world wide flood?

[Desert Snake]

explain where that boulder came from then :bow:

eroooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosionnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!

 

[Alceste]

Sure. That's when we learned about some theories as well.

Anything to offer besides 'hey I took some classes', or hey I read a book.

So how is it possible that you learned basic geology in grade school, as I did, but still do not understand how ocean fossils can sometimes be found on mountain tops?

 

[Desert Snake]

So how is it possible that you learned basic geology in grade school, as I did, but still do not understand how ocean fossils can sometimes be found on mountain tops?

'Sometimes'? i'm talking all over. It's a bit mysterious.
I suppose you have the answer.

 

[kashmir]

So how is it possible that you learned basic geology in grade school, as I did, but still do not understand how ocean fossils can sometimes be found on mountain tops?

Im in a silly mood...

Seashell on the Mountaintop, by Alan Cutler.
sounds like the title of a horrible country song.

seriously, what actual evidence do we have to actually prove birds are responsible of fish fossils on the tops of all mountains btw, tons and tons of them, it's not just some, or sometimes.
At least the articles I read say that.

Marine Fossils In The Mountains:
In Mountains all over the world one can find sea shells and other marine fossils. These include the Sierras, the Swiss Alps, the Himalayas and many more. 49,50,51,52,53 See also this see this video 54 by Dr. Walter Brown. See also Seashell on the Mountaintop by Alan Cutler.

what about this: :sarcastic

Fissures In The Rocks:
In caves and fissures in England and Whales and all over western Europe are found bones and bone fragments of many types of extinct and extant animal species -- including the mammoth, hippopotamus, rhinoceros, horse, polar bear, bison, reindeer, wolf and cave lion. In virtually every case, the bones are disarticulated, without teeth marks, un-weathered, and in most cases broken and splintered.

"In the rock on the summit of Mont de Sautenay - a flat-topped hill near Chalonsur-Saone between Dijon and Lyons - there is a fissure filled with animal bones. 'Why should so many wolves, bears, horses, and oxen have ascended a hill isolated on all sides?' asked Albert Gaudry, professor at the Jardin des Plantes. According to him, the bones in this cleft are mostly broken and splintered into innumerable ... fragments and are 'evidently not those of animals devoured by beasts of prey; nor have they been broken by man. Nevertheless, the remains of wolf were ... abundant, together with those of cave lion, bear, rhinoceros, horse, ox, and deer... Prestwich thought that the ... bones... were found in common heaps because, '... [they] ... fled [there] to escape the rising waters.'"

 

[Alceste]

explain where that boulder came from then :bow:
Did it just grow, right in the middle of a forest?
Kind of looks like a whale, maybe it swam there?

Looks like a glacial deposit to me. Doesn't it, to you?

BBC - Higher Bitesize Geography - Lithosphere : Revision, Page7

Specifically, it looks like an erratic - a large boulder carried by an ice floe far from its point of origin and left somewhere else as the ice it was embedded in melted away.

I love this one...

Plenty more on google image search. If you type in "glacial erratic" there are thousands to look at, and the similarity with the photo you posted is undeniable.

Doesn't that make more sense than a flood, given the fact that rocks don't float?

 

[Alceste]

Im in a silly mood...

Seashell on the Mountaintop, by Alan Cutler.
sounds like the title of a horrible country song.

seriously, what actual evidence do we have to actually prove birds are responsible of fish fossils on the tops of all mountains btw, tons and tons of them, it's not just some, or sometimes.
At least the articles I read say that.


what about this: :sarcastic

Birds are not responsible for sea fossils on mountain tops. No scientist thinks that they are.

Formations like the Burgess Shale (a treasure trove of ocean fossils in the Rocky Mountains) are caused by the grinding together of tectonic plates pushing vast sections of the earth's crust upward over millions of years. So, the famous ocean fossil bed in the Rockies is a layer of the earth's mantle that was once a sea bed. Hence the sea fossils.

Where did you get the bird idea from? Just curious. I've never heard that one before. But I agree, it's a ridiculous explanation. Not quite as ridiculous as a global flood, but still pretty ridiculous.

 

[Desert Snake]

Birds are not responsible for sea fossils on mountain tops. No scientist thinks that they are.

Formations like the Burgess Shale (a treasure trove of ocean fossils in the Rocky Mountains) are caused by the grinding together of tectonic plates pushing vast sections of the earth's crust upward over millions of years. So, the famous ocean fossil bed in the Rockies is a layer of the earth's mantle that was once a sea bed. Hence the sea fossils.

Where did you get the bird idea from? Just curious. I've never heard that one before. But I agree, it's a ridiculous explanation. Not quite as ridiculous as a global flood, but still pretty ridiculous.

I've seen seashells (yeah haha) on mountains. They aren't exactly what most people would consider 'fossils', where in the hck did those come from? If you're saying from some tectonic plates, why are some still intact?

 

[Bunyip]

I've seen seashells (yeah haha) on mountains. They aren't exactly what most people would consider 'fossils', where in the hck did those come from? If you're saying from some tectonic plates, why are some still intact?

Why on earth wouldn't they be?

Shells are calcium carbonate, they can last for millions of years.

 

[Bunyip]

Kashmir

It's interesting that you say you want to debate, and yet are ignoring all questions.

 

[kashmir]

Birds are not responsible for sea fossils on mountain tops. No scientist thinks that they are.

Formations like the Burgess Shale (a treasure trove of ocean fossils in the Rocky Mountains) are caused by the grinding together of tectonic plates pushing vast sections of the earth's crust upward over millions of years. So, the famous ocean fossil bed in the Rockies is a layer of the earth's mantle that was once a sea bed. Hence the sea fossils.

Where did you get the bird idea from? Just curious. I've never heard that one before. But I agree, it's a ridiculous explanation. Not quite as ridiculous as a global flood, but still pretty ridiculous.

I thought it was common knowledge of the bird thing, I have seen it said lots of times in my life.
Its atheists who say it when debating the flood.
I am sure some birds have caught fish and took it to their young in nests on mountain sides.
I believe even dawkins talked about it in a debate, some atheist did just recently on a YT vid debate thing.
Its not ridiculous, its truth in some cases, billions of years and not one bird had a nest on a mountain and brought fish to its young? :sarcastic:

As for the tectonic plates thing, it is not so cut in all cases as you said with the Rockies.
Tons of these pictures show various mountains and how they are formed.
Not all mountains were sea beds at one time.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...&bih=653#q=how+were+mountains+formed&tbm=isch
But, if the ice age is true, all of earth was under froze water at one time.
That accounts for the boulders and fossils, right?

I still dont get why a global flood is so ridiculous to you, you admitted the glacial deposition thing, that takes water melting all over the earth at one time to displace all the millions of boulders scattered everywhere they dont belong.

That is crazy though, for ice to be that huge to carry those huge boulders, that's a lot of ice

 

[Bunyip]

I thought it was common knowledge of the bird thing, I have seen it said lots of times in my life.

Not said by scientists though, just other creationists.

As for the tectonic plates thing, it is not so cut in all cases as you said with the Rockies.
Tons of these pictures show various mountains and how they are formed.
Not all mountains were sea beds at one time.
https://www.google.com/search?q=how...&bih=653#q=how+were+mountains+formed&tbm=isch
But, if the ice age is true, all of earth was under froze water at one time.
That accounts for the boulders and fossils, right?

I still dont get why a global flood is so ridiculous to you, you admitted the glacial deposition thing, that takes water melting all over the earth at one time to displace all the millions of boulders scattered everywhere they dont belong.

We accept that there are floods. Do you have any examples of evidence for the flood of Noah, or are you just going to pretend that any evidence for any flood at anytime or place somehow counts?

By the way a global flood is ridiculous to many of us for one really, really good reason - there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood.

 

[kashmir]

Kashmir

It's interesting that you say you want to debate, and yet are ignoring all questions.

In the past, you have shown me no respect, so I told you I was blocking you.
Just checked your first posts, never once did I say a thing about Noah, nor floating rocks, this is why I have you on ignore, you simply refuse to have a real discussion and add to what I say that I never said.

Just so you know, sometimes I do check others I have on ignore and long ago, realized your replies are just a waste of time to me.
Not a question for me to know, but for you to ask yourself, I wasted enough time on this, but what was the point of putting Noah and floating rocks into something I never said one time?
The bible or Noah was never part of my discussion and even said that in the opening post.

"not just pointless "flat earther magic man in the sky worshipper" type comments."

Did you even read that?
So yah, just stop wasting your own time by even replying to me, they will go unread
Maybe it's not your intentions, but your posts to me come off as you just want to belittle and not discuss.
maybe its me, maybe its you or both us, I just am tired of wasting time like I am right now over your pointless noah, floating rocks and the fact i have to explain myself to you, when the opening post was enough to explain my thread concept.

 

[Desert Snake]

By the way a global flood is ridiculous to many of us for one really, really good reason - there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood.

What on earth does that mean. Mountains rise, chasms break open, water evaporates gets channeled elsewhere, you're being argumentative for no reason.

Some book says blah blah, yeah, we get it.

 

[Bunyip]

In the past, you have shown me no respect, so I told you I was blocking you.
Just checked your first posts, never once did I say a thing about Noah, nor floating rocks, this is why I have you on ignore, you simply refuse to have a real discussion and add to what I say that I never said.

Just so you know, sometimes I do check others I have on ignore and long ago, realized your replies are just a waste of time to me.
Not a question for me to know, but for you to ask yourself, I wasted enough time on this, but what was the point of putting Noah and floating rocks into something I never said one time?
The bible or Noah was never part of my discussion and even said that in the opening post.

Did you even read that?
So yah, just stop wasting your own time by even replying to me, they will go unread
Maybe it's not your intentions, but your posts to me come off as you just want to belittle and not discuss.
maybe its me, maybe its you or both us, I just am tired of wasting time like I am right now over your pointless noah, floating rocks and the fact i have to explain myself to you, when the opening post was enough to explain my thread concept.

Erm.... mate, if you are not talking about the flood of Noah- you are using a citation that is.

If you are not talking about the flood of Noah, what has either this discussion or your citation got to do with creationism? A:Nothing.

Oh and it is not just my questions you are ignoring - it is everybodies.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you are not talking about the flood of Noah, what has either this discussion or your citation got to do with creationism? A:Nothing.

Sure it does. Noahs flood could have been part of other floods.

 

[Bunyip]

What on earth does that mean. Mountains rise, chasms break open, water evaporates gets channeled elsewhere, you're being argumentative for no reason.

Some book says blah blah, yeah, we get it.

You did not understand, so I will explain what I meant more carefully;

What I said was that there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood.

I said that because there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood. If you spread out all of the water, it is nowhere near enough to cover all the land. I'm not sure what you are finding so difficult to grasp about that.

You seem to employ exclamations of 'ridiculous' as some sort of all purpose defeater for simple facts that you are unwilling to grasp.

 

[Desert Snake]

You did not understand, so I will explain what I meant more carefully;

What I said was that there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood.

I said that because there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood. If you spread out all of the water, it is nowhere near enough to cover all the land. I'm not sure what you are finding so difficult to grasp about that.

You seem to employ exclamations of 'ridiculous' as some sort of all purpose defeater for simple facts that you are unwilling to grasp.

lol...so the seashells on the mountains got 'shoved' there, but there isn't enough water to cover the land..really making sense, as usual.

 

[Thana]

You did not understand, so I will explain what I meant more carefully;

What I said was that there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood.

I said that because there is nowhere near enough water on earth for a global flood. If you spread out all of the water, it is nowhere near enough to cover all the land. I'm not sure what you are finding so difficult to grasp about that.

You seem to employ exclamations of 'ridiculous' as some sort of all purpose defeater for simple facts that you are unwilling to grasp.

That's not true.

Maybe not enough to completely cover every surface (ie- mountain tops, Valleys etc) But definitely enough to cover all land.

According to Volume of Earth's Oceans, the total volume of the world's oceans is 1.3 to 1.5 billion cubic kilometers, which comes out to 310 to 360 million cubic miles. The surface area of the Earth is about 200 million square miles

 

[Bunyip]

That's not true.

Maybe not enough to completely cover every surface (ie- mountain tops, Valleys etc) But definitely enough to cover all land.

To be a global flood you need to cover every surface, mountain tops and all. There is nowhere near enough water to do so.

Valleys, mountains etc are a part of all the land.

As you say, the surface is about 200 million square miles, and the volume 1.5 billion cubic km - which when you look at the topographic variation of the earth is nowhere near enough to cover it. Not even close.

 

[Bunyip]

lol...so the seashells on the mountains got 'shoved' there, but there isn't enough water to cover the land..really making sense, as usual.

Yet again you need more than failing to understand simple concepts buddy.

How is that a problem? The seashells were at the sea floor and rose as the mountain grew, mountain ranges across the world emerge over millions of years.

What is it you are failing to grasp about tectonic uplift?