Buz's seashell claim

Also, aren't those fossils actually encased in rock (i.e., limestone, shale,...)? I mean, it's not like all those shells, etc. are loosely scattered across the mountain tops, which is what I would expect.

You're right, generally, dead organisms will not last a long time on the surface without quick burial - unless they are in a desert environment or undersea. There is a huge difference between, say dinosaur fossils, and sea fossils (e.g., fossil reefs, oyster beds, etc.). Dino fossils are generally better preserved if buried quickly; however, fossil reefs (in limestone), clams, brachs, oysters, etc., do not require quick burial since they have calcium-based skeletons or exo-skeletons, which do not break down easily (ever?) in sea water.For example, fossil reefs grow slowly over a period of years and only grow in certain latitudes and water depths/temperatures. How does your flood model explain this when it would take more than a year to grow a large reef and fossilize it? In addition, your flood model needs to explain how thousands of feet of limestone were deposited (rates range from 1.0 cm to 2.5 m per 1,000 years) which may or may not be overlain or underlain by thousands of feet of shale (averaging <1.0 cm per 1,000+ years), and they can also contain abundant fossils. Not to mention such things as chalk and chert deposition which have even slower sedimentation rates.FYI, the Mancos Shale in North America is 5,400 feet thick in the Piceance Basin of Colorado. And you expect us to believe the flood could deposit this formation in one year? And that's only one Formation amongst thousands.edited to add: Darn! I took too long![This message has been edited by roxrkool, 06-16-2003]