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

brinny said:

There are sea shells on mountains?

Click to expand...

No, there are fossils of marine creatures in the mountains. They could not possibly have been put there by a flood, but by the uplift of tectonic plates over millions of years.

KWCrazy said:

You're the only person I've met in a long time who lies about lying.

Click to expand...

You've never looked in a mirror?

JoyfulExegesis said:

Why do you presume that there are no forces operating OPPOSITE of erosion? Are you unaware of the forces which CREATE geologic formations which erosion slowly tears down? Why do you assume that a one-way erosion process is the only force at work?

Click to expand...

So if I understand your premise, it's that the erosional affects are being replentished from uplifting of the mountains. Is this correct? I would raise a few concerns over this. For one, mountains would have been eroded entirely and replaced many times over in several billion years of existence. But one problem. There is only a specific thin layer of earth/rock that is defined as the sedimentary layer. This layer would be expected to be entirely removed if your premise were true, namely that the uplift has replaced the eroded earth several times over in 2.5 billion years. However, if you look. You will see layer upon layer of sedimentary rock still intact, in nearly every location. If it is intact, it means that erosion has not touched that section yet.

your theory once again fails to hold up to scrutiny.
Will you change the bars once again?

I await your reply.

JoyfulExegesis said:

For now I'll ignore the question of why you think your misunderstanding of basic geology is a problem for evolution.

Click to expand...

it's actualy an evolutionists misunderstanding, Robert Dott & Roger Batton to be exact.

here is his book

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Ear...ten,+Evolution+of+the+Earth,+McGraw-Hill,1988

read p. 271,155 and a number of others

they all say the same thing,

america would erode in 10 million years.

I would play it safe and say 100 million years.

Just to be certain you are not wrong.

And still does not compare to 2.5-4.5 billion years the continents on the earth have been around. (supposedly)

If evolution is true, it would all be flat in 100 million years due to wind and water erosion - based on your own evolutionist resources

also in case you don't like that text book,

here is the national center for science education actually quoting from the same exact textbook to combat creationism.

Common Creationist Attacks on Geology | NCSE

BTW, feel free to use any of the material on that last link to help your case, I would love a free spirited discussion into this matter.

Hopefully it will encourage the use of rational arguments and not ad hominems prevalent at the moment in your postings.

brinny said:

There are sea shells on mountains?

Click to expand...

there are a lot of seashells on mountains but most creationists do not use the sea shells as proof of a global flood. For one, modern creationists hold to the idea that mountains rose up out of the global flood waters(noahs flood), in this case....it would also have seashells on the mountains.

regardless clams are not known for elevating high of the sea floor, even in a flood. So it is doubtful that a clam would swim up high enough to protrude out of the water before it receeded.


here is more info on this, if you have questions:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Seashells on Mountaintops

Joshua0 said:

Where does Jude tell us why God brought the universe into being? Jude does talk about how: "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." So we do see God has a plan to restore the universe. The battle right now is mostly here on the Earth. This is a time of testing to see who will follow the angels in their rebellion and who will remain faithful to God. To maintain holiness and purity before Him.

Click to expand...

Actually I wanted to go to Job next, then Jude, to build my case for the flood.

Gen 1:1 God created the heaven and earth.

Job 38:6-7 The angels rejoice at the creation.

Jude 1:6 Shows that the earth was created for the angels (why does God need a Starship?).

Job 38:8 Alludes to a great flood associated with the angelic rebellion.


This verse and the condition of the earth as described in GenOne reveals a pattern of flooding used by God to purify his creation. The rainbow covenant strongly suggests more than one global deluge.

florida2 said:

No, there are fossils of marine creatures in the mountains. They could not possibly have been put there by a flood, but by the uplift of tectonic plates over millions of years.

Click to expand...

The reason they could not possibly have put there by a flood is that such a thing would show evolution to be the junk science that it is and would leave atheists with no explanation for anything.

It's entirely possible that there was major upshifiting going on and that mountain peaks were thrust upward out of the water that once covered them; just as it's possible that the ocean floors split and water receded into the crevices. It would certainly explain why there is so much water on the earth.

That doesn't negate the fact that the mountain peaks were once under water. However, if two masses come together with force, the upshift is in the center. It will force the rock upward. When it gets to a certain point the rock will begin to fall away at the top and tumble to the bottom. The more it forces upward, the more it turns over at the peak. You can easily show this by pushing two puzzles together and watching the pieces yurn over, or you could use paper plates covered with a thick layer of sand. The only way that the top doesn't tumble over is if the upshift is small; as in a mountain range growing in size. If there is a major upshift, such as flat ground pushing together to form a mountian, the turnover will bury whatever was on the surface deep inside the mountain where it would never be found. We aren't talking about small rises here. We're talking about large mountain ranges.

If the mountains already existed but were lower and covered with water, the amount of the upshift might not cause turnover, which would explain why the fossils aren't buried under hundreds of feet of rock.

Here's what the evolutionists bible (talkorigins.com) has to say about why the fossils cannot be an example of a global flood.

Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

How could that happen if floods never COVERED mountains? The argument they use against the event uses that same event as a given. Erosion is a factor, of course. Millions of years of wind and rain would have easily destroyed the fossils on the mountain peaks. Flood runoff is a little different. The speed with which it runs off is determined by its ability to recede. Water can't go anywhere until the water beneath it moves out of the way.

In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).

If there was a major geological upshift they not only would have been scattered, they would have been burried. As far was where they grew, that's foolish speculation. All a fossil can tell you is where it died. If a flood repositions anything it moves it to lower ground, Since rocks don't float, they certainly wouldn't drift to higher ground. The waters didn't start to reced for four months. Three months later the mountain peaks became visible. It took almost a year before Noah and his family could leave the ark.


Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea

Of course, considering that the entire world was covered by the sea, this is not a problem. Marine animals live in the sea, swim, and get carried by currents. four months is plenty of time to drift inland, get caught up in silt and entombed.

some folks have these on.. and refuse to take them off.

gradyll said:

there are a lot of seashells on mountains but most creationists do not use the sea shells as proof of a global flood. For one, modern creationists hold to the idea that mountains rose up out of the global flood waters(noahs flood), in this case....it would also have seashells on the mountains.

regardless clams are not known for elevating high of the sea floor, even in a flood. So it is doubtful that a clam would swim up high enough to protrude out of the water before it receeded.


here is more info on this, if you have questions:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Seashells on Mountaintops

Click to expand...

Have you SEEN seashells actually lying on the surface of mountains?
I never have,but I have seen plenty of fossil seashells IN the rocks that mountains are made of.
How did those shells get there?
When the organism died,they sank to the bottom and were covered with muck..they fossilized..as plate tectonics raised the surface of the muck,those shells were uplifted too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale

gradyll said:

there are a lot of seashells on mountains but most creationists do not use the sea shells as proof of a global flood. For one, modern creationists hold to the idea that mountains rose up out of the global flood waters(noahs flood), in this case....it would also have seashells on the mountains.

regardless clams are not known for elevating high of the sea floor, even in a flood. So it is doubtful that a clam would swim up high enough to protrude out of the water before it receeded.


here is more info on this, if you have questions:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 129.[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] Seashells on Mountaintops

Click to expand...

Some good points in this article, especially the description of the ark, which was a large super-reinforced warehouse, not a 'boat'. It would have barely floated for its great weight, which would have given it great seaworthiness.

The earth's crust is 'elastic' enough to withstand the pressures of a global flood without upheaval, although there would be some cracking. However a strong impact from an object, or energy, striking it could cause fracturing and set in motion tectonic activity. This would have occurred long before Noah's flood however as high mountains were present within one year of that event.

Of course you have to consider supernatural forces in any discussion of these events.

freezerman2000 said:

Have you SEEN seashells actually lying on the surface of mountains?
I never have,but I have seen plenty of fossil seashells IN the rocks that mountains are made of.
How did those shells get there?
When the organism died,they sank to the bottom and were covered with muck..they fossilized..as plate tectonics raised the surface of the muck,those shells were uplifted too. Burgess Shale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

no I can't say that I have, however fossilization is very rare. Chemicals must be injected into soft tissue under heaps of pressure. With the problem of scavenging and corrosion, these chemicals and rate must be very fast in order to preserve the mold. One of three chemicals must be present in the ground when this happens, sodium bicorbonate is one. Not sure. But these must be christalized and present and be injected for the fossilization to reject corrossion. So if there shells, they are long gone now.

The above problems with fossilization reveals another problem for evolutionists. Why did so many fossils fossilize? For one we don't have that much chemical in the earth. #2 dinasaur graveyards show that flash flooding could never deposit the amount of fossil remains, and sediment to wash over 10000 dinasaurs in a single moment. It must have been catastrophic, a global flood.

Joshua0 said:

That is what the Bible says:

Click to expand...

I didn't ask what the Bible says. I asked for evidence.

It is now broken up into continents by WATER. The proof is pretty much obvious. If water had not broken up Pangaea then water would not still be there today dividing Pangaea into separate land masses.

Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with a global flood.

Joshua0 said:

I am not going to keep repeating myself over and over again. Plate tectonics in the beginning was caused by a global flood.

Click to expand...

Based on what evidence?

They believe it was a global flood that destroyed the dinosaurs. That was back whenever it was that Pangaea was broken up at the beginning of plate tectonics.

Click to expand...

Who is they, and what evidence do they have to back their claims?

How did so many fossils get in one place?..easy to deduce if you had read the entire article..a mudslide off of a cliff buried those organisms..while they were underwater..it was in the Cambrian epoch..remember?ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?Life was so abundant that the sheer numbers of critters in one place was common place.
Cambrian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

gradyll said:

see all this proves the untrustworthyness of the dating method. You claim that the samples must be "pure" and free of zenoliths (intrusions of older rock), however there are no "pure" lava flows.

Click to expand...

Yes, there are. You can use crystals that form in the lava that can only form at lower temperatures. This allows you to accurately date the flow.

The parent and daughter isotopes present fluctuates throughout an eruption, so technically the date changes. the early flow may have more iron, and the later flows may have more magnesium for example, thus altering the date entirely (parent and daughter isotope fluctiation).

Click to expand...

Neither iron nor magnesium is used to date rocks. Using isochron methodologies, scientists can actually determine the ratio of isotopes that a rock starts out with. They can also use methods and crystals where one of the isotopes is excluded during the formation of the cyrstal, such as U/Pb dating of zircons or K/Ar dating where only very small amounts of argon are included when the rocks solidify.

check out more here:

from the university of north carolina at chapel hill:


https://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Click to expand...

Check out more here:

Radiometeric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

See, I can do it too.

Joshua0 said:

Yes, it took millions of years. I am talking about the BEGINNING when Pangaea was all one land mass. It was WATER that broke Pangaea up into the continents that we have today.

Click to expand...

That's like saying that it was asphalt that separates two cars moving in the opposite direction.

Loudmouth said:

Yes, there are. You can use crystals that form in the lava that can only form at lower temperatures. This allows you to accurately date the flow.



Neither iron nor magnesium is used to date rocks. Using isochron methodologies, scientists can actually determine the ratio of isotopes that a rock starts out with. They can also use methods and crystals where one of the isotopes is excluded during the formation of the cyrstal, such as U/Pb dating of zircons or K/Ar dating where only very small amounts of argon are included when the rocks solidify.



Check out more here:

Radiometeric Dating Does Work! | NCSE

See, I can do it too.

Click to expand...

not to question your methods or sources, but even if it were true....

do you even have a legitimate date for the lava flow in question?

If not then the argument in moot.

If you really want to debate sources after providing a date, we may proceed. However if you have no date, after providing one for my perspective....

you really have no leg to stand on, as you are giving a conclusion with no premise intact.

Improper debate tactic, and illogical.

freezerman2000 said:

How did so many fossils get in one place?..easy to deduce if you had read the entire article..a mudslide off of a cliff buried those organisms..while they were underwater..it was in the Cambrian epoch..remember?ever heard of the Cambrian explosion?Life was so abundant that the sheer numbers of critters in one place was common place.
Cambrian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

oh the ol cambrian explosion huh?

ok, thats one view.

I personally don't adhere to the classical view of the cambrian explosion. But I doubt you'll want to discuss that.

and wikipedia is not really a source, but if thats your main argument for the cambrian explosion, then okay!

(not that it entails our conversation, I just had to throw it in---the ol charly himself!)

oldwiseguy said:

Some good points in this article, especially the description of the ark, which was a large super-reinforced warehouse, not a 'boat'. It would have barely floated for its great weight, which would have given it great seaworthiness.

Click to expand...

yes, it was designed as one of the worlds first barges. A design that would be replicated throughout history. It displaces more water with a gradual bottom, than it would with a v hull (deep v)

oldwiseguy said:

The earth's crust is 'elastic' enough to withstand the pressures of a global flood without upheaval, although there would be some cracking. However a strong impact from an object, or energy, striking it could cause fracturing and set in motion tectonic activity. This would have occurred long before Noah's flood however as high mountains were present within one year of that event.

Click to expand...

I don't know alot of what you speak, do you have any resources for the rate of uplift after the flood? That would be interesting to check out.

gradyll said:

do you even have a legitimate date for the lava flow in question?

If not then the argument in moot.

Click to expand...

The methods used are legitimate measurements of the average age of the rocks within the sample. The problem is that you have a mixture of younger and older rocks which means that the sample can not be used to measure the age of eruption.

You are confusing two different things. The age of the rock and the age of the eruption. They are not necessarily the same age.

Let's say that I have a technique for measuring the age of humans. To test this technique I go into a nursery because I was told that there are newborns in the nursery and this will show me whether or not my technique can meausure the age of really young humans. So I go to the nursery, close the doors, and use the technique on all the humans in the nursery. The problem is that in addition to the newborns there are also nurses and doctors in the nursery, and I include them in the measurements. When I am done I have an average age of about 25 years old for the humans in the nursery. Does this mean that my technique failed?

gradyll said:

I don't know alot of what you speak, do you have any resources for the rate of uplift after the flood? That would be interesting to check out.

Click to expand...

What I've read is that the earth's crust is pretty flexible. The Amazon river basin sinks and rebounds three inches each year under the weight of 30 to 40 feet of floodwater from seasonal rains.

I also read that the glaciers caused the earth to sink many meters in some areas, causing unusually high tides that flowed inland for many miles, and is still rebounding in many areas.



Main article: Isostatic rebound; from Wikipedia

This rise of a part of the crust is due to an isostatic adjustment. A large mass, such as an ice sheet/glacier, depresses the crust of the Earth and displaces the mantle below. The depression is about a third the thickness of the ice sheet. After the glacier melts the mantle begins to flow back to its original position pushing the crust back to its original position. This post-glacial rebound, which lags melting of the ice sheet/glacier, is currently occurring in measurable amounts in Scandinavia and the Great Lakes region of North America

Some believe this widespread rebounding is responsible for small deep earthquakes in areas far from fault zones.

Regarding the flood, we haven't yet constructed a reasonable model of how the flood might have occurred (imo of course), although the biblical story gives many hints. For example, the earth had not received 'rain' until the flood, but instead was apparently watered by (nightly?) dewfall. If this also means that there was no significant groundwater in the earth in the form of the large aquifers present today then the forty days of rain might have had a significant effect and may even have began the flooding process.

Consider a steady rainfall, perhaps started by one or several volcanic eruptions (dirt, previously absent, in the heavy moist air causing widespread rainfall) of a vigorous one inch per hour. This would soak the earth, filling the previously dry ground, with 80 verticle feet of water over the entire land, minus runoff at the seashores. Scientists estimate that the land sank as much as one foot under the weight of three feet of glacial ice, in some areas. Applying the same calculation the rainfall would cause the continents to sink twenty five or so feet, enough to begin massive flooding from the sea in lowland areas. Of course the additional weight would further sink the land and exacerbate the flooding,

It is also interesting to note that the earth's crust is solid rock, floating on molten rock, and barely floating at that. It doesn't take much additional weight to push it down. Of course the downward pressure will displace the liguid magma outward having the further effect of raising the seabeds, perhaps providing the needed water to cover the highest peaks, which may have now sunk considerably under the enormous weight of the incoming waters.

Also of profound interest is the mechanism for the abatement of these waters, now encompassing the entire globe, the wind. A strong and steady wind can move much water, and the usual limiting factors, such as a containment feature, would be absent from the flood scene allowing plenty of room for the windblown water to move freely away from the land. As the floodwaters return to the sea the weight presses down on the seafloor causing magma to flow back under the continents and raising them.

Also of interest is the size and scope of the changes needed to complete the flood as recorded in the bible. If you had a globe of twelve inches in diameter representing the earth you would need to deform it about the thickness of two or three sheets of paper to cause global flooding. Such a deformity would not be apparent to the naked eye. Additionally, although mountains look very tall and imposing they are little more than the height of grains of sand on this twelve inch globe.

Or, imagine a teeter-totter representing the dry land and the seafloor. An nearly imperceptible movement of the board is all that is needed to accomplish the movement of water in either direction.

We are so accustomed to thinking of cataclysmic movement of land and water when thinking about the flood that we ignore the information given in scripture. The most notable being the speed of the income floodwater from the sea, which I calculate at 1.6 inches rise per minute based on the duration of 150 days and displacement of 29,000 feet, the height of Mt. Everest.

This inflow is comparable to many incoming tides around the earth, hardly the gulleywashers imagined by most. Here's a video of one that gives a good idea of how fast Noah's flood came in from the sea:

Quand les touristes se font piéger Par la marée montante - YouTube


Notice the clarity of the water as it flows across the sand. At that speed there is no erosion, and as the flood waters flowed gently across many areas there would also be no or little erosion, especially healthy grasslands. It is where the flow of the waters are restricted or flow downhill that serious erosion takes place. A study of the earth's topography will easily reveal those areas.

Another mistake that is made is the assumption that because the flood presented massive amounts of water that massive amounts of erosion and deposition would occur. The reality is that massive amounts of water acted on finite or limited amount of deposition material, and that such erosion and deposition would occur with a much smaller (local?) flood. To demonstrate this for yourself place sand in the bottom of a bucket, then pour it out slowly. Notice that the sediments don't move until the last of the water flows out. It doesn't matter how large the bucket is, the results will be the same. Try the same experiment in your bathtub. Place some dirt or sand in the bottom then fill the tub. Notice that the sediment stops moving soon after the water starts to fill the tub. It doesn't matter how much water you put into the tub, the sediment will only move with the first water in and the last water that drains out.

Anyway that's my current working theory ( always subject to revision of course).