Fish Skeletons on Top of Mountains

Northern Christian · #1 24th October 2005, 10:08 PM

It's quite ironic, don't you think? We're always be asked to prove Creation, and whenever we do, it gets explained away by some much less likely evolution friendly hypothesis. My favorite is fish skeletons on top of mountains. It looks like pretty solid evidence of a world wide flood, but is that enough for evolutionists? No. They claim that rocks pushed their way out of the oceans forming mountains, and that's how they got there. That's how those brittle little fish bones survived for billions of years.

When will you accept the evidence of Creation?

nvxplorer · #2 24th October 2005, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Northern Christian

It's quite ironic, don't you think? We're always be asked to prove Creation, and whenever we do, it gets explained away by some much less likely evolution friendly hypothesis. My favorite is fish skeletons on top of mountains. It looks like pretty solid evidence of a world wide flood, but is that enough for evolutionists? No. They claim that rocks pushed their way out of the oceans forming mountains, and that's how they got there. That's how those brittle little fish bones survived for billions of years.

When will you accept the evidence of Creation?

Of course, you will provide us with bighorn sheep skeletons at the bottom of the ocean to back up your claim.

Guywiththehead · #3 24th October 2005, 10:14 PM

That's funny. I don't see how that refutes this:

http://www.christianforums.com/t95378

or this:

http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm

Anyway, I see no reason why fish fossils wouldn't survive for millions or billions of years. We even have fossils of bacteria from that long ago.

MartinM · #4 24th October 2005, 10:21 PM

I think what these two are trying to tell you is that if you pick out a single piece of evidence which appears to fit with your position, while ignoring the vast preponderance of evidence which soundly refutes it, you can make your silly beliefs seem reasonable to those not familiar with the evidence. But that would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?

GoSeminoles! · #5 24th October 2005, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by Northern Christian

It's quite ironic, don't you think? We're always be asked to prove Creation, and whenever we do, it gets explained away by some much less likely evolution friendly hypothesis. My favorite is fish skeletons on top of mountains. It looks like pretty solid evidence of a world wide flood, but is that enough for evolutionists? No. They claim that rocks pushed their way out of the oceans forming mountains, and that's how they got there. That's how those brittle little fish bones survived for billions of years.

Yeah, because geological uplift never happens.

mikeynov · #6 24th October 2005, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by Northern Christian

It's quite ironic, don't you think? We're always be asked to prove Creation, and whenever we do, it gets explained away by some much less likely evolution friendly hypothesis. My favorite is fish skeletons on top of mountains. It looks like pretty solid evidence of a world wide flood, but is that enough for evolutionists? No. They claim that rocks pushed their way out of the oceans forming mountains, and that's how they got there. That's how those brittle little fish bones survived for billions of years.

When will you accept the evidence of Creation?

So, your counter-explanation to well established and tested geological models (e.g. uplift) is "magic," and you find that explanation more likely?

Here's a thought - take an introductory course in geology. Maybe then you can actually evaluate what is or isn't likely. Your personal incredulity isn't much of an argument.

Grengor · #7 24th October 2005, 11:06 PM

I find people who do obvious drive by posts like that better off ignored, or, if at least don't keep adding more refutations if the first 2 took care of it.

ChrisPelletier · #8 24th October 2005, 11:17 PM

Not really a counter argument as everyone else seems to be taking that into consideration, but here is a counter point someone may want to address.

If there was a global flood all of the fish & other living creatures in the seas would be dead just like the ones on land. The salinity differentials would kill just about everything. How do you think coral reefs would survive?

Pete Harcoff · #9 24th October 2005, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Northern Christian

It's quite ironic, don't you think? We're always be asked to prove Creation, and whenever we do, it gets explained away by some much less likely evolution friendly hypothesis. My favorite is fish skeletons on top of mountains. It looks like pretty solid evidence of a world wide flood, but is that enough for evolutionists? No. They claim that rocks pushed their way out of the oceans forming mountains, and that's how they got there. That's how those brittle little fish bones survived for billions of years.

When will you accept the evidence of Creation?

See, the problem is it's not a matter of fish skeletons on moutains. It's a matter of fish skeletons in solid rock in mountains. How exactly is a world-wide flood supposed to deposit sediment on top of a mountain and compact it into solid rock?

Fish skeletons on mountains is not and never will be evidence for a flood. If anything, it's evidence against it.

Pete Harcoff · #10 24th October 2005, 11:29 PM

Btw, something else to ponder regarding mountain tops... Ever notice how they are usually bare rock? That's because a little thing called "gravity" coupled with a little thing called "erosion" tends to strip off loose sediment. Supposedly the world-wide flood carved all sorts of canyons and so on. Imagine what those flood waters would have done to a mountain top. With the receding waters plus any wind and rain for the next few thousand years would leave those mountains bare. You'd expect to find lots of fish fossils in the valleys, not compacted in rock in the mountains.