Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Mountaintop fossils...

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,491
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    39,991
    Rep Power
    72

    Mountaintop fossils...

    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.

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    1,935
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    1,991
    Rep Power
    22
    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.

  3. Top | #3
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    15,491
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    39,991
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    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.

  4. Top | #4
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    22,837
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    65,310
    Rep Power
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    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?

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Layton, UT
    Posts
    1,197
    Rep Power
    8
    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.

  6. Top | #6
    Veteran Member Sarpedon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    MN, US
    Posts
    2,885
    Archived
    8,446
    Total Posts
    11,331
    Rep Power
    65
    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!)

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member Cheerful Charlie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    4,437
    Archived
    3,884
    Total Posts
    8,321
    Rep Power
    56
    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.
    Cheerful Charlie

  8. Top | #8
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    21,142
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    31,619
    Rep Power
    81
    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.

  9. Top | #9
    Super Moderator Bronzeage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    6,619
    Archived
    7,568
    Total Posts
    14,187
    Rep Power
    39
    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.

  10. Top | #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    857
    Archived
    2,799
    Total Posts
    3,656
    Rep Power
    50
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post
    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?

Similar Threads

  1. Possible Dinosaur Extinction Events Fossils Found
    By Jimmy Higgins in forum Natural Science
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-31-2019, 05:03 AM
  2. Fossils From Noah’s Flood
    By Keith&Co. in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-25-2016, 12:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •