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

Carmella Prochaska · Apr 4, 2013

Seashells on mountaintops is consistent with a global flood but it doesn't "prove" a global flood.

It is likely that a flood would leave behind such an environment as well as out of place fossils. We might find sea, land and lake creatures buried together or in an odd place. One of the richest fossil discoveries of the past 10 years is the huge deposit in the coal basin of Montceau-les-Mines near Autun in France. There are fossils are of marine creatures, some are definitely freshwater dwellers, and some are definitely land creatures. This sort of faunal mixing is consistent with a global flood but does not "prove" it.

In a young earth model there are no specific geological layers like in the long-age model. The fossil-rich layers where there is evidence of rapid burial of creatures may be flood layers but no one can absolutely be sure because no one observed it form. This is one of the reasons I have issues with long-agers assuming a rock layer is millions of years and then finding young remains in it. Many scientists have reported finding DNA in fossils that are said to be millions of years old & I find that to be pure fantasy given the decay rate of unstable molecules like DNA.

I believe in the global flood because, first and foremost, I believe in the Judeo-Christian God of Moses and in what He said He did. I'll take His Word for it.

Loudmouth · Apr 4, 2013

Carmella Prochaska said:
Seashells on mountaintops is consistent with a global flood but it doesn't "prove" a global flood.

They are not ON the mountaintops. They are IN the mountaintops. How does a global flood stack hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone and solidify it at the top of mountains during a global flood?

It is likely that a flood would leave behind such an environment as well as out of place fossils.

Why is it likely?

One of the richest fossil discoveries of the past 10 years is the huge deposit in the coal basin of Montceau-les-Mines near Autun in France. There are fossils are of marine creatures, some are definitely freshwater dwellers, and some are definitely land creatures.

Just like we find in modern day swamps that are producing peat that can be turned into coal. You are aware that land animals swim around in swamps, right?

This is one of the reasons I have issues with long-agers assuming a rock layer is millions of years and then finding young remains in it.

Examples?

Many scientists have reported finding DNA in fossils that are said to be millions of years old & I find that to be pure fantasy given the decay rate of unstable molecules like DNA.

Citations?

Herman Hedning · Apr 4, 2013

AV1611VET said:
Let me know when you highly-educated graduates figure out the shape this thing God said was 'without form' is, will you?

I promise not to laugh -- (well, not like I am now, anyway).

If it was without form, then it was without form, no?

TheBear · Apr 4, 2013

AV1611VET said:
TheBear said:

Too funny ...

I wonder. Could the asteroids and particles and dust, which eventually gathered to form earth, be considered 'earth without form'?

Click to expand...

Were you there?

Huh???

KWCrazy · Apr 4, 2013

Herman Hedning said:
You mean that the word sphere wasn't introduced into English until the 13th century? Not quite the same is it?

Also, noone is saying the word "sphere" or some derivative was used in the Hebrew text. The concept of a sphere has certainly been known since time immemorial.

It was first introduced in ancient Greek, not English. Read the link. People are critical of the Bible for not using words that didn't exist.

Loudmouth · Apr 4, 2013

KWCrazy said:
It was first introduced in ancient Greek, not English. Read the link. People are critical of the Bible for not using words that didn't exist.

There was no greek word for ball?

createdtoworship · Apr 4, 2013

Carmella Prochaska said:
Seashells on mountaintops is consistent with a global flood but it doesn't "prove" a global flood.

It is likely that a flood would leave behind such an environment as well as out of place fossils. We might find sea, land and lake creatures buried together or in an odd place. One of the richest fossil discoveries of the past 10 years is the huge deposit in the coal basin of Montceau-les-Mines near Autun in France. There are fossils are of marine creatures, some are definitely freshwater dwellers, and some are definitely land creatures. This sort of faunal mixing is consistent with a global flood but does not "prove" it.

In a young earth model there are no specific geological layers like in the long-age model. The fossil-rich layers where there is evidence of rapid burial of creatures may be flood layers but no one can absolutely be sure because no one observed it form. This is one of the reasons I have issues with long-agers assuming a rock layer is millions of years and then finding young remains in it. Many scientists have reported finding DNA in fossils that are said to be millions of years old & I find that to be pure fantasy given the decay rate of unstable molecules like DNA.

I believe in the global flood because, first and foremost, I believe in the Judeo-Christian God of Moses and in what He said He did. I'll take His Word for it.

good post, I agree. I have been encouraging the forum users here to show one fossil that was not layed down in a sedimentary layer (which is caused by settling of solution - water being the prevailent method). In other words fossils don't happen if there is not water to settle, and seal specific chemicals in the hard tissue under pressure. These chemicals are not readlily available in earth soil. It takes rain and solution to bring the chemicals to a crystalized form in order to fossilize. Sodium bicarbonate I believe is the most used, there are two others as well.

createdtoworship · Apr 4, 2013

Tomk80 said:
Backbone refers to the vertebral column in animals (including fish). It does not specifically refer to actual bone, as the articles you cited indicate. If you search scholarly articles mentioning the vertebral column of fish, you'll see they often refer to it as the backbone. This does not suddenly imply that the biologists studying fish do not know that the fish vertebral column is made of cartilage.

very good, I agree entirely. But note: you are saying something the others have not said. avertebral column has not been mentioned.

Loudmouth · Apr 4, 2013

gradyll said:
good post, I agree.

What evidence do you have that a global flood can produce hundreds of feet of limestone at the top of mountains?

I have been encouraging the forum users here to show one fossil that was not layed down in a sedimentary layer (which is caused by settling of solution - water being the prevailent method).

I have been encouraging you to show me a flood that an deposit hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone.

In other words fossils don't happen if there is not water to settle, and seal specific chemicals in the hard tissue under pressure. These chemicals are not readlily available in earth soil. It takes rain and solution to bring the chemicals to a crystalized form in order to fossilize. Sodium bicarbonate I believe is the most used, there are two others as well.

It takes marine life to created the limestone, and there is not enough life to produce hundreds of feet of limestone. Chalk is nothing more than the tiny skeletons of coccolithophores, and there are literally hundreds of feet of these tiny little critters all stacked up. The deposits in the middle of North American are made up of thousands of feet of broken sea lilly parts. THOUSANDS OF FEET THICK. A single, year long global flood can not produce these deposits.

Joshua0 · Apr 4, 2013

Loudmouth said:
Were you there when thalidomide caused birth defects in the womb?

We have a very good friend that was there and he lost both of his arms. I even bought his book and had his wife autograph it along with the date of when they got married. While we are talking about people with missing limbs would you like to hear about my friend that lost a large part of his leg to a Clay-more mine in Viet Nam?

Split Rock · Apr 4, 2013

gradyll said:
good post, I agree. I have been encouraging the forum users here to show one fossil that was not layed down in a sedimentary layer (which is caused by settling of solution - water being the prevailent method). In other words fossils don't happen if there is not water to settle, and seal specific chemicals in the hard tissue under pressure. These chemicals are not readlily available in earth soil. It takes rain and solution to bring the chemicals to a crystalized form in order to fossilize. Sodium bicarbonate I believe is the most used, there are two others as well.

Red Herring (I know you like that term). The two other types of rock cannot have fossils. Igneous is created by volcanic activity and metamorphic is formed by exposing existing rock to high pressures and temperatures. In the former, no fossils can form for obvious reasons. In the latter, any remains of organsims or any existing fossils would be destroyed.

Joshua0 · Apr 4, 2013

Loudmouth said:
I have been encouraging you to show me a flood that an deposit hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone.

The dinosaurs in Utah are found in mud, sand and lime.

Loudmouth · Apr 4, 2013

Joshua0 said:
The dinosaurs in Utah are found in mud, sand and lime.

And?

Loudmouth · Apr 4, 2013

Joshua0 said:
We have a very good friend that was there and he lost both of his arms.

How do you know? Were you there? Did you witness the thalidomide doing anything?

florida2 · Apr 4, 2013

Joshua0 said:
The dinosaurs in Utah are found in mud, sand and lime.

How does that answer the question?

Loudmouth asked about how a flood could deposit hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone (as we see in mountains)?

createdtoworship · Apr 4, 2013

Split Rock said:
Red Herring (I know you like that term). The two other types of rock cannot have fossils. Igneous is created by volcanic activity and metamorphic is formed by exposing existing rock to high pressures and temperatures. In the former, no fossils can form for obvious reasons. In the latter, any remains of organsims or any existing fossils would be destroyed.

Well destruction" is the main enemy of fossilization. In any type of rock. (Be it scavengers, or bacteria) That is why it's a rare event. It just so happens that water is a solvent capable of countering the destruction sealing and crystalizing the chemicals that rid the impression of bacteria/scavengers and other types of "destroyers."

without the sealing, there would be no cementing. That is what we call the fossil. So my point still stands, show me a sedimentary or nonsedimentary rock with a fossil in it, that did not involve water.

TheBear · Apr 4, 2013

We all know that if you weren't there, there's no way of having the slightest bit of confidence in any explanation of the phenomenon.

Take this image, for example.

It is possible that fire destroyed this structure. But, since I wasn't there to witness the event, I have no way of knowing for sure.

createdtoworship · Apr 4, 2013

Loudmouth said:
What evidence do you have that a global flood can produce hundreds of feet of limestone at the top of mountains?

I have been encouraging you to show me a flood that an deposit hundreds of feet of fossil bearing limestone.

It takes marine life to created the limestone, and there is not enough life to produce hundreds of feet of limestone. Chalk is nothing more than the tiny skeletons of coccolithophores, and there are literally hundreds of feet of these tiny little critters all stacked up. The deposits in the middle of North American are made up of thousands of feet of broken sea lilly parts. THOUSANDS OF FEET THICK. A single, year long global flood can not produce these deposits.

I see. I will check out if a catastrophic flood would be capable of such deposits. I believe so, but I will check it out to verify. Give me some time.

FrenchyBearpaw · Apr 4, 2013

gradyll said:
I see. I will check out if a catastrophic flood would be capable of such deposits. I believe so, but I will check it out to verify. Give me some time.

Is that code speak for "I believe so but I will check with AIG to verify?"

Loudmouth · Apr 4, 2013

gradyll said:
I see. I will check out if a catastrophic flood would be capable of such deposits. I believe so, but I will check it out to verify. Give me some time.

How does a catastrophic flood create thousands of feet of sea lilies? That would be a good start.

Much of the massive limestone formation is composed of sand-sized particles of calcium carbonate, fragments of crinoid plates, and shells broken by the waves. Such a sedimentary rock qualifies for the name sandstone because it is composed of particles of sand size cemented together; because the term sandstone is commonly understood to refer to a quartz-rich rock, however, these limestone sandstones are better called calcarenites. The Madison sea must have been shallow, and the waves and currents strong, to break the shells and plates of the animals when they died. The sorting of the calcite grains and the cross-bedding that is common in this formation are additional evidence of waves and currents at work. Even in Mississippian rocks, where whole crinoids are rare fossils, and as a result, it is easy to underestimate the population of these animals during the Paleozoic era. Crinoidal limestones, such as the Mission Canyon-Livingstone unit, provide an estimate, even though it be of necessity a rough one, of their abundance in the clear shallow seas they loved. In the Canadian Rockies the Livingstone limestone was deposited to a thickness of 2,000 feet on the margin of the Cordilleran geosyncline, but it thins rapidly eastward to a thickness of about 1,000 feet in the Front Ranges and to about 500 feet in the Williston Basin. Even though its crinoidal content decreases eastward, it may be calculated to represent at least 10,000 cubic miles of broken crinoid plates. How many millions, billions, trillions of crinoids would be required to provide such a deposit? The number staggers the imagination."
Thomas H. Clark and Colin W. Stearn, The Geological Evolution of North America, (New York: The Ronald Press, 1960), p. 86-88.

You should also check out these pages:

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Too+Many+Fossils+for+a+Global+Flood

http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com/Limestone+Presents+Problems+for+the+Global+Flood

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

Carmella Prochaska

Guest

Contributor

Hiking is fun

NON-WOKED

Newbie

Contributor

In the grip of grace

In the grip of grace

Contributor

Joshua0

Guest

Conflation of Blathers

Joshua0

Guest

Contributor

Contributor

Well-Known Member

In the grip of grace

NON-WOKED

In the grip of grace

Take time for granite.

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency