Mountaintop fossils...

[Keith&Co.]

A number of creationists flog 'fossils found on mountains' as evidence of The Biblical Flood.
Fossils require, they point out, rapid burial.

But don't we have fossils that show teeth marks from predators and scavengers? I seem to recall someone pointing out our ancestors' position in the food chain based on whose teeth marks were on the bones before ours...

So they require burial, preferably rapid, preferably in a low-oxygen environment, but not necessarily 'at the moment of death.'

Also, forming fossils requires pressure. Quite a bit of pressure.

Water pressure increases at a rate of 44 PSI per 100 feet of depth, so buried some distance of water includes SOME pressure, but the mountain tops were under water for less than a year. The ark came to rest on the side of Ararat as the waters receded, 10 months after the Flood started.

So, mountaintop fossils would seem to be evidence AGAINST a global flood. Those things had to form when the mountain top was way, way, way below a mountain.

 

[Learner]

It depends on how one approaches this puzzling argument. Two ways I would submit for suggestion to ponder on, is: by seeing your problem / argument; where one challenges the "actual" dating method i.e. the accuracy since for example the "carbon" dating method (if used in this case) is not so reliable as it was first thought to be. And two ... How does one actually say from current data; IF mountains were actually not under a specific levels of a rising ocean,... comsidering that "today" .. mountains are thousands of feet high with sea fossils and the oceans are 71 % of the worlds suface.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It depends on how one approaches this puzzling argument.

Yeah, whether you use the science as we currently understand it to try to understand the world OR whether you use JUST enough of the science to support your side. Such as saying fossils 'have to be rapidly buried' (+science), but ignoring 'under great pressure' (-science).

Two ways I would submit for suggestion to ponder on, is: by seeing your problem / argument; where one challenges the "actual" dating method i.e. the accuracy since for example the "carbon" dating method (if used in this case) is not so reiable as it was first thought to be.

So, you're going with 'minus-science.'
The use of scare quotes, to deride certain terms and concepts, for one.
For another, even if the Carbon Dating method you bring up turns out to be a complete hogwash, what, EXACTLY, does that mean for dating fossils?

And two ... How does one actually say from current data;

Well, look up something like, say, the entire science of geology to understand why they think current observations mean that the data supports what they say it does. MORE minus-science.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It depends on how one approaches this puzzling argument.

Like from a sense of humor or using science?

Two ways I would submit for suggestion to ponder on, is: by seeing your problem / argument; where one challenges the "actual" dating method i.e. the accuracy since for example the "carbon" dating method (if used in this case) is not so reliable as it was first thought to be.

Keith never references the age of the fossil, but instead remarks about the process required to create a fossil.

And two ... How does one actually say from current data; IF mountains were actually not under a specific levels of a rising ocean.,... comsidering that "today" .. mountains are thousands of feet high with sea fossils and the oceans are 71 % of the worlds suface.

So at what point do we have the conditions that allows bedrock to form, around what will become a fossil... during a global flood?

 

[Worldtraveller]

Creationists using mountaintop fossils to try to justify the flood myth are some of the worst hypocrits. The assumptions that the fossils on top of mountains justify their false belief is based on assuming 1) mountains are always mountains (i.e. ignoring all of geology) 2) that something just has to be buried and it magically becomes a fossil (ignoring geology and other processes).

Yet, when various radiometric tests (not carbon dating) show that the fossils are millions of years old, they want to be able to claim that 'things were different' then (assuming they don't just outright accuse scientists of lying). But then their argument falls apart because the mountains weren't necessarily mountains then, either.

Keep trying to have it both ways.

Science, on the other hand, relies on consilience. That's why the curves agree.

 

[Sarpedon]

And how do they explain the absence of terrestrial fossils in the ocean? Wouldn't the same forces that wash the shells up the mountains wash the cows, the ocelots, the snakes, the people out into the ocean? And if flood conditions cause fossilization, wouldn't it also happen in what is now the ocean? (you can't make a distinction between conditions between land and ocean during the Flood!)

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Fossils do not take great pressure etc. Some years ago, I was camping out on a beach in Texas. It a dune near me I found a chunk of what had been driftwood. It was shot through with silicon, SiO2, where the wood had been partially fossilized. As to predation, 14 million years ago, megladon, the largest shark that ever lived swam the sea. It had serrated teeth, not unlike great white sharks of today. Fossil whale bones have been discovered showing prominent serrated teeth marks, obviously from megladon. Marine reptiles, mosasaur fossils, have been found whose stomachs had contained bone fragment from smaller mosasaurs, fish, and sharks teeth, demonstrating predation.

 

[bilby]

I like it when creationists talk about the carbon dating of fossils. It is a nice, simple, and plain indicator that they are totally ignorant of what radiometric dating entails, how it works, how fossils form, how fossils are dated, and indeed almost every relevant area of knowledge.

If you think carbon dating is relevant to the dating of fossils, then you are as qualified to have an opinion as someone whose input into the best design for a wheel concentrates on what colour it should be.

 

[Bronzeage]

Presenting seashells which are found far from the ocean as evidence of the Flood of Genesis, only impresses other Creationists. Naturalists and scientists have not entertained this fantasy for the last 150 years, or so. Presenting scientific evidence to creationists is a waste of time.

 

[atrib]

It depends on how one approaches this puzzling argument. Two ways I would submit for suggestion to ponder on, is: by seeing your problem / argument; where one challenges the "actual" dating method i.e. the accuracy since for example the "carbon" dating method (if used in this case) is not so reliable as it was first thought to be. And two ... How does one actually say from current data; IF mountains were actually not under a specific levels of a rising ocean,... comsidering that "today" .. mountains are thousands of feet high with sea fossils and the oceans are 71 % of the worlds suface.

You imply that radiometric dating methods do not provide reliable results, but you don't provide any data or analyses to support this claim. In fact, you likely have no idea how radiometric dating works. Based on your posting history I would say that you lack even a basic understanding of the sciences associated with the study of fossils, be it physics, biology, paleontology or geology. You hold certain spiritual beliefs that you want to defend, but lacking the knowledge and the reasoning ability needed to challenge scientific findings that contradict your beliefs, you resort to posting garbled and confusing nonsense.

Would you say that is a fair summary of what is going on here?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I live on a terrace formation, lots of gravel and the kind of soil and rock found in river bottoms but well above sea level. The deposits were placed here by glaciers as I understand it.

If a big magical flood caused the ground to be like it is where I live it would contain oodles of terrestrial debris, so too those mountaintop deposits. But it doesn't, and neither do those mountaintop deposits, demonstrating quite convincingly that they weren't put there by a magical flood.

Tsunamis and their signatures do occur, however.

Just another example of religionists attempting to use science to disprove science.

 

[skepticalbip]

Presenting seashells which are found far from the ocean as evidence of the Flood of Genesis, only impresses other Creationists. Naturalists and scientists have not entertained this fantasy for the last 150 years, or so. Presenting scientific evidence to creationists is a waste of time.

Of course it is a waste. The Bible says nothing about tectonic plates or plate uplift where they collide so it is not true. Anyone who would believe such nonsense is just accepting atheistic hand waving.

 

[steve_bank]

This one is a no brainer.

It is clear from geological evidence deserts today were once seas. Thet were covered by water but not at the same time.

You can find marine fossils in deserts. Monument Valley in the USA has gigantic structures carved by ancient waters.

Dinosaurs roamed whqt we call the USA.

There is evidence of massive floods originating in the mid west running to the Pacific. Evidence indicates a larger water build up behind an ice dam that periodically ruptured.

Here in Washington the sediment led to a great wine region in Eastern Washington.

There are crocodile and tortoise fossils in the arctic.

It can be a long list. The fact that there are marine fossils on mountains is consistent with geology and archeology.

There are marine fossils in the Sahara. There are periods when the Sahara is wet and green. It is depicted in cave drawings found in modern times. It explains how humans were able to pass from Africa to Europe and elsewhere.

 

[James Brown]

Presenting seashells which are found far from the ocean as evidence of the Flood of Genesis, only impresses other Creationists. Naturalists and scientists have not entertained this fantasy for the last 150 years, or so. Presenting scientific evidence to creationists is a waste of time.

I know it may seem that way, but this former Young Earth Creationist was converted to Old Earth Creationism thanks to online opponents making the case for the scientific evidence.


Index of Creationist Claims
CC364: Marine fossils on mountaintops

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Presenting seashells which are found far from the ocean as evidence of the Flood of Genesis, only impresses other Creationists. Naturalists and scientists have not entertained this fantasy for the last 150 years, or so. Presenting scientific evidence to creationists is a waste of time.

Of course it is a waste. The Bible says nothing about tectonic plates or plate uplift where they collide so it is not true.

Actually in the day of Pele the world became divided. There was a little lag in the tectonics splitting apart quite suddenly and in a large way. So much so, they mention it as an aside.

 

[bilby]

Presenting seashells which are found far from the ocean as evidence of the Flood of Genesis, only impresses other Creationists. Naturalists and scientists have not entertained this fantasy for the last 150 years, or so. Presenting scientific evidence to creationists is a waste of time.

Of course it is a waste. The Bible says nothing about tectonic plates or plate uplift where they collide so it is not true.

Actually in the day of Pele the world became divided. There was a little lag in the tectonics splitting apart quite suddenly and in a large way. So much so, they mention it as an aside.

It's a little strange that they fail to mention that they all died from the earthquakes and tsunamis the sudden large plate movement caused.

I mean, one of the most comprehensively studied large tectonic shifts in modern times was the Tohōku megathrust earthquake that occurred off the coast of Japan on 11 March 2011. It generated a tsunami over 40 metres high.

It was the result of a tectonic plate movement of just 2.4m across a 500km front.

To separate the Americas from Africa/Europe would imply a quake (or series of quakes) across a front two hundred times as long, with a plate movement a thousand times as large.

Unless this amount of movement occurred very gradually over thousands of millions of years, it would produce some spectacular earthquakes and tsunamis. If it happened in less than ten thousand years, it's unlikely that any life would have survived in either the Americas, Africa, or Europe - and we haven't even started to consider the simultaneous effects of other inter-plate rifts, subduction zones, and other faults.

Like most religious tales, this one makes perfect sense, as long as you completely ignore several well studied areas of human knowledge. That is, you could be forgiven for believing it, but only if you were subject to a pre-industrial level of education about how reality actually works.

Yet again, we see that knowing stuff is the cure for religion; And that religions can only survive by demanding ignorance of their followers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually in the day of Peleg the world became divided. There was a little lag in the tectonics splitting apart quite suddenly and in a large way. So much so, they mention it as an aside.

It's a little strange that they fail to mention that they all died from the earthquakes and tsunamis the sudden large plate movement caused.

I mean, one of the most comprehensively studied large tectonic shifts in modern times was the Tohōku megathrust earthquake that occurred off the coast of Japan on 11 March 2011. It generated a tsunami over 40 metres high.

It was the result of a tectonic plate movement of just 2.4m across a 500km front.

To separate the Americas from Africa/Europe would imply a quake (or series of quakes) across a front two hundred times as long, with a plate movement a thousand times as large.

Unless this amount of movement occurred very gradually over thousands of millions of years, it would produce some spectacular earthquakes and tsunamis. If it happened in less than ten thousand years, it's unlikely that any life would have survived in either the Americas, Africa, or Europe - and we haven't even started to consider the simultaneous effects of other inter-plate rifts, subduction zones, and other faults.

Like most religious tales, this one makes perfect sense, as long as you completely ignore several well studied areas of human knowledge. That is, you could be forgiven for believing it, but only if you were subject to a pre-industrial level of education about how reality actually works.

Yet again, we see that knowing stuff is the cure for religion; And that religions can only survive by demanding ignorance of their followers.

That is nothing a bit of evangelical zest can't do away with. The obvious big issue with YEC trying to use science is they deny very slow processes of plate tectonics and evolution, which then requires them to embrace wickedly fast processes of plate tectonics and evolution and hope no one notices the absolute lunacy of their positions.