Does a GLOBAL FLOOD truly seem like the BEST explanation for seashells on mountains?

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

I'm always amazed when young earth creationists tell me that this is OBVIOUSLY a "proof" of Noah's Flood. But I would really like to know if that sounds like "common sense" to anyone.

I've also wondered this: Does it seem likely that a FLOOD would leave behind the same kind of environment as an ancient ocean or lake?

Also, if these observation and evidence are "obvious", why are young earth creationists never able to use that evidence to identify THE GEOLOGIC STRATA OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD? That is, if the flood evidence is easy to see, why can't the strata location be named so that I know where I can find the flood evidence wherever I happen to be in the world?

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm always amazed when young earth creationists tell me that this is OBVIOUSLY a "proof" of Noah's Flood. But I would really like to know if that sounds like "common sense" to anyone.

I've also wondered this: Does it seem likely that a FLOOD would leave behind the same kind of environment as an ancient ocean or lake?

Also, if these observation and evidence are "obvious", why are young earth creationists never able to use that evidence to identify THE GEOLOGIC STRATA OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD? That is, if the flood evidence is easy to see, why can't the strata location be named so that I know where I can find the flood evidence wherever I happen to be in the world?

Baiting, are we?

Your title says "on mountains," but what you really want to do is debate "in the earth," don't you?

 

[RickG]

I'm always amazed when young earth creationists tell me that this is OBVIOUSLY a "proof" of Noah's Flood. But I would really like to know if that sounds like "common sense" to anyone.

I've also wondered this: Does it seem likely that a FLOOD would leave behind the same kind of environment as an ancient ocean or lake?

Also, if these observation and evidence are "obvious", why are young earth creationists never able to use that evidence to identify THE GEOLOGIC STRATA OF THE GLOBAL FLOOD? That is, if the flood evidence is easy to see, why can't the strata location be named so that I know where I can find the flood evidence wherever I happen to be in the world?

I have yet to see a single creationist describe what actual flood deposits consist of.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have yet to see a single creationist describe what actual flood deposits consist of.

I wonder why.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I wonder why.

I don't. I know exactly why.

 

[RickG]

I wonder why.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Strathos]

What most people presenting this argument tend to ignore is that floods don't deposit things on mountains, they deposit them in the valleys, which would have happen in Noah's flood as the waters receded.

 

[KWCrazy]

What most people presenting this argument tend to ignore is that floods don't deposit things on mountains, they deposit them in the valleys, which would have happen in Noah's flood as the waters receded.

You've obviously never seen a beach at low tide, have you?

 

[RickG]

You've obviously never seen a beach at low tide, have you?

Yes, typical shoreline marine deposits, not in any way comparable to flood deposits. You must also take into account of the many layers of strata and their age.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

What most people presenting this argument tend to ignore is that floods don't deposit things on mountains, they deposit them in the valleys, which would have happen in Noah's flood as the waters receded.

Suspension and deposition of different stuff varies widely depending on the velocity of the water. Fragile layers laid down could be washed away by the receding flood waters. I don't see how uniform deposition evidence is even possible given the nature and size of that great flood.

A good example of this is the Cook Inlet in Alaska. Tidewater forced up the inlet causes near Class 5 rapids in the central channel while the mud flats near the shore show little evidence of being deeply flooded twice each day.

To date no 'flood model' of Noah's flood has ever been constructed. Too bad, it would really be interesting.

 

[RickG]

Suspension and deposition of different stuff varies widely depending on the velocity of the water. Fragile layers laid down could be washed away by the receding flood waters. I don't see how uniform deposition evidence is even possible given the nature and size of that great flood.

A good example of this is the Cook Inlet in Alaska. Tidewater forced up the inlet causes near Class 5 rapids in the central channel while the mud flats near the shore show little evidence of being deeply flooded twice each day.

To date no 'flood model' of Noah's flood has ever been constructed. Too bad, it would really be interesting.

First, they need to show a unique layer of flood sediments that are seen globally all of the same age. Where is this "Noah" formation?

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

Originally Posted by Strathos

What most people presenting this argument tend to ignore is that floods don't deposit things on mountains, they deposit them in the valleys, which would have happen in Noah's flood as the waters receded.
​

You've obviously never seen a beach at low tide, have you?

Astounding. What an incredibly illogical and irrelevant response---unless he is actually trying to AGREE with Strathos.

(KWCrazy cogitates in an alternate reality.)

 

[ThouShaltNotPoe]

For those interested, I deal with various aspects of debunking the GLOBAL flood traditions at:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7726286/#post62650168

 

[RickG]

Baiting, are we?

Your title says "on mountains," but what you really want to do is debate "in the earth," don't you?

No, it is debating a topic concerning science. There are some people who seem to believe that seashells on mountains are evidence of a flood. What those people are lacking is an understanding of geologic process, in particular plate tectonics. I would think that people who are lacking in such education and understanding would be open to learning about this and how the scientific community arrived at those conclusions.

Would you like to make a contribution or ask a question concerning the science involved?

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it is debating a topic concerning science. There are some people who seem to believe that seashells on mountains are evidence of a flood. What those people are lacking is an understanding of geologic process, in particular plate tectonics. I would think that people who are lacking in such education and understanding would be open to learning about this and how the scientific community arrived at those conclusions.

Would you like to make a contribution or ask a question concerning the science involved?

I'll ask a question.

What's the difference in how a mountain ornamented with sea shells would look, if the mountain rose up from below, as opposed to water receding?

Some see sea shells and say the water went down; others see sea shells and say the mountain rose up.

What's the difference?

 

[Strathos]

The difference is that the fossils found on mountaintops are arranged to show an undersea ecosystem and animals living like they would in their normal environment underwater, not scattered haphazardly and violently like they would be in a flood.

 

[AV1611VET]

The difference is that the fossils found on mountaintops are arranged to show an undersea ecosystem and animals living like they would in their normal environment underwater, not scattered haphazardly and violently like they would be in a flood.

I don't believe that.

It takes millions of years for mountains to form, and a mountain sporting seashells at its top would be improbable.

As its peak rose out of the water and began its ascent, erosion would play a factor as well.

 

[TheBear]

I don't believe that.

More importantly, you don't understand it ... which is why you don't believe it ... an argument from personal incredulity.

It takes millions of years for mountains to form,

How do you know that? More importantly, how does that square with your 'embedded age' model?

 

[Tomk80]

No, it is debating a topic concerning science. There are some people who seem to believe that seashells on mountains are evidence of a flood. What those people are lacking is an understanding of geologic process, in particular plate tectonics. I would think that people who are lacking in such education and understanding would be open to learning about this and how the scientific community arrived at those conclusions.

Would you like to make a contribution or ask a question concerning the science involved?

well, in a way AV is correct. The seashells are part of the mountains, they are not "on" the mountains, as if they are lying on top of it.

However, Young Earth Creationists generally phrase the questions as "seashells on mountains", so in that sense "ThouShaltNotPoe"'s question is completely correct.

 

[Loudmouth]

You've obviously never seen a beach at low tide, have you?

Are those beaches made out of hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone from a single year of deposition?

How does a flood put fossils into the MIDDLE of moutains. That is the real question.