Fish on mountains...?
Posted on: October 16, 2007 - 10:08am
Offline
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.
- Login to post comments
If you stop thinking like a creationist for a second the answer is obvious. Not that you are, but you have been pulled in by this, so you are missing the most simple explanation. Mountains, by no means, have always been mountains. Mountains take enormous geological time to form. On the grand scale of the Earth's existence and as fish are incredibly old creatures, it should be no surprise that fish are found on or even at the top of mountains. Once again, mountains grow and fish that may have been alive before the mountain exists as presently may have died and their skeletons fossilized in a place where a mountain grew. Also, mountains grow as plates are pressed together by tectonic forces and the land is pushed upward. Any fossil deposited would necessarily move up the mountain as the mountain formed. This is why we find dinosaur fossils of all sorts in the sides of mountains more than we find them in flat land. Theres nothing about finding fish fossils on or in mountains that necessitates a world wide flood. Such a flood is proved to never have happened and to not have been possible in the first place. Fish fossils on mountains lend nothing to the creationists' argument.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
I didn't mean to sound like I was 'thinking like a creationist'.
Thanks for the answer, though...that's exactly what I was looking for. I thought that it may have something to do with plate tectonics (one of the few geological principles I am familiar with). I was just surprised that not to find any refutation of that claim. I know that the possibility of a world wide flood has been disproven every way possible, but I like to examine things from every angle. I can't count how many times I've discussed evolution with a creationist and they insist that they're right because they found ONE thing that I couldn't explain (as if I'm the end-all-be-all authority on evolution and geology). Thanks again for the answer, that's one more thing in my arsenal.
You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.
Anytime. I actually am a bit pissy. Lately, whenever I come here I get pissed about the stupid threads that the theists start. There always seems like more and more and every time I visit it's the same stupid nonsense every time. This thread isn't one of those, but second hand reporting of the stupidity is now enough, apparently, to get me riled up. I'm sorry. I just meant that the creationists are wrong and they're clearly wrong. But, you've got it exactly; they find one thing that someone can't explain and suddenly they've invalidated the mass of evidence against them and they are correct. Oddly, what is interesting is that the most simple explanation is usually employable as the means by which the creationist argument can be refuted. Here, where they see an omnipotent creator flooding the world when it's 4000 years old and fish dieing on the top of mountains already formed by the hand of god during a six day creation marathon, we employ the (albeit complex) reality of plate tectonics and the age of the world to dispute them. Again, oddly, the creationist ignores all the evidence against her when she develops an argument like this, having the main effect of making her look even more stupid than she ever has.
In retrospect, perhaps I should be laughing, instead I'm still fed up with the nonsense.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Or the explanation could be even more simple. Some animal caught the fish and carried it up the mountain, probably a bird of some type.
Actually, you should have fun with the theists and proclaim the fish as proof of evolution. Obviously, the fish must of had some kind of legs to climb the mountain.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
I really like that idea...I wonder if they creationists will recognize their own tactic...? You know, taking evidence of evolution and an old earth (i.e. the Grand Canyon) and claiming it as evidence for creationism or a young earth (i.e. the flood).
You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.
The argument is even flimsier than it appears at first.
1. There are fish fossils on mountains.
2. There is a book that mentions a global flood.
3. Therefore, the book is reliable and true.
You could put more premises in here if you wanted, but there are severe problems with this, and it will only get worse as you add more premises.
Symbolically, this argument is represented.
1. Some fish fossils (f) are on mountains. (m)
2. A book (b) is one in which there is a story of a flood. (fl)
3. Therefore ???
****
1. Some F are M
2. b is fl
3. Therefore ???
Symbolically, we can see that literally nothing follows from the premises.
If we want to avoid symbolic logic, we can just reason it out critically.
P1 There are fish fossils on mountains.
First, we can only say that there exists an explanation for the fish being on the mountain.
P2 A possible explanation for fish fossils on mountains is a global flood.
This is true. It is possible, although without further evidence, we can't possibly say anything more.
P3 There are other explanations for fish fossils on mountains, including plate techtonics.
At this point, we must admit that without any further evidence, we can't make any decisions. We have multiple possibilities, and no means to decide between them. The critical thinker would now ask for all the plausible possibilities, and would weigh each one against the available evidence for each to decide which is most likely.
P4 The bible says there was a global flood.
Presumably, this is offered as evidence that the fish are there because of a global flood. Unfortunately, as evidence goes, it's pretty weak. There are lots of books that say there wasn't. Most of those were written by scientists.
I could write out each step of the thinking process, but at the risk of losing those completely incapable of independent critical thought, I'm going to skip a few steps.
What you end up with is the burden of proof for the bible. In other words, there would need to be an establishment of the reliability of the bible such that modern science would be a less likely explanation.
But...
The whole point of this argument was to prove that the bible is true because there are fish on top of a mountain. We can't use an argument that the bible is reliable to prove the reliability of the bible.
So guess what. Surprise, surprise, it's a circular argument from a theist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
The version I've more usually seen is seashells, but the answer is correct: the mountains were once seabeds that got lifted up by by continents running into each other.
Continental drift takes place at typically about 1 cm/year, and has been measured with VLBI and GPS techniques. It can also be extrapolated from geological evidence, notably seafloor-spreading evidence, and it gives drift values in good agreement with the present-day values.
A rate of 1 cm/year is a rate of 10 km/million years. This means that continental drift can produce very impressive mountains in that time; it is very satisfying to discover that the numbers work out right.
Actually seabed is subducted under continental plates when continents collide, while the continental plate is pushed up to form a mountain, so what is on top of the mountain could not possibly have been sea bed.
What's far more likely is that the edges of the two continental shelves (which are generally underwater), were raised above sea level during the collision to create a mountain.
What you will not find, though, are fossils that are only a few thousand years old on top of mountains, because geologic time is far greater than that. The fossils are probably millions of years old. If not, they were probably carried up there by a bird or other animal.
You fools are thinking it too deep (
)! Here's my own, more simple explanation for fish in the mountains:
Whenever a large tornado forms, and if it moves through a lake it could swallow up most of the water and even animals that live in the lake. Eventually, the sucked up water and animals will fall down from the sky, causing a rain of water, fish and crab.There have been historical accounts about such events. Apparently this rain can happen several days after a tornado sucks up a lake, and it may cause the fish and crab to rain down on a village, so why not a mountain?
Trust and believe in no god, but trust and believe in yourself.
Do you have proof of no God? Simple answer. And fish fossils really were found on mountains.
I am loving the controversey here!
Yes it's true that Creationists believe that water from the earth and sky fell and covered the face of the Earth completely, hence fish on mountains. There is much evidence to this theory, yes, but there is much evidence otherwise as well.
The Evolutionists believe that a fish was fossilized and a mountain formed under it. For the standard mountain, this process could take up to 100 million years. This could happen, yes, except that mountains would have changing sediments and "layers" or "discuses," like a time-line of its growth through the ten-thousand millennium. Many mountains have similar scars, yes, but most do not, including the ones where the fossilized fish were found. Also, if the theory is true, than the fish on the mountains must, of course, be up to 100 million years old. The only problem is that the fish found were modern fish, completely unchanged from the fish we find today. The fish in ye-olden days were slightly more unmodified, according to biologists.
This doesn't disprove anything, just that the Evolutionary theory popularly presented is rationally flawed. There may be other alternatives, but I agree with the Creationists in that, at some point, the said mountain was below sea level.
There's another theory that states that the mountains were at some point upside-down, and an earthquake of some kind "rolled" or "flipped-over" them over. Kind of ridiculous, yes, but there's more reason for it to be fact than the former theory.
Fuck me, that's crazy!
This is very easy to answer. It is simple plate tectonics. The fact of the matter is that every body of land on Earth was at one time the bottom of the ocean. The pressures of interacting plates form mountains and land bodies, and these are formed from ground pushed out of the ocean by volcanic activity. Therefore there can indeed be found oceanic fossils at altitudes that seem odd, to say the least. But they are not there due to a flood.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Yes, even though there isn't nearly enough water on Earth to flood it to the highest mountain.
Well, uh, actually, no.
Not that long.
Not necessarily.
Evidence?
What does unmodified mean?
How?
It's impossible.
Yes.
No.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I've been reading the Bible a long time and never found anything to prove it wrong but you must fear life everyday not knowing any real thing but what you see feel touch or hear, and on top of all this it must hurt to know you can never fill that void in your heart that ackes for something that is missing I pity atheists the most, they call themselves rational and believe in nothing, sounds rational to me. I know God, you have a choice heaven or hell, now that I have told you, you can not stare God in the face on Judgment day and say. " Hell but nobody ever told me of the salvation in Christ." P.S. christian for life
just want to reply on your little balloon that says Jesus freaks are narrow minded. Fact of the matter is you are for never opening your mind to the possibility of its truth. Read the Bible with an open heart and sincerety and God may free you of your Hell.
Pretty far fetched explanation, evolution was actually denounced by Darwin just before he died, oh what they didn't teach you that in college. Let me guess they didn't read you the Bible in school either. You see usually I'm a nice guy but I don't like your hateful comments toward christians. So here's something to think about, Heaven or HELL. Jesus or Satan lifes a bitch and full of choices, I choose Jesus, oh ya if you choose atheism that would be like the choice for Satan and then have fun burning eternally in FIRE or repent
to say that they were not there because of a flood is almost as biasaed as saying it was from earths plates, quit looking for reasons to prove God doesn't exist and accept the fact that he does
Did you read "The Origin of Species" in school? or any other accredited book on the subject?
I can't tell you that I have read the bible in its entirety. Every time I go to read the crappy writting gets to me and I go pull out my books of myths from other cultures. At least Ovid was a great and respected writer, whose works were sold and read so often because of this, rather than the fact that people were terrified of going to hell if they didn't.
Actually, he didn't. You are merely repeating an urban legend that he did. The earliest account of said bullshit story is from someone called Lady Hope. However, she was not present at Darwin's death bed. Darwin's daughter Henrietta was, and there was no conversion. They didn't teach you that in church? Doesn't surprise me, churches aren't too big on this reality thing.
Please, please, please stay around this forum. We really need you!
You are the brainwashed christian we all want desperately to become.
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
I debated an Adventist missionary about this. He pointed to this and a few other items that show that the earth is young. But then I asked about all the other evidence like when they carbon date these fish fossils that show the earth is old. He said that the devil is planting tons of false clues.
So the flood caused the fish to be on top of the mountain, but God allowed the devil to change it's carbon-14 content, just to fool us. But God didn't allow the devil to move the fish to a lower elevation. So God mostly allows the devil to trick us into believing that the earth is really old, but then either the devil forgets or God makes the devil leave a few clues behind to show the earth is young for his true believers that will be saved.
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
So someone, long ago, found evidence of shells and fish on the mountain.
"Hey, How did this get here?"
"Oh, there must have been a flood that covered the whole earth"
And that is how the whole earth flood thing myth started. They didn't know about plate tectonics and just thought God was mad when there was an earthquake.
For that, what you'll need what are called "other books". There are, in fact, many of them. Check recent evidence from Israeli archeologists which shows the exodus to be a fabrication. That would be proving that at least one part of the Bible is wrong.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
You say to stop thinking like a creationist. You are assuming that the earth is millions of years old. I say stop thinking like an evolutionist. Look at the evidence from a biblical view. The bible says that God created the earth in 6, 24 hour days. The earth is only around 6 thousand years old. As you said, making mountains, takes an enormous amount of time to do. And if you believe that the earth is only 6 thousand years old then the mountains could not have been formed. This leaves only one reasonable explanation for why the fossils are found on mountains. A Global Flood. In Genesis 7:20 it says that the waters rose enough to cover even the highest mountains, by a depth of more that 20 feet.
Also I was just wondering where a flood was proved never to happen.
I want you to know that I believe in the bible and its truth. But I should let you know that there was actaully little evidence saying that Darwin Denounced evolution. The story was told by a person named The Lady of Hope, and her story was actually found very unlikely. Also his wife had always had always thought that his Godless theory to how the earth was created was wrong. So if he really had denounced evolution why didn't she make that known. Instead her and Darwins children all denied anything claims made about his sudden change. Just thought you should know.
Evolution isn't a 'Godless theory to how the earth was created (sic)', it's a Godless theory as to how organisms evolve on Earth. Stupid mistakes show stupid. Further, your anecdote is just short of crazy.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
The global flood of the Bible never happened because it's a story from a story book and we live in reality. Perhaps I've illustrated to you how silly it is to talk about books of myths as though they constitute what's real. Of course, I'm sure you have some retort as to why the Bible is authoritative on existence and history and why the Hindu scriptures aren't. Because it's so much more likely that your god willed the universe and everything into existence in 6 days than it is for the universe and everything to be eternal and begun by the uttering of a sacred Word.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
4.54 billion years.
And it's not assumed; it's determined by solid empirical evidence. That's like saying I assume spraining an ankle is painful after I sprained an ankle. Do you know how radiometric dating works? Do you understand the implications of the geological column? Do you understand how long light from distant stars has to travel to get here? Do you understand any of the relevant science? No, you don't.
That's not evidence. That's called a naked assertion.
Try wikipedia.
There isn't even enough water on Earth to cover the surface to the highest mountain. And drowning should be the last problem on all the animals' minds. The drastic changes in atmosphere conditions that would have resulted from such an event would have caused a gruesome death for Moses and all his furry companions.
And in order to use the Bible as evidence for anything, you first have to show that the Bible is true. You have not only failed to do so, but you have already cited a verse which shows that it is unambiguously wrong. I think the Bible is wrong. Understand? W-r-o-n-g.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Wow, this thread title really attracted all the Creationist crazies....
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
Did you get early release, Kent?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
sorry, i can't resist derailing, especially since the whole discussion is about fundy bullshit anyway. which hindu scripture are you looking at? the hindu scriptures are absolutely massive, and there really is no authoritative "canon" for all hindus in the same sense as for the abrahamic faiths. i suppose almost all of hinduism and its immediate offshoots accept the four vedas, but many hindus also revere the writings of shankara, the bhagavad gita (which is actually just part of an epic poem, the mahabharata), or even the teachings of more modern gurus like sri ramakrishna and ramana maharshi.
the reason i'm asking is that most hindu "creation stories" are probably of aryan origin and can be found in the vedas proper, especially the rig veda, which is the oldest. these stories are completely polytheistic and mythological, with anthropomorphized deities, based in a primitive, sacrificial brahmanic religion. i would be very surprised if you found this doctrine of AUM in a vedic creation myth.
modern hinduism is extremely heterogeneous and sophisticated, with very few hindus taking their gods as literally as the abrahamics do. often they don't take them literally at all--in my experience a popular term hindus use while trying to explain their gods to westerners is "god-forms." as far as the vedas go, i'm pretty certain the idea of AUM first makes its appearance in the upanishads, which are much later sophisticated, monistic commentaries on the polytheistic vedas proper. if the upanishads, or any of the later hindu religious literature, tell a creation story, it's almost certainly not meant to be taken literally, in the same way genesis was meant to be taken literally.
i just thought it was important to mention this, just in case anyone, especially christians, got it into their heads to think of the bible and the hindu scriptures as more complementary than they really are.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
:P No need to get all uppity. I believe the creation myth I wrote is in one of the Vedas, though I'm aware that the Aum is explicitly the focus of the Upansishads, but I'll grant that my knowledge of Hinduism is cursory. There's a number of creation myths in Hinduism, right? That's just my favourite. I think another Hindu creation myth goes that the world was born of an egg. I agree with you that they're probably not meant to be taken literally, but I didn't intend to mean that they were. Unless you want to there's no reason to think that either one is more reasonable to believe literally. -That's what I was trying to illustrate.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
You have to deny the well-tested accuracy of radiometric dating, which can date different layers in the earth in many parts of the world, and nowhere do we find evidence of a deposit which would indicate a global flood at a consistent date, although local floods leave clear traces.
How about limestone formations in caves? Stalactites have been dated to ages of up to 190000 years.
Even if they could survive a flood, they traces of the flood would have left a distinct trace in the layers formed around that time.
Fast growing formations have very different structure from slow-growing ones.
See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD250.html/
Probably the clearest disproof of a global flood within the last half-million years are ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic, which show clear patterns of seasonal changes, allowing the record of each year to be unambiguously identified, making them the best evidence to accurately date variations in climate and other events which leave traces in the snow deposits on the surface. This also gives an independent check on radiometric dating.
Or just go to http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html and read.
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
Fish on mountains is not all that difficult to explain.
What the Floodist has to explain is why we don't find fish fossils in among fossils of land animals all over the place, which is what a global flood would be expected to leave...
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
getting uppity is my forte.
after all, i did study religion. i think there are so many posters here who study science--either formally or informally--that nobody notices when they get uppity, but i may very well be the only person in the forum with a degree in religion, so everybody notices when i get uppity.
you're right about the creation myths. hindu mythology is no more consistent than any other mythology. then again, the abrahamic religions are pretty much the only religions in the world that after centuries of development still refuse to acknowledge their myths as such--at least, this is true for the majority of their followers (with the possible exception of judaism). that's why they strive so hard to appear consistent, whereas hindus tend not to care.
i know you weren't speaking out of turn but i know how memes get started, especially among christians, who have the tendency to examine other religions superficially. anytime i think there's even a slight chance that some theist might seize an opportunity to generalize and thus eventually spread misinformation a la josh mcdowell, i consider it my intellectual duty to speak up, even if no one cares. if you don't split hairs sometimes, you can end up with a hairy monster.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Well the good news is under the YEC model fossil fuels will be replenished in roughly 12 years.
This statement alone qualifies you as psychotically delusional.
Whereas there are certainly several "truths" to be extracted from the Bible, they are not literal interprtations of the text itself, but rather the moral lessons which can be extracted from such stories as "The Book of Job" (which BTW it is by far more reasonable to ask a Rabbi about), and, indeed, the ever-so-popular story about Noah's flood (which I suspect is a plagiarism of the story of Utnapishtim from the Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh).
It is very likely that there has been several deluge-like flood events in many places on this earth. For instance, only a few years ago, there was a rather significant tsunami that hit South-East Asia. But we know what caused it to happen - and it wasn't the angry Jehova, it was an underwater eartquake. However, if that had happened, say, 3,000 years ago, what kind of stories would you assume that they would be telling around their campfires some couple of hundred years later? The sudden death of 200,000 people leaves quite an impression.
On a sidenote: This thread is amusing! Nothing beats he real deal in creationist insanity.
You gotta be a pretty fuckin clever satiricist to invent those kind of jaw-dropping arguments.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
Looks like everyone has your answer covered. So I won't repeat what they said, but just remember. If a creationist tells you a "fact" about anything related to the origins of anything it is probably BS.
"Take all the heads of the people
and hang them up before the Lord
against the sun.” -- Numbers 25:4
I actually have one that was cut out of the mountains in California by my daughter's father. She wanted to be an archeologist when she was younger, so naturally he gave it to her. It is sitting here in my yard as it is a three inch thick slate and is quite heavy. So yes, there are fossils of fish on mountains as proof of a great flood or maybe these mountains grew out of the sea ions ago bringing the fish that the lava caught with them. If you would like to see a pic, just let me know.
None of us doubt the fossils. But that doesn't account for a global flood.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
As far as that bullshit story about the great flood, the plain fact is that earth's hydrosphere is constant at a volume of about 1,360,000,000 km to p3. To elevate the water level to cover the entire earth you would require an additional water volume that would be the sum of the equation 8.8km (the height of Mt Everest) x 510,072,000 km² (the surface area of the earth). And there'd have to be a variable included to take into account the increasing circumference of the earth as the water level rose. Regardless of the math, that volume of water doesn't just evaporate after a couple of sunny days - it joins the water cycle. And it's not in the water cycle.
Water is a byproduct of star formation, it's not coming and going all over the place. The simple truth is that the bible writers were utter numbats.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
If I recall correctly, Everest is shrinking (as all good mountains which are done growing tend to do). If so, then it would take even more water than your calculation. Even a few centimetres of extra height would mean billiions of billions of litres of extra water that magically vanished. It's just too ridiculous to contemplate how people can believe such stupidity. A god is one thing. At least you can't prove OR disprove that, depending on how you define it. But believing in myths that have been categorically obliterated is just willfull idiocy.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
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.
Let us K.I.S., keep it simple. Please go look in a mirror, without evolution you would be identical to your mother and your grandmother and your great-grand .....etc. etc. also your sisters and in fact identical to every female relative weather living or past away. All females alive today carry the SAME Mitrchonrial DNA which originated from one female who lived in Africa around 220,000 years ago. Therefore without evolutionary changes ALL females alive today would be IDENTICAL, not similer but IDENTICAL. The same applies to males but our DNA Adam only dates to 60,000 years ago.
The bio-diversity of our modern world is a living result of evolution. Otherwise we would see exactly One (1) type of tree world wide rather then 300,000 or so; we would have One(1) type of fish rather then millions; One (1) type of bird rather then 100,000 or so; One (1) type of grass rather then millions. etc. etc.
btw humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are primates monkeys are not. The tails make the difference here, primates don't have any. Primates diverged from a COMMON ancester with monkeys around 9 million years ago. Homonids diverged from other primates around 7 million years ago. It still took another 3 million years before homonids started looking and behaving differently from other primates.
Now if you still beliee in creationism then why is there so much diversity in the world. Goddidit is simply not a scientific answer.
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Because there isn't enough water to cover the entire earth including mt. Everest. Also, there is plenty of evidence for not having a global flood. All you have to do is actually study the Grand Canyon. Here is a nice website with lots of pictures showing the various formations and how they were layered. http://www.rockhounds.com/grand_hikes/geology/overview.shtml
There was a need. It is called competition. If you are out of work and can't find work where you live, one of your options is to move to a different city rumored to have more jobs available. Same for the fish. If it is really crowded in the ocean, and there is all that land with plants that might be good food, why not move where it is less crowded and more food? They didn't "know" about land, they just saw the opportunity and took it.
You know a basic course in ecology and evolution at your local community college might be a place you could get some detailed answers. But if you are lazy, here are some simple answers. Each organism (even bacteria and fungi and people) occupies an ecological niche. That is, they eat and reproduce in a particular habitat. If you study birds, you will find that they nest in different areas - some on the ground, some in low bushes, some in small trees, some on the top of the tallest trees, some in rock cliffs, and so on. If a bird nests on the ground, they also very likely eat what is on the ground. And so on. And they are all different species. Doves do not mate with quails or eagles. So each organism evolved to take advantage of a nesting area and food that other species were not taking advantage of.
People and monkeys. So your great-great-great grandmother had two children. You are descended from one of them. You have cousins you don't even know that descended from her other child. So if you exist, why do your cousins exist? And do you think your remote cousins look exactly like you?
Look, if I meet a maker when I die, I have some questions to ask. "You gave me a brain, a lot of curiosity, literally tons of physical evidence and a 3000 year old book dictated to a bunch of goat herders. And you are going to condemn me for using the brain you gave me? Thanks, I think I will cheerfully go to hell."
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
It will also be too late to turn back for Christians, if it turns out they are facing Allah.
Or maybe some other Deity, who perhaps detests people who assume He would be influenced by people simply sucking up to him and telling him how great he was, rather than using the brains he had given them to seek real knowledge.
Pascal was a dumb-ass.
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
....is explained in the Bible. The story of the Great Flood is not only a Christian view, but it also shared by other faiths. In the time that this flood happened(almost 4 1/2 thousand years ago. A very small fraction compared to the age of Earth), have any new mountain ranges formed?
Science justifes and proves the Word of the Bible everytime.
How come the Chinese and Egyptians have no record of a global flood?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.