretation is completely opposite. Both you and Faith agree with the evidence...that there is a sizable marine fossil record where it should not be...up high in the mountains. The difference is clearly how the two sides believe the fossils got there.
RAZD writes:
This evidence shows that this growth occurred over periods of hundreds to thousands of years.
If the growth occurred during the flood, can you explain how multiple generations of decades old individuals happened in less than a year?
Can you explain how anything can be more that 1 year old in no more than one layer (or less if there are multiple layers)?
Note that many of the organisms are intolerant of silt in the water, many are fragile.
The following is from an AIG article (go ahead, flame away). I'll admit, I don't know allot about the author other then that he's a professor of geology at Cedarville University.
Should Fragile Shells Be Common in the Fossil Record?
| Answers in Genesis
"In modern oceans, shells gradually dissolve in sea water or are consumed by other organisms. Experiments have shown that many shells, especially thin and fragile ones, disappear completely in a short period of time.
If the fossil record formed slowly, with individual rock layers taking hundreds or thousands of years to accumulate, you would expect fragile shell material to be relatively uncommon. Most of what we find should be thick and durable."
So RAZD, wouldn't this make sense. If the fossils (former sea shells) were fragile and little, wouldn't they stand a better chance of being fossilized quickly in a catastrophic event as opposed to over thousands of years where yes, they would fall victim to the ocean silt and predators? I'm not an expert on this so I'm really just presenting the other side and throwing it out for discussion.