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

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?

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

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

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.everestpeaceproject.com/everest_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.

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.



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

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.

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.



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.

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.

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 ). 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! 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

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.

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.

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.

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



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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

I never said "most" are not closed; just that clam fossils are found closed, open, and broken apart. I've found them each way; it depends on the depositional environment.

In fact, there is a specific rock type that is made of broken clam and snail shells:

coquina




Here are some links that mention recent (since the 1890's) observed submarine landslides:

Link1

Link2

Link3

Link4

Link4 mentions 7 documented submarine landslides in Puget Sound alone since the 1890's. The other links mention submarine landslides off of Newfoundland, Alaska, Hawaii, and New Guinea.

Anything on the seafloor that was in the path of these landslides was buried instaneously.

Submarine landslides are just one mechanism for rapid burial. Large rivers in flood dump huge amounts of sediments into their deltas, and coastal storms erode beaches and build new sandbars overnight. All of these can cause rapid burial, under the right circumstances.

Also, I just remembered something else: some clams are burrowers - they live within soft sediments on the sea floor.

The shells of burrowing clams cannot open when they die- because they are already buried.

We have modern processes that can bury clams rapidly (keeping their shells closed), and we have some clams that live buried in sediment (and their shells can't open when they die).

So finding fossil clams with their shells closed is in no way evidence for a global flood.

Data correction:

1. There are lots of broken pieces of clam shell and very few complete whole fossil shells.

2. Clams do no always open up when they die.

Now interpret.

Not to beat an issue too hard, but people have to understand the facts before making interpretations. You have to get the facts right.

Maybe your particular clam species, when lying on a hotel desk or bathroom sink, always opens up, however, 'invariably' is not accurate. I have found closed dead clams in ponds, on beaches, and in the saltwater tank at the grocery store. When clams are dead long enough for the connective tissue between shells to break down, they open easily if disturbed. Are they always disturbed? Some species live partially or entirely buried in mud. How could these open up when they die? The surrounding sediment holds them closed. They don't have to be buried rapidly at death if they lived buried. The scallop shells, the Shell gas station logo, swim around by opening and closing the shells. You very rarely find both halves of these shells.

Well thats beat enough, now what do you think.

A simple analysis: 2.4 inches per year is a foot every 4 to 5 years. Mt Everest is more than 25000 feet high. 4 x 25000 is 100000 years for the top of Everest to get this far above sea level, at current uplift rates. The usual YEC claim is that the earth is about 6000 years old. 100000 / 6000 is about 17 times faster than the uplift observed today, ignoring erosion and other factors. Is this reasonable?

Could be. No one has demonstrated that the rate of geological change we observe today has remained constant through time. If one accepts the uniformitarianist view that processes have always worked at the rates we observe today, then the YE claim is prima facie unreasonable. The trouble is that such an assumptiuon is not supported by observation. But it is a necessary postulate if one wishes to assign great age to the earth.

Could be, is a reasonable response. I am not aware of any evidence that suggests geologic processes operated in the past at rates much different than what we see today - in which case, the 100,000 year minimum is more reasonable than 6000 years.

However, you don't have to accept a uniformitarianist view, or any other view, if there is data to look at. Does anybody here know of any geologic process rate evidence?

Rates for things like erosion, deposition, and plate movement vary today; it's likely they varied in the past, too. And the bigger a time frame we the look at, the more likely it is we will see the rare, big extremes.

But do you have any evidence that the rates were orders of magnitude higher or lower in the past, all over the world?

There is plenty of evidence that geologic processes in the past operated the same way, at similar rates, as they do today.

Take the Green River Formation for example:

link

All the evidence indicates that the Green river sediments were deposited slowly, in a lake, over millions of years.

The available evidence also indicates that the rates of continental drift have been pretty steady for at least 10's of millions of years:

link

This type of uniformitarianism was dropped many, many, years ago. It pretty much died with Lyell in the 1800's. Uniformitarianism is defined nowadays as the same mechanisms that are acting now acted in the past. We all know that different rivers form deltas at different rates, that limestone accumulates differently in different places, etc. The only problem is that the pattern that floods leave do not resemble the pattern we see in the geologic column. Never has a flood made separate limestone, sandstone, paleosol, and shale layers. Floods leave a thick, muddy, silty layer. We can't find this type of layer that would represent a wolrd wide flood. Therefore, through uniformitarianism, a global flood is falsified.

Can you prove this?

It's funny that I see the same speculation as you make your comment.

Well I guess just like the flood happening about 4000 years ago. Must be one of those things. But then again, it can't be a possibility because it supports God and not science.

So were the clams found on that mountain the burrower type? Or could this be an assumption?

I noticed none of the wording you used were as per say: proof positive on your account to the evidence you present. But then you ask a question, as if you want proof positve evidence from a creationist when I don't even see that applied from your end.

If the creationist's answer contained such words as: indicate, more likely, likely they varied in the past, etc... Would you take what they said as proof positive over what you just said? But yet you think this is more viable evidence with the wording as such? Sounds like a bunch of speculation, but I guess it's all good because it denies the creationist view.

Maybe the thread should be renamed to: How to speculate thread.

I made no assumptions. If you reread my posts, you will notice that I presented several ways that clams could be buried in the closed position, in addition to them being burrowers. Also, my response was directed to Fred, who was talking about clams he has found, not the "oysters on everest", as mentioned in the OP. (And oysters are not burrowers).

My point is that closed clams, in and of themselves, are NOT evidence for THE flood, because there are other ways it can happen.

If you want to argue for THE flood, you need more evidence than that.



If you reread my posts, you will see that I never asked anyone for proof positive; I asked for EVIDENCE (which you appear either unwilling or unable to provide).

I will be happy to provide evidence for any of my "indicates", "likelys" etc. if you like.

As has been said by myself and others numerous times, science does not provide "proof" in the sense of a mathematical proof. It's about the best interpretation of the evidence. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is about the best science can do.

In science, all interpretations are provisional; subject to reevaluation when new evidence comes up. You seem to feel that this is somehow an "imperfection" or "weakness" of science and the scientific method.

In reality, it is the reason why we no longer consider disease to be the work of demons, or believe in Ptolemaic idea of the solar system.

But you evaded the questions-

Do you have any evidence that the rates of geological processes were significantly different in the past?

How do you interpret the varves found in the Green River formation- indicating millions of years- as described in my first link?

How do you interpret the evidence that the rates of plate movement have been fairly constant- for millions of years- as described in my second link?

Which was a reply to:

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

Well, there’s no evidence for a world-wide flood, but local floods( and undersea landslides ) happen all the time. Any number of paleontology and geology sites can give the evidence for the time frames.

Which was a reply to:

“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.”

I’m sorry I wasn’t clear, my statement was what I meant was only speculation. I wasn’t referring to the rest of the thread.

The only thing the evidence supports either way it the plausibility of one story from the Bible. I’m able and willing to understand that even if I could falsify every story in the bible (and as you can see from my avatar, I don’t have the ambition for that much work), it wouldn’t be the first bit of proof against the existence of God.

The only group who seem to think that if one part of the Bible could be interpreted as myth it would make the whole of Christianity fall like a house of cards is the fundamentalists.

If there were one thing I would like to change your mind about, it surprisingly would not be your view of creation; it is that our goal is not to disprove God, only to get the science as accurate as humanly possible.

Actually, there are several flood stories from different parts of the world.

Well I guess you'd have to call me one. But the only reason I say the whole bible has to be truth, is because God is supposed to be the representation of what truth is. Question: What are the requirements for being Holy? And is that not what God is supposed to be?



Accuracy takes absolutes to achieve. Definition:
1 : freedom from mistake or error : correctness (need not to be corrected even with new evidence).
2 a : conformity to truth or to a standard or model : exactness b : degree of conformity of a measure to a standard or a true value — compare precision 2a

And about the science of creation. Creation is what God has done. Creation is because God is. So if science is going to change it, then they would have to admit to a God in order to do it. But, I don't see that ever happening. Do you?

And until science admits to a Creator, they should keep their nose out of creation.

Should scientists study how oil was created (so they can find more oil)?

Should scientists study how minerals were created (so they can find the metals, etc. that are essential to our modern society)?

Should scientists study how new diseases (like SARS) are created (so they can understand how to treat them, or stop them from "appearing" in the first place)?

In your view, exactly what fields are off-limits to science? Geology, cosmology, particle physics, epidemeology...?

And evidence of some whopping big local floods!
There was an episode of “Nova” a couple of years ago about a huge flood event involving the Black Sea as I recall about 4000 B.C. It seems that at that time the area of the read sea had been blocked from the Mediterranean by a natural earthen dam across the straights between Asia Minor and Europe. When this gave way, it was a spectacular event, and probably the basis for a lot of prehistoric flood stories.

If it weren’t for the insistence on a worldwide flood this could be used as proof of the Noah flood storie.

It just seems to me (and this opinion is worth exactly what you are paying for it) That if a person observes the universe around them and decides that it originated with a supreme being, the God of the Christian Bible being the best candidate, and He was worthy of worship, whether the Bible is inerrant or not (and it is after all a work of human hands and subject to the same errors as any other human endeavor) is a minor detail. If God is worthy of worship, then He’s worthy of worship period.

Sorry for the run-on sentence.

You believe Nova, I believe God.

Do you think that all christians believe by blind faith only? What about scientists who decide in favor of a Creator? I don't believe in something because I can read about it. And that's why I don't believe evolution. I read it, just like I read God's word. And I made a decision.

Is not science sticking it's nose into creation when it convinces people that evolution is a part of creation? And when people do this, science does not argue it, but allows it, which is the same as condoning what is said. And it also makes science step over into becomming a religion, because one of it's theories now includes a religious figure, and a religious book.

Should science always try and prove or search for a God they cannot even test? Like debating Noah's Flood. Why would science be interested unless their main goal is to disprove it and God? Because regardless of what evidence is found, it always has to conform to every theory they have. Or there has to be a second explaination to the evidence. So why search for something you never had an intent to prove, only disprove? Because your findings will always be bias when you go into something with that type of attitude.

If this is what you truly believe, it’s no wonder you take such a dim view of science.

When clams are found on top of a mountain, and the only considered explaination by science is what? The mountain rose from the bottom of the sea. No flood (alternative explaination that denies God). Science is to give all considerations, but it does not where God is concerned. I watch science videos, and science t.v. programs all the time. Everytime I see evidence found that can have biblical value, science does not see it. Nor do they give it any consideration. Every program is designed to disprove any evidence that may even remotely support God. And I have yet to see one science program that would totally make, or theorize, an event that supports God, without sounding like it has been disproven, even if it is only a guess as to what probably happened by naturalistic means.

But yet, they will use God's word to research and find places to dig up to find evidence if past civilations. But on the other hand, they will claim more than half the book is mere myth, fantasies, poetry, in error, written by mere men that were not inspired by God, etc... Which all carry the same meaning, that it's a lie. And are constantly working to make the rest sound like a lie as well.

I wonder what one of the requirments are for reaching the upper levels of science is? For I see not one ever mention his faith in God. And how many are thrown out of the upper circles when they do? You may say that there are several scientists that believe in God. But are their futures, in science, to ever reach top positions while they retain their faith? Could they even discuss God in a positive manner at a scientific convention without damaging their scientific standing amoung fellow scientists? A room full of atheist welcomes no God. And will make sure that your view never affects the theories and the foundations of science they hold so dear. So to mention, God only seals your fate, in the scientific world that will always claim: there is no God.

What someone believes should not affect their standing in their field, if the field was not bias. And unless it is also a threat to what already exists in that field. Evidence found should have all considered possibilies, regardless of the direction it leads. Sought out to it's end, instead of blown out of the water without further investigation.

Example: If it were said that all the missing links were on the same mountain as the ark, science would spare no expense to get to it. Even as far as to risk their lives trying to uncover it. But the ark is up there. And how much has science even tried to bring it down and examine it? Why is it still up there? Is not this considered one of the greatest scientific finds? But, it does not support any known scientific theory does it? So it stays up their as a mystery. Because science knows to bring it down, they would have to scramble to do damage control, while trying to explain how something like this could exist when they have done so much to disprove God.

If science is not an athiest club only, name one scientist, that holds a very high position in science, and is a christian, and is not restricted from talking about his faith in scientific circles? Why would science restrict free speech and free expression in this manner, if God were not a threat to science, then having faith in Him should not be a problem. And from what I understand, most scientist's considered it a defection if one of them decides to believe in God.


Can belief in God and science work? Try to reach upper levels of science and see how far you get while trying to maintain your faith.

Saying "the flood did it" doesn't really explain anything.

Take the "oysters on Everest". (Note- I have no idea whether there actually are 10 foot oysters on Everest).

Were the oysters living up there during the flood? Then how did they grow to adult size within the flood timetable?

Were they washed up there? Then how could they be washed up from sea level to 20,000 feet (5 miles!) above sea level?

You have to provide some details of the scenario that actually got the oysters there (supported by physical evidence), if you want the flood story to be taken seriously.




I've known quite a few scientists who were regular church goers. My thesis advisor for one- he's now chairman of the geology department.

Scientists don't really care about each others religious beliefs, as long as they don't invoke untestable, unverifiable, unobservable mechanisms (like miracles) to explain the data.




Ark evidence would be a good subject for a new thread.



"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstien, referring to quantum mechanics

He's dead though (and Jewish); does that count?

And again, clams on Mt. Everest and other mountains are misrepresented. These clams are not just ON the mountain, they are PART OF the mountain as fossils filling large bands of limestone. The clams found loose on mountains are the result of erosion of those limestone layers. You must show how a global flood can lay down hundreds of feet of limestone, and only at the pinnacle of the mountain, and how millions of clams grew and died and were buried in those hundreds of feet of limestone.

A flood is not considered because a flood does not create hundreds of feet of limestone. If this did happen during a flood, then the entire outer surface of the mountain would be covered in limestone, not just the pinnacles. Also, limestone is created at very slow rates, centimeters per year.



Nor does science consider Vishnu, the Great Spirite, Hare Chrisna, and all other deities both past and present. It seems that science only ignores one more deity than christianity does.




They also use myths from other cultures to do the same, such as the recent discovery of Troy. Finding the civilization does not support the myths. If this were so, the discovery of Troy supports the existence of the Greek and Roman pantheons.



Do you have examples of scientists being thrown out because of their beliefs? Were they incorporating their religious beliefs into their science, or were they keeping them separate? I don't ask my car mechanic what his religious beliefs are, why should scientists be under scrutiny?

And just for kicks, here is a little quote from Charles Darwin:

"There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Does "breathed into" ring any bells?

Darwin wrote his book in a time where religion was very strong and powerful. Darwin knew that his idea totally attacked creation, and God's word. And Unlike today, people back then were not into so much compromise of the word of God. For there were only a few translations, and most used the KJV. So sticking to the word was more of the norm. And anything that went totally against it was not. And was often considered straight from the devil himself.

So Darwin knew he had to soften his book up somewhat. And him being a christian at one time, he also knew just how to do it. For if he had not done it, I can garuntee there would have been a book burning party where ever that book could be found. The mere mention of God, or His word, not only softened his book. But also confused many about the real meaning of his book. For if evolution really had anything to do with God, Darwin would not have had to recant his faith in order to believe it. And evolution would not be overwhelmingly believed by athiest.

Also, the lady hope story would be no big deal if God were not an issue. But where ever it's brought up, it's fought tooth and nail. For if Darwin truly recanted before dying, I'm happy he will be in heaven. And it should be no big deal. But to science, it is. And I have yet to see anyone explain that without sticking their foot in their mouth.