Fish on mountains...?

stevedave83
stevedave83's picture
Posts: 55
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Fish on mountains...?

The other day I heard an argument for creationism that I've really never heard before. Someone told me that there is strong evidence of a world wide flood because there have been fish fossils and sea shells found at the tops of mountains.

After much searching, I haven't been able to find any mention of this except on creationist web sites. I will admit that I don't know the first thing about geology, so it's probably something very simple that I'm missing. Does anyone know why there are fish fossils on mountains, or did the creationists just make it up like they do everything else?

You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Anonymous74 wrote:Fish on

Anonymous74 wrote:
Fish on mountains.......is explained in the Bible.

A lie from the book of lies.

Anonymous74 wrote:
The story of the Great Flood is not only a Christian view, but it also shared by other faiths.

Most of the old religions do. So what? Back then "the world" referred to what you could see and travel to. Less than 1% of the Earths surface. Generally less than 0.0001% of the Earths surface. Hardly indicative of a global flood, just a local one.

Anonymous74 wrote:
In the time that this flood happened(almost 4 1/2 thousand years ago.

There was no global flood period, let alone so recently. Half the Earth would still be a swamp & deserts wouldn't exist.

Anonymous74 wrote:
have any new mountain ranges formed?

The Rockies are forming as we sit here. So yes.

Anonymous74 wrote:
Science proves the bible false everytime.

Fixed.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Basic response

Basic response here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html

Quote:

Shells on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. Although this process is slow, it is observed happening today, and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains but also for the other geological and paleontological features of those mountains. The sea once did cover the areas where the fossils are found, but they were not mountains at the time; they were shallow seas. 

 

A flood cannot explain the presence of marine shells on mountains for the following reasons:

Floods erode mountains and deposit their sediments in valleys.

In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. This was noted as early as the sixteenth century by Leonardo da Vinci (Gould 1998).

Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


AnonymouslyAnonymous (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
"If you still believe in creationism......."

"Now if you still believe in creationism then why is there so much diversity in the world. God did it is simply not a scientific answer."

Absolutely. There is so much diversity in the world because of bio-diversity. But it does not prove evolution. The "greatest" proof of evolution (some articles have proclaimed) is Darwin's finches. Big beaks, small beaks, long and short beaks- congrats on observing something that happens naturally everyday, even amongst humans (blue, brown, green, black eyes, tall/short humans etc. ..) But please, show me a finch that, over time, has turned into a dog. Or a rose that, over time, has turned into an oak tree. That has never been observed in living things today or in the fossil record. Darwin himself said that if evolution is true, we should find BILLIONS of transitional fossils... BILLIONS (which makes sense because there are billions, maybe even trillions of species the we have "evolved" into). Yet with all the years of digging, we haven't even found one complete transitional fossil and the bones that we claim to be apart of this transitional fossil are no bigger than your finger. So why do we say that bio-diversity = evolution, when it doesn't? Yes, they go hand-in-hand, but DO NOT equal each other.

To say that we just evolved from chaotic simplicity upwards to great, complex organization all by chance over time (theory of evolution) is not a scientific answer just like saying God created everything. Science is limited by what you can observe and experiment with in a 3D world. No one (obviously) has observed the origin of universe or mankind. The experiment can not be repeated. So we aren't talking scientifically, we are talking philosophically.

Here's a quote by Dr. George Wall, he won the Noble Peace and is the leading biology professor at Harvard. He says "When it comes to the origin of life, you have only 2 possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation, the other is a supernatural, creative act of God. There is no 3rd possibility." He says it's spontaneous generation. " That idea was SCIENTIFICALLY disproved 150 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leads us to only one possible conclusion- that life arose by a supernatural, creative act of God. But I will not accept that PHILOSOPHICALLY because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe even that which I know is scientifically impossible (spontaneous generation)."

Another quote, by Sir Fred Hoyle, professor of biology and mathematics, "Let's be intellectually honest, as scientist we all know that the probability of life arising by chance is the same probability as throwing a 6 on the dice 5 million consecutive times. Let's be scientifically honest, as scientist we know that the probability of life evolving into greater and greater complex organization by chance is the same probability as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and out at the other end, a jetliner is formed."  Random, impersonal chance DOES NOT produce complex organization, only greater chaos.

NOW, if after reading what I typed out you still believe in evolution, tell me why. Only because I want to know and I enjoy reading and hearing peoples views. I do want to challenge people reading though to get defensive about what they side with, according to the scientific data and not your faith because EVERYONE has faith. Faith in what and why is what I'm interested it (when it comes down to evolution v. creation). So yeah... lol

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, this will be a gripping read

Christian girl wrote:

I am researching for a book I am writing on Creationism and I'm finding a lot of beliefs.  Why couldn't there have been a world wide flood.  That's no more far fetched than an ice age.  I see Creationists mentioned on here and I see that you think it's a fairy tale, but if you really take an open minded approach and research the subject you will see evidence that challenges the popular belief of evolution.  Have you ever looked?  I'm not trying to be argumentative, just share the truth.

If we evolved, I have some questions for you.  The theory of evolution says we all started from the same organisms.  Then we evolved into aquatic life.  If we did, why was there a need to grow legs and come up onto the land?  There was no need, as the earth is made up mostly of water.  How did these fish even know there was land?

Another question is why did we evolve into different species?  So you say of the same organisms, some evolved into cats, some into dinosaurs?  That's a big stretch.  Some say we evolved from monkeys.  If we did, then why are there still monkeys?  Are they handicapped in some way and stuck in their original form?

Doesn't make sense!  When you die, there's no turning back---it will be too late for you to say "holy crap", the Christians were right!  I'm sorry for anyone who does not believe because hell is a real place and I cannot imagine spending eternity there.

 

 

"Hell is a real place and I cannot imagine spending eternity there..." WTF? Can a person really trundle out these same issues? Why are there still monkeys... Give me a fucking break.

I can imagine jesus up there on his throne just itching for you to arrive so he can finally indulge in some serious and intelligent conversation.

Hell is not a real place - no one has ever seen it. You've already shown your brain is barely working so we can't take your word for it. As for not being able to imagine spending eternity in hell, I contest this point.

Your imagination has already served you up a smorgasbord of bullcrap. So go ahead - take another bite.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh the pain of it all

AnonymouslyAnonymous wrote:

"Now if you still believe in creationism then why is there so much diversity in the world. God did it is simply not a scientific answer."

Absolutely. There is so much diversity in the world because of bio-diversity. But it does not prove evolution. The "greatest" proof of evolution (some articles have proclaimed) is Darwin's finches. Big beaks, small beaks, long and short beaks- congrats on observing something that happens naturally everyday, even amongst humans (blue, brown, green, black eyes, tall/short humans etc. ..) But please, show me a finch that, over time, has turned into a dog. Or a rose that, over time, has turned into an oak tree. That has never been observed in living things today or in the fossil record. Darwin himself said that if evolution is true, we should find BILLIONS of transitional fossils... BILLIONS (which makes sense because there are billions, maybe even trillions of species the we have "evolved" into). Yet with all the years of digging, we haven't even found one complete transitional fossil and the bones that we claim to be apart of this transitional fossil are no bigger than your finger. So why do we say that bio-diversity = evolution, when it doesn't? Yes, they go hand-in-hand, but DO NOT equal each other.

To say that we just evolved from chaotic simplicity upwards to great, complex organization all by chance over time (theory of evolution) is not a scientific answer just like saying God created everything. Science is limited by what you can observe and experiment with in a 3D world. No one (obviously) has observed the origin of universe or mankind. The experiment can not be repeated. So we aren't talking scientifically, we are talking philosophically.

Here's a quote by Dr. George Wall, he won the Noble Peace and is the leading biology professor at Harvard. He says "When it comes to the origin of life, you have only 2 possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation, the other is a supernatural, creative act of God. There is no 3rd possibility." He says it's spontaneous generation. " That idea was SCIENTIFICALLY disproved 150 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leads us to only one possible conclusion- that life arose by a supernatural, creative act of God. But I will not accept that PHILOSOPHICALLY because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe even that which I know is scientifically impossible (spontaneous generation)."

Another quote, by Sir Fred Hoyle, professor of biology and mathematics, "Let's be intellectually honest, as scientist we all know that the probability of life arising by chance is the same probability as throwing a 6 on the dice 5 million consecutive times. Let's be scientifically honest, as scientist we know that the probability of life evolving into greater and greater complex organization by chance is the same probability as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and out at the other end, a jetliner is formed."  Random, impersonal chance DOES NOT produce complex organization, only greater chaos.

NOW, if after reading what I typed out you still believe in evolution, tell me why. Only because I want to know and I enjoy reading and hearing peoples views. I do want to challenge people reading though to get defensive about what they side with, according to the scientific data and not your faith because EVERYONE has faith. Faith in what and why is what I'm interested it (when it comes down to evolution v. creation). So yeah... lol

 

Ok, so it's all about your titanic false dilemma. It can't possibly be about the evolution of life from simple to complex so powerfully proven in the fossil record because your wee head can't imagine the passage of one million years let alone the potential changes wrought on organisms over one billion. No - instead it's all about this anthropomorphic deity you're using as a cognitive band aid despite proof levels of complete zero. You must be joking.

Furthermore, stop appealing to dubious authority and find some real proof to support your bullshit. And I mean real proof - don't go diving for the nearest gap like a rat up a drainpipe. Wind in a junkyard making a jetliner? Yeah, that's not the only wind blowing around here. Abiogenesis is fraught and we all want to know how - but evolution is a fact and if you deny it then you're not equipped to continue the discussion with us.

As for random impersonal chance, the nature of chemistry is not about random impersonal chance at the particle level and if it was the universe would have no structure at all. There is random chance but it works on the basis of the known relationships particles, chemicals and elements have with one another. Once abiogenesis has taken place, it's all about the accumulation of beneficial mutation, something you obviously need to do a lot more of.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 AnonymouslyAnonymous

 

AnonymouslyAnonymous wrote:
Another quote, by Sir Fred Hoyle, professor of biology and mathematics, "Let's be intellectually honest, as scientist we all know that the probability of life arising by chance is the same probability as throwing a 6 on the dice 5 million consecutive times. Let's be scientifically honest, as scientist we know that the probability of life evolving into greater and greater complex organization by chance is the same probability as a tornado tearing through a junkyard and out at the other end, a jetliner is formed." Random, impersonal chance DOES NOT produce complex organization, only greater chaos.

 

Hey! That is one of my favorite quotes in favor of special creation. Mainly because Sir Fred Hoyle was an atheist who believed in an infinite and uncaused universe back when he said that. Only later in life did he become a very weak theist about the time that he began to lose his marbles. Sort of like what we had to deal with recently with the noted atheist Anthony Flew.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


WordsUnsaid91
Posts: 1
Joined: 2010-09-23
User is offlineOffline
WOW

I don't understand why someone would say "evolution is a fact and if you deny it then you're not equipped to continue the discussion with us." -- Equipped with what? Your way of thinking? Let's all only let people with our same view be "allowed" to talk or comment because THAT is very open-minded.  

Is that what you want people to think? That when an atheist's way of thinking is questioned, atheist get so closed off with the idea of being wrong that you tell people with different ways of thinking to not be included?

That's upsetingly apalling.

 


FreeHugMachine
FreeHugMachine's picture
Posts: 152
Joined: 2009-04-02
User is offlineOffline
WordsUnsaid91 wrote:I don't

WordsUnsaid91 wrote:

I don't understand why someone would say "evolution is a fact and if you deny it then you're not equipped to continue the discussion with us." -- Equipped with what? Your way of thinking? Let's all only let people with our same view be "allowed" to talk or comment because THAT is very open-minded.  

Is that what you want people to think? That when an atheist's way of thinking is questioned, atheist get so closed off with the idea of being wrong that you tell people with different ways of thinking to not be included?

That's upsetingly apalling.

 

 

The mere fact that you equate evolution to atheism is evidence of your lack of knowledge.  An open mind is not a mind that follows the most erroneous claims, it is a mind that is willing to judge a claim by its merits no matter how unappealing or strange.  Evolution was a very unappealing claim and was counter to all that was, at the time, held as truth about life on earth.  The problem here is that evolution has faced its tests and has mountains of supportive evidence while always maintaining falsifiability.  It has made predictions based upon its model that have been found valid (such as our lack of chromosomes compared to other primates due to fusing during our evolution) that no other hypothesis can account.  If evolution were actually capable of being discredited by mere biblical claims and a misunderstanding of basic sciences you would actually have a right to be upset.

 

There are plenty of ways to disprove evolution, but so far as I can tell no religious YEC has ever said "Sure I hold my faith under strict scientific scrutiny and only hold beliefs about things of which I am able to provide evidence"

[Free Hug]s are no longer available
Please refer to our older [Cheap Hug] model.
*provides slightly less comfort*


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
I've heard of such things,

WordsUnsaid91 wrote:

I don't understand why someone would say "evolution is a fact and if you deny it then you're not equipped to continue the discussion with us." -- Equipped with what? Your way of thinking? Let's all only let people with our same view be "allowed" to talk or comment because THAT is very open-minded.  

Is that what you want people to think? That when an atheist's way of thinking is questioned, atheist get so closed off with the idea of being wrong that you tell people with different ways of thinking to not be included?

That's upsetingly apalling.

 

Atheists aren't afraid to be wrong...What's appalling is when in spite of mountains of evidence in favor of evolution, those who deny it simply keep on doing so....

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Ummm yeah - I was cranky yesterday

 

WordsUnsaid91 wrote:

I don't understand why someone would say "evolution is a fact and if you deny it then you're not equipped to continue the discussion with us." -- Equipped with what? Your way of thinking? Let's all only let people with our same view be "allowed" to talk or comment because THAT is very open-minded.  

Is that what you want people to think? That when an atheist's way of thinking is questioned, atheist get so closed off with the idea of being wrong that you tell people with different ways of thinking to not be included?

That's upsetingly apalling.

 

And lacking in warmth. Nevertheless, evolution is not 'an atheist's way of thinking' it's the proven truth. If you disagree you have made no effort to learn the facts for yourself and I don't see why I should beg you to comprehend them.

I'm closed to the idea of talking to yet another theist who refuses to accept facts. Why would I bother. And the only thing that's upsettingly appalling is your spelling. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


JC (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
WHAT A HYPOCRITE Thomathy is

Dude, NOTICE your OWN language.  You hypothesize with words like "may" regarding fish fossils ending up on mountains.  Then like  a typical HYPOCRITE intellectual punk coward atheist you draw DEFINITIVE FINAL conclusions based upon your "maybe" statements.

 

So in your assinine "logic" anyone can say "There MIGHT have been gold in China, so we KNOW that there WAS gold in Hong Kong".  The MIGHT proves the KNOW?   In your Bizaro world, yeah.  What a doofus... can you rep the atheists with at least some level of competence and common sense.  Or at least be 1/2 way consistent in your posts.

 

You went from "may" to "flood is proved to never happened"....You can't prove anything never happened dufus.  To use the same type of analogy again, you can't say, "I didn't find any gold in Hong Kong, so it's PROVEN that there is DEFINITELY no gold in China"...or even if I said no gold in Hong Kong it would still be equivalent to the level of stupid-jack-ass-ness of your deductive reasoning.

 

Checkmate, hypocrite.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Thomathy hasn't been here in

Thomathy hasn't been here in some time, so your rant is pointless. Which is just as well for you, since he'd have ripped that bs compilation of fallacy apart in no time.

It has been PROVEN that the Earth was never flooded, like it or not. There isn't enough water. And even if there were, a major global flood would leave tremendous evidence of its occurrence. Everywhere. But there's only evidence of local flooding in the area where the story originated.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.