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.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

There are fossil sea shells high in mountains all over the world. In what way is this evidence for a flood?
- Did not see the origonal post so I don't know exactly how to answerWhat 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)?
- No one knows "exactly" what the earth was like pre-flood therefore it is hard for me to triangulate. or anyone else for that matter in my understanding. I do know however that when our current continents are placed together back into the "gia" (i call it) formation, many of the countries have to be shrunk in order for it to fit together properly.Video 1 on this website http://evolution.no-ip.com covers this topic but I can't find where at the moment. Somewhere in the middle of the content. skip the first 20 min of the presentation though if you want to view it. I am sure this website will handle your challenges far better.

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.

Ok. I will look foreward to his post.

It is always fun!

quote:

---

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.

---

Yup. That's been my experience too.In fact, as far as this argument goes the creationists are much, much farther behind the times than they usually are. Leonardo da Vinci figured out that those shells were not the result of any flood, global or local, in the 15^th century, because their arrangement and condition were not compatible with flood transport. See Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) and Leonardo da Vinci: genius and precursor.

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.

It is also important to add that the seashells are not ON the mountain but IN the mountain (ie Mt. Everest). The top portion of Mt. Everest is limestone that is riddled with seashells. If a flood were responsible for the seashells the flood would be required to lay down hundreds of meters of limestone with seashells embedded, and then the mountain would have to be lifted 5 miles into the sky.

It is also important to note that the seashells aren't found on the same elevation everywhere. My geology professor once said as he drew on the board, "Water don't stay like this." He continued, "Instead, we usually find water smooths out like this."

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

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.

Perhaps Dynamo would like to argue in dYank's place? Dynamo seems to be able to argue without getting angry or calling people Satan's Children, a definite plus. I, for one, would try to carry on a civil conversation with Dynamo if he feels up to the task.

Well, this is a topic that I have been curious about, too.

d yankee, Perhaps it is time to demonstrate your capability to use logic and evidence.You are not, at present, contributing much of value to the forum.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 12-01-2004 09:03 PM

Bump again. For some reason, people are getting off topic in other threads even though this thread is right here in front of them for them to demonstrate their position.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!