Jump to content


Photo

Young Earth proofs, old earth attempts


  • Please log in to reply
121 replies to this topic

#1 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 08 March 2005 - 11:10 PM

Let's start with 10ft oytsers found on top of mt. everest.

#2 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 08 March 2005 - 11:22 PM

Hmm. My interpretation of this would be that there was a flood. See, these oysters that are 10ft across are not only found on top of Mt. Everest, but they are also petrified in the CLOSED position! When an oyster or clam dies, it always opens up, unless buried by sediments and petrified quickly. So, there was a flood, it washed a bunch of dirt on the oysters, the hydroplate theory happens, the mountains rise up, the valleys sink down, and you have 10 ft petrified oysters on top of Mt. Everest. Any other interpretations?

#3 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 09 March 2005 - 06:38 AM

Hmm. My interpretation of this would be that there was a flood. See, these oysters that are 10ft across are not only found on top of Mt. Everest, but they are also petrified in the CLOSED position! When an oyster or clam dies, it always opens up, unless buried by sediments and petrified quickly. So, there was a flood, it washed a bunch of dirt on the oysters, the hydroplate theory happens, the mountains rise up, the valleys sink down, and you have 10 ft petrified oysters on top of Mt. Everest. Any other interpretations?

View Post


That ‘s not an unreasonable scenario. Except, the flood was a local event (or an undersea landslide) and the process took millions of years.

#4 Drewser

Drewser

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Panhandle, Florida

Posted 09 March 2005 - 09:05 AM

The process took millions of years.

View Post


How? Fossilization can occur in a matter of days or weeks.

#5 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 09 March 2005 - 10:14 AM

Let's start with 10ft oytsers found on top of mt. everest.

View Post


These fossils are not only ON Mt. Everest, they are in the MIDDLE of the mountain. It is not as if oysters are just scattered around on the top of the moutain. The top of Mt. Everest is mainly limestone, a sedimentary rock that only forms at the rate of centimeters per year. From http://www.everestpe...est_history.php .

"Mount Everest, like the rest of the Himalayas, rose from the floor of the ancient Tethys Sea. The range was created when the Eurasian continental plate collided with the Indian subcontinental plate about 30 to 50 million years ago. Eventually the marine limestone was forced upward to become the characteristic yellow band on the top of Mount Everest. Beneath the shallow marine rock lies the highly metamorphosed black gneiss (foliated, or layered, rock) of the Precambrian era, a remnant of the original continental plates that collided and forced up the Himalayas."

YEC's must explain--

1. How this limestone can accumulate at thousands of times the observed rate, and also on top of other sedimentary features that would take long time periods to form.

2. How that limestone formed and then uplifted almost 5 miles up without turning the whole mountain into a pile of slag. If the mountain was already that high, then you must also explain why the entire mountain is not encased in a layer of limestone.

#6 Drewser

Drewser

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Age: 33
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Panhandle, Florida

Posted 09 March 2005 - 10:44 AM

YEC's must explain--

1.  How this limestone can accumulate at thousands of times the observed rate, and also on top of other sedimentary features that would take long time periods to form.

View Post


Hmmm. How do you know it takes thousands of years? Observation of "current" data? Is this similar to fossil formation rates, which have been observed over a broad spectrum of rates?

Your second statement is self-contradictory.

How that limestone formed and then uplifted almost 5 miles up without turning the whole mountain into a pile of slag. If the mountain was already that high, then you must also explain why the entire mountain is not encased in a layer of limestone.


If the mountain rose slowly over a long period of time, why then is it not covered in limestone as the top is?

#7 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 09 March 2005 - 10:48 AM

Hmm. My interpretation of this would be that there was a flood. See, these oysters that are 10ft across are not only found on top of Mt. Everest, but they are also petrified in the CLOSED position! When an oyster or clam dies, it always opens up, unless buried by sediments and petrified quickly. So, there was a flood, it washed a bunch of dirt on the oysters, the hydroplate theory happens, the mountains rise up, the valleys sink down, and you have 10 ft petrified oysters on top of Mt. Everest. Any other interpretations?

View Post


Your basic scenario is sound, just replace "hydroplate theory" with "plate tectonic theory".

There is good evidence that plate tectonics causes mountain building, and we can see and measure the process in operation today. Hydroplate "theory" is just conjecture, with no physical evidence to support it.

And the valleys were formed by erosion, not "sinking down". (there is abundant geological evidence to support this, also).

Nothing going on here that can't be explained in terms of modern, observable, and measureable mechanisms.

#8 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 09 March 2005 - 11:22 AM

Hmmm.  How do you know it takes thousands of years?  Observation of "current" data?  Is this similar to fossil formation rates, which have been observed over a broad spectrum of rates?


Show me one example of hundreds of meters of limestone forming in one year. The fact of the matter is that the carbonate that makes up limestone comes from organisms. It also takes time for the limestone to lithify. There is simply not enough time in the "Flood Year" for this to happen.

Your second statement is self-contradictory.
If the mountain rose slowly over a long period of time, why then is it not covered in limestone as the top is?

View Post


As an analogy, find a rug and push on the edge of the rug parallel with the floor below it. What you find is that ridges form on the rug. This is what happened to the entire Himilayas. To form limestone you need flat areas under water. What the collision of the Indian and Asian plates caused was up lift and ridge formation. Mt. Everest is still moving 27 millimeters per year towards the center of Asia as the Indian Plate continues to force it's way in that same direction. The Himilayas themselves are still growing upwards at 2.4 inches a year. There is a good overview here.

#9 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 09 March 2005 - 12:10 PM

How?  Fossilization can occur in a matter of days or weeks.

View Post


You have a point about the fossilization rate of the clam, since the shell is primarily calcium carbonate, it’s pretty much a fossil as soon as that slimy gob in the middle dies. The millions of years come into play in the sedimentation and uplifting process.

#10 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 March 2005 - 03:58 PM

You have a point about the fossilization rate of the clam, since the shell is primarily calcium carbonate, it’s pretty much a fossil as soon as that slimy gob in the middle dies. The millions of years come into play in the sedimentation and uplifting process.

View Post


This doesn't explain why we almost always find clams in the closed position. This is clear, undeniable evidence that they were buried alive, not slowly. I found this out from experience (no, I wasn't buried alive :blink: ). The first time my family and I went to the beach we picked up all kinds of seashells and brought them back to our room. A little while later the things started to stink! :wacko: We found out that the closed ones were still alive. When they die, they invariably open up.

I've pulled many a marine fossil out of roadcuts. You can find them all over the place. Blocks of rock filled with marine fossils, and the clams are almost always closed. They were buried rapidly, and since we find these marine fossils all over the world, probably even in your backyard, this is powerful evidence for a global flood.

Fred

#11 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 09 March 2005 - 04:16 PM

This doesn't explain why we almost always find clams in the closed position. This is clear, undeniable evidence that they were buried alive, not slowly. I found this out from experience (no, I wasn't buried alive  :blink: ). The first time my family and I went to the beach we picked up all kinds of seashells and brought them back to our room. A little while later the things started to stink!  :wacko: We found out that the closed ones were still alive. When they die, they invariably open up.

I've pulled many a marine fossil out of roadcuts. You can find them all over the place. Blocks of rock filled with marine fossils, and the clams are almost always closed. They were buried rapidly, and since we find these marine fossils all over the world, probably even in your backyard, this is powerful evidence for a global flood.

Fred

View Post


I have found plenty of clams and brachiopods that were NOT closed. Bivalves are sometimes found closed, sometimes found open, sometimes found disarticulated (the shells separated).

Rapid burial of marine organisms can be the result of storms, turbidity currents, floods, and probably some other ways. Happens all the time today, all over the world; also happened in the past.

But evidence of A flood is not the same as evidence for THE flood.

#12 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 09 March 2005 - 04:22 PM

This doesn't explain why we almost always find clams in the closed position. This is clear, undeniable evidence that they were buried alive, not slowly. I found this out from experience (no, I wasn't buried alive  :blink: ). The first time my family and I went to the beach we picked up all kinds of seashells and brought them back to our room. A little while later the things started to stink!  :wacko: We found out that the closed ones were still alive. When they die, they invariably open up.

I've pulled many a marine fossil out of roadcuts. You can find them all over the place. Blocks of rock filled with marine fossils, and the clams are almost always closed. They were buried rapidly, and since we find these marine fossils all over the world, probably even in your backyard, this is powerful evidence for a global flood.

Fred

View Post


This is just speculation , but the opening you observed might have to do with the muscle drying out in the air as opposed to staying hydrated under water.

#13 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 09 March 2005 - 04:42 PM

This is just speculation , but the opening you observed  might have to do with the muscle drying out in the air as opposed to staying hydrated under water.

View Post


If I remember my paleontology correctly, clams tend to open up when they die, because the muscles hold the shell closed, and a springy ligament opens the shell when the muscle is relaxed.

Brachiopods (which superficially resemble clams, but are a completely different phylum) use muscles to both close and open their shells, so when they die there is much less tendency for the shells to open, and they are often found in the closed position.

You can easily tell the difference between the two groups, because (usually) the two shells of a clam are mirror images of each other, while the two shells of a brachiopod are different.

Brachipods are not very common today, but were very common in the past. Maybe Fred has been picking up brachiopods, as opposed to clams.

#14 azar

azar

    Newcomer

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Agnostic
  • Denver, Colorado

Posted 09 March 2005 - 07:09 PM

This doesn't explain why we almost always find clams in the closed position. This is clear, undeniable evidence that they were buried alive, not slowly.


ALWAYS find them in closed positions? I think not, Fred.

...I've pulled many a marine fossil out of roadcuts. You can find them all over the place. Blocks of rock filled with marine fossils, and the clams are almost always closed. They were buried rapidly, and since we find these marine fossils all over the world, probably even in your backyard, this is powerful evidence for a global flood.


Not really. Many organisms are being buried right now. Some are buried rapidly and some slowly. So, where is the flood?

#15 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 10 March 2005 - 12:33 PM

Observation:
There is only speculation going on for both sides of the argument for this entire thread. We need to present evidence for what we say - else this will become a 10 page topic with nothing gained.
My .02.

#16 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 10 March 2005 - 02:55 PM

Geezer,

I agree with your sentiment. Instead of getting into the "closed vs. open" we should also get back to the original post. How did those clams become part of the rock at the top of Mt. Everest?

The potential YEC/Flood explanations are:

1. Mt. Everest, at it's present height, was covered by the waters of the Global flood. The limestone and clams were then deposited onto the mountain top.

2. Before the flood, Mt. Everest was part of the sea floor. During the Global Flood, the sea floor was uplifted into it's present position. This would mean that the limestone and oyster fossils were created before the Flood or during the flood while the rock was still part of the sea floor.

Until one of these two options is settled on, or another option I haven't thought of, the debate can't move forward.

#17 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 10 March 2005 - 03:40 PM

Geezer,

I agree with your sentiment.  Instead of getting into the "closed vs. open" we should also get back to the original post.  How did those clams become part of the rock at the top of Mt. Everest?

The potential YEC/Flood explanations are:

1.  Mt. Everest, at it's present height, was covered by the waters of the Global flood.  The limestone and clams were then deposited onto the mountain top.

2.  Before the flood, Mt. Everest was part of the sea floor.  During the Global Flood, the sea floor was uplifted into it's present position.  This would mean that the limestone and oyster fossils were created before the Flood or during the flood while the rock was still part of the sea floor.

Until one of these two options is settled on, or another option I haven't thought of, the debate can't move forward.

View Post



Truly. Here is a link to some easy reading for those of us that can not possibly be up on every scientific principle. Plate tectonics are near the end, but it is a short page and should be easy reading.

The Scientific Method

#18 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 11 March 2005 - 02:32 PM

I have found plenty of clams and brachiopods that were NOT closed.  Bivalves are sometimes found closed, sometimes found open, sometimes found disarticulated (the shells separated).

Rapid burial of marine organisms can be the result of storms, turbidity currents, floods, and probably some other ways.  Happens all the time today, all over the world; also happened in the past.

But evidence of A flood is not the same as evidence for THE flood.

View Post


The one's I've found that are not 'disarticulated' are almost always closed, but I do not have a huge sample to go on and am not a paleontologist or avid fossil digger. I've also talked to others who collect fossils, and they say the same thing. But all this I freely admit is basically hearsay (just as your claim is), so if you have a study of some sort to support your claim I would be interested in it. If it is not true that most are not closed, I really would like to know about it so that I no longer use the word "most" in my talks.

Also, you are exagerating that rapid burial of marine life is happening "all the time all over the world". I would also be interested to see you support this, especially clear evidence of marine life being buried alive since we know this is the way it generally happened in the past.

Fred

#19 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 11 March 2005 - 02:50 PM

The one's I've found that are not 'disarticulated' are almost always closed, but I do not have a huge sample to go on and am not a paleontologist or avid fossil digger. I've also talked to others who collect fossils, and they say the same thing. But all this I freely admit is basically hearsay (just as your claim is), so if you have a study of some sort to support your claim I would be interested in it. If it is not true that most are not closed, I really would like to know about it so that I no longer use the word "most" in my talks.

Also, you are exagerating that rapid burial of marine life is happening "all the time all over the world". I would also be interested to see you support this, especially clear evidence of marine life being buried alive since we know this is the way it generally happened in the past.

Fred

View Post


That’s the thing about extra human time scales, it doesn’t have to be happening all the time to end up with a huge accumulation of fossil clam beds. Just as a completely off the top of my head scenario let say a major siltation event happens every 10 years. Say 1 square mile of clam beds gets covered instantly (earthquakes, undersea landslides, local floods, whatever) That’s about 40,000,000 square miles of clam beds since they came on the scene. That’s a whole heap of fossilized calms.

#20 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 11 March 2005 - 05:04 PM

Hmm. My interpretation of this would be that there was a flood. See, these oysters that are 10ft across are not only found on top of Mt. Everest, but they are also petrified in the CLOSED position! When an oyster or clam dies, it always opens up, unless buried by sediments and petrified quickly. So, there was a flood, it washed a bunch of dirt on the oysters, the hydroplate theory happens, the mountains rise up, the valleys sink down, and you have 10 ft petrified oysters on top of Mt. Everest. Any other interpretations?

View Post



Well lets see, there's also metamorphic rock on top of mount everest. Metamorphic rock takes heat and pressure to form. So water must have been well abouve Mt. Everest. Also water has a relatively flat top and being high above Mt. Everest, the highest point on earth, it certainly does not look like a local flood.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users