Limestone And Trilobite Fossils On Mt. Everest

[Crispus 0]

During the fated George Mallory expedition geologist Noel Odell thought he found fossils about two thousand feet below the summit of Mt. Everest. Odell later stated that supposed fossils found in 1924 at 25,500 feet on Mt. Everest were not fossils but cone in cone structures. (1) But, fossil fragments in the fine-grained limestone from the summit of Mount Everest were brought back by Swiss explorers in 1956 and American explorers in 1963. Mt Everest and its neighboring peaks are capped by sedimentary limestone which is composed largely of calcite, the primary source of which is commonly marine organisms. Fossils that have been found in limestone beds around the world include brachiopods, ammonites, belemnites, foraminifera and radiolarians with the most common being brachiopods. Goniatite fossils, an extinct ammonite, have been found in limestone layers in Western Ireland indicating rapid burial and formation.

 

On the University of Oxford, Department of Earth Sciences website is an example of a fine-grained limestone from the summit of Gyachung Kang containing fossil fragments (see photo on the left). Gyachung Kang is about twenty miles from Everest and its summit is 26,089 feet above sea level. In an abstract of a paper about Geology of the summit limestone of Mount Everest it says “Newly discovered peloidal limestone from the summit of Mount Qomolangma (Mount Everest) contains skeletal fragments of trilobites, ostracods and crinoids." (2)

 

Crinoids are marine animals that live in both shallow water and water as deep as 6000 meters and ostracods are small crustaceans. Everest was under water at one time and the only way fossils exist on Mt. Everest is from a lack of oxygen which would mean rapid mountain building and high altitude. Fossilization is a result of rapid burial and removal from oxygen. Trilobites are believed by evolutionary scientists to have been extinct since the late Permian period, some 250 million years ago. Some sources say they went extinct in the late Devonian extinction about 364 mya. At that altitude fossils may have not lasted for millions of years even with lower levels of oxygen.

 

In an article about Mt. Everest on earthobservatory.nasa.gov it says this:

 

"When this land mass came close to Asia, it started to push up the land ahead of it, forming a large shallow ocean with rich ocean life. The bones and shells of the plants and animals in this shallow ocean formed limestone and left fossils. As the land mass continued to plow north and collide with Asia, the ocean was slowly raised up and drained, eventually being lifted up to form the Himalayan Mountains." (3)

 

This explanation is inadequate because taphonomy requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen. Everest was not uplifted slowly over millions of years but quickly. The question is not whether the Himalayas are still rising but what effect did the rain, sleet, hail and strong winds at 29,000 feet, and lower levels, have on limestone and fossils on Mt. Everest over 45 million years? Even with reduced oxygen it still would inhibit fossilization. If Everest was raised slowly and its summit was at a few thousand feet for hundreds of thousands, or millions, of years the sea creatures wouldn't have been fossilized and there are ammonite fossils at 12,000 feet above sea level. See Visual Evidences of Himalayan Formation at library.thinkquest.org. If these were fossilized several million years ago how did they survive landslides and glacier melting, which may have triggered a powerful flood or floods?

 

A four year study of the interaction of climate, erosion and tectonic deformation of the north and south sides of the Himalayas was completed in 2003. Scientists from seven universities worked with the Nepalese Department of Hydrology and Meteorology on the project. One of the team members was Ann Blythe who, at that time, was an assistant reasearch professor at the University of Southern California. She used fission-track dating and estimated the amount of time rocks cooled from deep in the earth crusts to surface temperatures was about 500,000 years. From her results it was also estimated that between two to four miles of rock are eroded from the Himalaya every million years (4). It is generally accepted that the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate about 45 to 55 million years ago (5). Even if the Himalayas didn't emerge from tethys ocean until millions of years later, many miles of rock would have been eroded from Everest and other mountains in the Himalayas because they are being uplifted and eroded at the same time. If the trilobites in limestone on the summit of Mt. Everest were buried rapidly about 250 mya and survived the process of orogeny they still would have had to be buried under miles of rock which has been eroded. On the page about orgoney, or mountain building, on wikipedia it says erosion removes much of the mountains exposing the mountain roots which were several kilometers deep in the earth's crust (6). Yet, in our time, trilobites and limestone happen to be on Mt. Everest's summit, about 29,000 feet above sea level.

 

"The biases inherent in the fossil record stem from the fact that fossilization of organic material is the exception, not the rule, and very specific and relatively rare conditions must be met for an organism to become fossilized. Fossilization favors organisms with hard parts, for example, an exterior shell (exoskeleton) or internal skeleton (endoskeleton). Fossilization also favors organisms living in certain environments. Two particular environmental conditions favor fossilization: rapid burial and anoxia (lack of oxygen). Rapid burial protects organic remains from predators or scavengers and physical reworking by tides and waves. Oxygen supports bacteria and decomposition of organic material. Burial in an oxygen-free (reducing) environment insulates organic material from decay and thus favors fossilization."

(Geology, Vol. 1, edited by James A. Woodhead, Salem Press, 1999, p. 259)

 

See also Taphonomy: Death Is a Sure Bet, Fossilization Is a Long Shot by S. Aaron Spriggs of Colorado State University.

 

In the counter-creationism handbook Mark Isaak said "Few if any of the "anomalous" fossils are truly anomalous. It is fairly common for fossils to erode out of an old formation and be redeposited in a younger formation. Pollen, spores, and other very small fossils can also be blown or washed into tiny cracks to appear in older formations" (7). In the Handy Geology Answer Book it says “Unfortunately, there are many gaps in the fossil records, with whole eras or evolutionary stages missing. The loss of these precious fossils is most often the result of erosion. The action of water, ice, wind, and other erosional agents wears away layers of rock and the embedded fossils" (8).

 

So on the one hand wind and water are the reason that very small fossils such as pollen and spores are redeposited to younger strata. But when much larger fossils are removed from their strata they are destroyed by the very elements that moved small fossils which somehow survived!! If erosion can have that effect on exposed fossils why hasn't the limestone on Mt. Everest been worn away by rain, sleet, hail, and strong winds that exist at 29,000 feet and at lower altitudes as it rose over 45 million years? It is believed that mountains begin to form when pelagic sedimentation, a mix of organic and inorganic sediments, was deposited on the ocean floor. Over time the sediments build up and as plates collide the sediments are thrust upward and eventually form mountains. The limestone on mountains was originally pelagic sedimentation and most of the calcite in limestone is from marine organisms. Because of the nature of fossilization, fossils in the limestone on Mt. Everest were preserved quickly and the limestone must have been formed rapidly, perhaps through an earthquake under the ocean floor and redeposition. These fossils would have had to been preserved for 250 million years or longer in spite of mountain building and erosion.

 

You covered it with the deep as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight; they flowed over the mountains, they went down into the valleys, to the place you assigned for them. You set a boundary they cannot cross; never again will they cover the earth. (Psalm 104:6-9, NIV).

 

Genesis 7:19 says all the high mountains, or hills, under the entire heavens were covered. There are fossils and marine sediments on mountain ranges all over the world including the Himalayas, Alps, Andes, Ural, Altai, Appalachian and Rocky Mountains (9).

 

1. The highest fossils in the world by N.E. Odell, Geological Magazine, January 1967; v. 104; no. 1; pp. 73-74

 

2. Geology of the summit limestone of Mount Qomolangma (Everest) and cooling history of the Yellow Band under the Qomolangma detachment - The Island Arc, Volume 14, Issue 4, December 21, 2005, pp. 297-310

 

3. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3499

 

4. Erosion and precipitation in the Himalayas - http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1075

 

5. Correlation of Himalayan exhumation rates and Asian monsoon intensity

www.abdn.ac.uk/~wpg008/Cliftetal2008NatureGeosci.pdf

 

6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orogeny

 

7. The counter-creationism handbook by Mark Isaak, p. 133

 

8. The Handy Geology Answer Book by Patricia Barnes-Svarney and Thomas E. Svarney, p. 145

 

9. http://koti.phnet.fi/elohim/theflood2.html

[scott 3]

Trilobites are on Mt. Everst??? I did not know this, but I did think there were some type of bivalves located on Mt. Everest. Do you have anymore information on this?

[Crispus 0]

I found an abstract of the paper on a couple of web sites. It was published in The Island Arc of December 21, 2005. Unfortunately the full paper isn't online though it can can be purchased.

 

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...ETRY=1&SRETRY=0

 

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/...02?crawler=true

[jason777 1]

Did you also know that the cambrian burgess shale is ~14,000 ft. above sea level,in the Canadian rockies?

[Crispus 0]

Yes. I've saved a lot of info about the global flood and posted it on several forums. I wrote that the Burgess Shale is located in the Canadian Rockies and is 7,400 above sea level but I'm probably mistaken. This is what I've posted.

 

The Burgess shale formation in Canada is unique because it contains many fossils of soft bodied organisms. There are fossils of sponges, various worm-like phyla (annelids and priapulids), brachiopods, echinoderms, chordates, and mollusks as well as algae. One of the algae is morania confluens which easily disintegrates over time. In an anaerobic environment marine invertebrates normally curl up when they die but those found in the Burgess Shale do not exhibit this coiling (1).

 

In a paper about the Burgess Shale, James W. Hagadorn, assistant professor of geology at Amherst College, says "Rapid burial, low oxygenation, and early diagenetic clay replacement of carcasses allowed the preservation of a variety of soft- and hard-bodied organisms representing most major marine phyla...." (2) Many of these fossils left carbon films showing marine creatures were fossilized rapidly. This has caused a problem for evolutionary scientists who have tried to explain how carbonization could have occurred over a long period of time. Since fossilization requires rapid burial and removal from oxygen and shale is formed from compaction then logically the Burgess Shale was formed rapidly.

 

The fossils in the Burgess Shale formation are said to be from the middle Cambrian period which brings to mind Dawkins statement that most of the major invertebrate groups found in Cambrian strata appear in an advanced state of evolution as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history (3). Evolutionists believe these fossil deposits were formed when part of a muddy ocean floor slid downward creating an anaerobic environment favorable to fossilization.

 

1. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/burgess.html

 

2. Burgess Shale: Cambrian Explosion in Full Bloom by James W. Hagadorn

http://www3.amherst.edu/~jwhagadorn/publications/Lag2.pdf

 

3. The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, Penguin Science, 1991, reprint, p. 229.

 

Again, the question is what effect would orogeny and erosion have on these formations over a period of 250 million years or more?

[jason777 1]

Thanks Crispus,

 

I don't know the exact altitude of the burgess shale,all I did know is that it's on top of the rockies in Canda,so it must be pretty high up.

 

Thanks for the links,I like studying the cambrian explosion when I have time.

[Crispus 0]

Previously I said it is generally accepted that the Indian plate collided with the Eurasian plate about 45 to 55 million years ago. The reference I gave was from a paper published in Nature Geoscience in December, 2008. In the beginning of the paper it says....

 

"Although most data suggest that the India-Eurasia continental collision began ~ 45–55 Myr ago, the architecture of the Himalayan-Tibetan orogen is dominated by deformational structures developed in the Neogen period (< 23 Myr ago). The stratigraphic record and thermochronometric data indicate that the erosion of the Himalaya intensified as this constructional phase began and reached a peak around 15 Myr ago. It remained high until ~ 10.5 Myr ago and subsequently slowed gradually to ~ 3.5 Myr ago, but then began to increase once again in the Late Pliocene and Pleistocene epochs." *

 

If the estimates of erosion from Ann Blythe's data are accurate and we accept two miles of eroded rock every Myr then the peloidal limestone with skeletal fragments of trilobite, ostracod and crinoid fossils would have been buried under many miles of rock which have since been eroded. Also, there is a 500 foot thick band of yellow schistose limestone called the Yellow Band at 27500 ft on Mt. Everest which also would have been buried under miles of rock which has since been eroded. All this would have been deep under the ocean's floor and tilobites supposedly went extinct at least 250 Myr ago.

 

* Correlation of Himalayan exhumation rates and Asian monsoon intensity, Nature Geoscience 1, 875 - 880 (2008)

 

www.abdn.ac.uk/~wpg008/Cliftetal2008NatureGeosci.pdf

 

See also http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...81109193349.htm

[assist24 0]

If the estimates of erosion from Ann Blythe's data are accurate and we accept two miles of eroded rock every Myr then the peloidal limestone with skeletal fragments of trilobite, ostracod and crinoid fossils would have been buried under many miles of rock which have since been eroded. Also, there is a 500 foot thick band of yellow schistose limestone called the Yellow Band at 27500 ft on Mt. Everest which also would have been buried under miles of rock which has since been eroded. All this would have been deep under the ocean's floor and tilobites supposedly went extinct at least 250 Myr ago.

Hi Crispus!

 

it's obvious you put a lot of time into this, but I'm afraid you may have made a very serious error. Drawing on my admittedly weak college geo knowledge, the modern understanding of the plate tectonic forces that formed Everest don't posit that the material on top of the mountains today was at its same latitude and longitude for the last 50+ million years. As the plates collided, the front edges of the plates were pushed and stacked up (like the crumpled front sheet metal on a colliding car) and eroded down, but new material is constantly being supplied from the moving plates (>5 cm/year) themselves, like a giant conveyor belt. The material that is exposed at 29,000' altitude on Everest today was hundreds of miles away and thousands of feet lower when the process started 50+ million years ago.

 

 

Consequently, there is no need for the trilobites or yellow band limestone exposed on the top now to ever had been buried under miles of granite. Here is my own (possibly poor) analogy:

 

Imagine taking a horizontally oriented 20' long 1x10 plank and hammering nails in it every inch along its length. Then imagine applying a bending force on it so the front 10' was bent vertically. Even if you cut off the top 5' of the vertical segment, you'll still encounter nails near the top, 5' off the ground. You can easily see that the exposed nails didn't have to be buried under 5' of wood.

 

Hopefully this will be useful and you can research this more to correct your misunderstandings.

[Crispus 0]

Hi Crispus! 

 

it's obvious you put a lot of time into this, but I'm afraid you may have made a very serious error.   Drawing on my admittedly weak college geo knowledge, the modern understanding of the plate tectonic forces that formed Everest don't posit that the material on top of the mountains today was at its same latitude and longitude for the last 50+ million years. As the plates collided, the front edges of the plates were pushed and stacked up (like the crumpled front sheet metal on a colliding car) and eroded down, but new material is constantly being supplied from the moving plates (>5 cm/year)  themselves, like a giant conveyor belt. The material that is exposed at 29,000' altitude on Everest today was hundreds of miles away and thousands of feet lower when the process started 50+ million years ago.

Thanks for the info assist24. Someone on another board provided a link for an informative paper about the orogeny of the Himalayas which described the process similarly.

 

In 1987 scientists found whale fossils and fossils of other marine cretaures in sediments in the Andes mountains. This was at an altitude of more than 5,000 feet.

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...750C0A961948260

 

The man who wrote the article for the N.Y. times is Malcolm W. Browne who has worked as a science reporter and a senior editor for Discover Magazine. In that article he said "Assemblages comparable to this are virtually unknown in the Andes, he said, since geological upthrusting generally destroys fossil beds." Even if the fragments of trilobite, ostracod and crinoid fossils survived the geological upthrusting it doesn't take erosion into account. This is from an article I cited earlier:

 

"Using a mineral-dating technique called fission-track dating, co-author Ann Blythe at the University of Southern California showed that it took about a half a million years for Himalayan rocks to cool from about 280 degrees Fahrenheit to surface temperatures. Because temperatures of 280 degrees occur one to two miles deep in the crust, Blythe's dating implies that two to four miles of rock are eroded from the Himalaya every million years."

 

http://www.ia.ucsb.edu/pa/display.aspx?pkey=1075

 

I don't know how else to understand this except two to four miles of vertical rock have been eroded every million years. In the paper called 'Correlation of Himalayan exhumation rates and Asian monsoon intensity' it says erosion of the Himalayas intensified as the constructional phase began and peak about 15 million years ago. Given the amount of erosion that would have occurred over that period of time fossils of marine creatures shouldn't be there or else the results of the fission-track dating are not accurate.

[de_skudd 41]

Trilobites are on Mt. Everst???  I did not know this, but I did think there were some type of bivalves located on Mt. Everest.  Do you have anymore information on this?

25846[/snapback]

WHAT?!?!?!?!? Trilobites are on Mt. Everst???

[Robert Byers 0]

Love that article on the andes. Yet this creationist would see this death assemblage as a post flood event a few centuries after the flood. The creatures including the whale are the tip off. I see the whole spine of the new world as exploding and moving up and the origin of much post flood fossilization and the origin of the ice age.

 

About everest it must be remembered it was only thrown up by the colliding continents during the flood year.

Its not a clue as to the height of water.

So it brought up or caught up in water flow whatever was in the area just before the rise.

NO problem with any fossil or rock type found on everest.

[Guest loveslife]

About everest it must be remembered it was only thrown up by the colliding continents ....NO problem with any fossil or rock type found on everest.

27940[/snapback]

I just stripped away some of the fluff so now your words are completely accurate.

[scott 3]

I just stripped away some of the fluff so now your words are completely accurate.

28010[/snapback]

Colliding continents wasn't witnessed, it was assumed, so assumptions are still fluff until proven otherwise...understand??? Good.

 

Now, This may have happened under water, while the sediment was still soft, this could have created mountains in a rather short time. Evolutionist Worshippers require millions, billions, gabillions, and trillions of years for EVERYTHING to happen... so those many years are fluff also... Meaning faith based, not evidence based as the evolutionist worshippers would have people believe.

 

It is no problem, for a Global Flood to cover these mountains anyways, simply because even at an extreme height, oxygen would not be a problem simply because all the water in equal amounts globally, would push the oxygen outward.

[Robert Byers 0]

Colliding continents wasn't witnessed, it was assumed, so assumptions are still fluff until proven otherwise...understand??? Good.

 

Now, This may have happened under water, while the sediment was still soft, this could have created mountains in a rather short time.  Evolutionist Worshippers require millions, billions, gabillions, and trillions of years for EVERYTHING to happen... so those many years are fluff also... Meaning faith based, not evidence based as the evolutionist worshippers would have people believe.

 

It is no problem, for a Global Flood to cover these mountains anyways, simply because even at an extreme height, oxygen would not be a problem simply because all the water in equal amounts globally, would push the oxygen outward.

28027[/snapback]

I don't know if we agree. This creationist sees mts like this only from the collisions of moving/tearing continents during the flood year.

Therefore we don't have large pre flood mts and don't need deep water to cover the whole earth.

 

Therefore the mts sprung up with anything they had on them when close to the floor and so the fossils there are now on top of the great mts.

[pdw709 1]

Colliding continents wasn't witnessed, it was assumed, so assumptions are still fluff until proven otherwise...understand??? Good.

 

The evidence for colliding continents and with it the general theory of plate tectonics is overwhelming (the theory is as strong as that as Gravity). As previously stated, the Himalayas were formed due to the collision of the Indian and Eurasion continental plates, and this collision is still happening today as Mt Everest is still rising (albeit slowly and only a few mm a year). The movement of these plates can be directly measured and supports the notion that the collision started millions of years ago. This is entirely consistant within an old Earth timeline..........understand??? Good.

[Adam Nagy 49]

The evidence for colliding continents and with it the general theory of plate tectonics is overwhelming (the theory is as strong as that as Gravity). As previously stated, the Himalayas were formed due to the collision of the Indian and Eurasion continental plates, and this collision is still happening today as Mt Everest is still rising (albeit slowly and only a few mm a year). The movement of these plates can be directly measured and supports the notion that the collision started millions of years ago. This is entirely consistant within an old Earth timeline..........understand??? Good.

28975[/snapback]

...and the underlying and untenable assumption here...

 

Uniformitarianism

 

This is easily debunked as unscientific the moment you apply it to things that can be verified correctly but calculated poorly using uniformitarian assumptions. Steve Austin offers an illustration that is worth its weight in gold to show how foolish it is to assume that all geology can be reversed and calculated based on present day observations... the idea that all things continue as they were (2 Peter 3:4).

 

In short the illustration works like this. If space aliens came to our planet to do research on high school student age based on physical data what could they use? They could do a year long study and correlate height and weight gain based on present rates. They could verify and double check that their test results were accurate and they could average the results to generate a window for age based on current measurements. They discover that current growth rates indicate that the average high school student is 5 1/2 feet tall with a yearly growth rate of one inch per year. The math is easy, it indicates that the average high school student is 66 years old. They also discover that the average high school student is 145 pounds and they gain 2.5 pounds per year, which indicates that the average student is 58 years old. Well, they expected an error window so they go home with their well documented and very accurate results and tell their leaders that the average high school student on planet earth is between 55 and 70 years old to allow for a comfortable error window. Oh, they also tell their leaders that some pesky adults told them how flawed their results were because they knew that their high school students were all between the ages of 14 and 18. However the space aliens double checked their testable and repeatable data and verified that they could disregard the flawed testimonies of the adults.

 

Here is the seminar that I got a variation of that story from:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/vide...ge-of-the-earth

 

This is also a great talk to show that current ideas of geology are more philosophy driven than data driven:

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/vide...llions-of-years

[Richard Townsend 0]

...and the underlying and untenable assumption here...

 

Uniformitarianism

 

This is easily debunked as unscientific the moment you apply it to things that can be verified correctly but calculated poorly using uniformitarian assumptions. Steve Austin offers an illustration that is worth its weight in gold to show how foolish it is to assume that all geology can be reversed and calculated based on present day observations... the idea that all things continue as they were (2 Peter 3:4).

No assumption of uniformitarianism is required. Rock dating and comparison of geologies shows when the mountain building events happened. What happened isn't 'uniform' anyway - please see the below from http://science.jrank.org/pages/3335/Himala...ges-origin.html

 

Before the Jurassic Period (180 million years ago), India, South America, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica were united as one giant, southern "super continent" called Gondwanaland or Gondwana. In Jurassic times, this super continent began to break into fragments that moved away from each other. India began to move northward toward Eurasia, but, between the Eurasian Plate and the Indian Plate, was the Tethys Trench which was a deep ocean. The Indian Plate moved to the north over the course of 130 million years; in the Tertiary Period (50 million years ago), it finally collided with Eurasia. Collisions like this between continents typically take millions of years and involve volcanism, seismic activity, metamorphism (changes) of rocks due to intense pressure, and episodes of mountain-building. Scientists have been able to use the metamorphic rocks in the Himalayas to date these events by measuring radioactivity remaining in the rocks.

[Adam Nagy 49]

No assumption of uniformitarianism is required.

28985[/snapback]

You're right it's not required and I would say it is flawed. However, this is exactly what is assumed for long geological ages and you haven't demonstrated otherwise.

 

Don't getting me wrong even the uniformitarians throw in the possibility of small local catastrophes, to appear open minded, but the proof is in the pudding when discussing historically recorded global events. A consideration like this is stark verboten! The only evidnece allowed is currently observed movement, erosion and deposition rates. After all, according to popular thinking today, the present is the key to the past, and history turns into mythology based on scientists using flawed methods and sketchy observations at best.

 

I believe that Walt Brown has a far better theory of the current state of the planet...

 

[Youtube]zKO-vTwYCo8

 

...yet this must be scoffed at and dismissed with gnat straining expeditions. Why? Well, it supports the Bible's history... and we can't have answers that actually confirm the Bible.

 

I hope you consider those other links I provided. You may find them interesting. I would strongly recommend the work of Steve Austin and others like Gary Parker because they came to there opinions based on initial educations that prescribed to the uniformitarian/evolution dogma.

 

Adam

[jason777 1]

You can always find evidence that contradicts yesterdays "known facts" about the geologic history of the Himalayas.

 

ScienceDaily (June 12, 2008) — About 15,000 feet up on Tibet's desolate Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau, an international research team led by Florida State University geologist Yang Wang was surprised to find thick layers of ancient lake sediment filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower elevations and warmer, wetter climates.

 

Back at the FSU-based National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the fossils revealed the animals' diet (abundant plants) and the reason for their demise during the late Pliocene era in the region (a drastic climate change). Paleo-magnetic study determined the sample's age (a very young 2 or 3 million years old).

 

That fossil evidence from the rock desert and cold, treeless steppes that now comprise Earth's highest land mass suggests a literally groundbreaking possibility:

 

Major tectonic changes on the Tibetan Plateau may have caused it to attain its towering present-day elevations -- rendering it inhospitable to the plants and animals that once thrived there -- as recently as 2-3 million years ago, not millions of years earlier than that, as geologists have generally believed. The new evidence calls into question the validity of methods commonly used by scientists to reconstruct the past elevations of the region.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80611144021.htm

 

So much for yesterdays uniformitairian dating methods,but uniformitairianism must still be the answer.Even though,the Creationists predicted exponetial decline before the evidence was found.

[Richard Townsend 0]

You can always find evidence that contradicts yesterdays "known facts" about the geologic history of the Himalayas.

 

ScienceDaily (June 12, 2008)  About 15,000 feet up on Tibet's desolate Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau, an international research team led by Florida State University geologist Yang Wang was surprised to find thick layers of ancient lake sediment filled with plant, fish and animal fossils typical of far lower elevations and warmer, wetter climates.

 

Back at the FSU-based National High Magnetic Field Laboratory, analysis of carbon and oxygen isotopes in the fossils revealed the animals' diet (abundant plants) and the reason for their demise during the late Pliocene era in the region (a drastic climate change). Paleo-magnetic study determined the sample's age (a very young 2 or 3 million years old).

 

That fossil evidence from the rock desert and cold, treeless steppes that now comprise Earth's highest land mass suggests a literally groundbreaking possibility:

 

Major tectonic changes on the Tibetan Plateau may have caused it to attain its towering present-day elevations -- rendering it inhospitable to the plants and animals that once thrived there -- as recently as 2-3 million years ago, not millions of years earlier than that, as geologists have generally believed. The new evidence calls into question the validity of methods commonly used by scientists to reconstruct the past elevations of the region.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80611144021.htm

 

So much for yesterdays uniformitairian dating methods,but uniformitairianism must still be the answer.Even though,the Creationists predicted exponetial decline before the evidence was found.

29000[/snapback]

Yes, I do remember seeing that a while back now you mention it. I don't know why you mention uniformitarianism in this context - what's happened is new evidence has been found that contradicts the previous picture. That happens all the time. Something is wrong with the old model, or the new data. Uniformitarianism isn't assumed by EITHER view (new or old) on the age of the uplift - this is derived from dating evidence primarily in both cases.

[Adam Nagy 49]

...this is derived from dating evidence primarily in both cases.

29041[/snapback]

Something tells me you may be having trouble connecting some critical dots here. The "dating evidence" that you mention above when used to declare old earth concepts always, and I mean ALWAYS, have the assumption of uniformitarianism lurking in the equation.

[Robert Byers 0]

Yes, I do remember seeing that a while back now you mention it.  I don't know why you mention uniformitarianism in this context - what's happened is new evidence has been found that contradicts the previous picture. That happens all the time. Something is wrong with the old model, or the new data. Uniformitarianism isn't assumed by EITHER view (new or old) on the age of the uplift - this is derived from dating evidence primarily in both cases.

29041[/snapback]

If the old model is wrong then the operative word is WRONG.

These things are always shown wrong with just a few new data points by a few people.

This shows the lack of science or competence done in origin subjects.

Everything is untestable and stays in the books until some new information also untestable overthrows the original gibberish.

All of modern geology has been poorly studied because of presumptions upon presumptions. Then they are forced to admit to some new change and the poverty of thier original models comes out.

Nothing in geology books today should be seen as likely there next year.

Yet they use this geology as scientific expertise against creationism.

Creationism is well done but our opponents failures help too.

[digitalartist 1]

About everest it must be remembered it was only thrown up by the colliding continents during the flood year.

Its not a clue as to the height of water.

So it brought up or caught up in water flow whatever was in the area just before the rise.

NO problem with any fossil or rock type found on everest.

27940[/snapback]

Sorry but with no proof that it actually happened then and not earlier it is pure conjecture and unsupported.

 

Also Deuteronomy 33:15 refers to mountains as ancient.

[digitalartist 1]

It is no problem, for a Global Flood to cover these mountains anyways, simply because even at an extreme height, oxygen would not be a problem simply because all the water in equal amounts globally, would push the oxygen outward.

28027[/snapback]

It is a problem for the biblical flood to cover mount Everest and still be believable. The day the flood waters started to recede is the day the ark comes to rest on Ararat. If the flood waters covered Everest, then the ark would have been thousands of feet above Ararat and would not have been able to come to rest

[scott 3]

It is a problem for the biblical flood to cover mount Everest and still be believable.  The day the flood waters started to recede is the day the ark comes to rest on Ararat.  If the flood waters covered Everest, then the ark would have been thousands of feet above Ararat and would not have been able to come to rest

29502[/snapback]

I don't see how it's a problem??? There are thousands of mountains all over the world. The ark just happened to rest on Mt. Ararat. I mean the Bible could have said that the ark landed on the Rocky Mountains in North America, but it just so happens that it landed on Mt.Ararat.

 

It's no problem to cover Everest, because this is a HUGE flood. It's covering the whole planet, not just someones back yard. Since oxygen is being pushed outwards then yes it's still believable.