FRIHOST • FORUMS • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • DIRECTORY
You are invited to Log in or Register a Frihost Account!

Sea Fossils on Mountain Tops

   Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science
 


Satori
I was asked in another thread to post some of my questions in a new thread so they could be more thoroughly discussed.

Sea Fossils have been found embedded in rocks on mountaintops (this is nothing new.) What I would like to discuss is how they got there. I am not going to claim a side in the following debate, but would merely like to discuss the topic so as to further my understanding of it. Please reply with your idea as to how sea fossils got on top of mountains. Please also include any supporting evidence and references for your claim. Please keep it scientific. I say this in hopes of avoiding the "god put them there" response. If you are a creationist, that's fine...I'm not saying you can't post here. What I am saying is that your post must be scientific. This means that however you think the earth got here makes no difference. You can still come up with a scientific answer to this question.

That being said, let's hear it! How DID sea fossils get on top of mountains?
Bikerman
It's very easy to explain. The process concerned is called 'uplift'.
When the continental plates collide with each other you sometimes get a process of 'uplift' where the land is forced upwards by the tectonic pressure. This is a slow process (taking millions of years) but eventually can result in low-lying land being raised up to form mountain ranges.
It is also worth noting that where sea-fossils are found on such mountains they are generally found deep in the rock layers - not on the top. This indicates that the fossils were laid down before the uplift occurred.
The issue is often cited by creationists as evidence of a global flood but, like other such claims, it doesn't 'hold water'. (ouch)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Sea_fossils_have_been_found_on_mountaintops
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDC143CF931A25750C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/10/13/owen-perry-fossils-on-mountains-proves-the-truth-of-noahs-flood.htm
Satori
Bikerman wrote:
It's very easy to explain. The process concerned is called 'uplift'.
When the continental plates collide with each other you sometimes get a process of 'uplift' where the land is forced upwards by the tectonic pressure. This is a slow process (taking millions of years) but eventually can result in low-lying land being raised up to form mountain ranges.
It is also worth noting that where sea-fossils are found on such mountains they are generally found deep in the rock layers - not on the top. This indicates that the fossils were laid down before the uplift occurred.
The issue is often cited by creationists as evidence of a global flood but, like other such claims, it doesn't 'hold water'. (ouch)
http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Sea_fossils_have_been_found_on_mountaintops
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC364.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDC143CF931A25750C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/10/13/owen-perry-fossils-on-mountains-proves-the-truth-of-noahs-flood.htm


I've read all your linked sources, but still have questions. Say that this is the case and that these fossils were laid down before the "uplift" occurred. Let's also agree that this "uplift" does in fact take millions of years. What happened to erosion during these millions of years? Assuming that these fossils are initially buried deeply in sediment layers, wouldn't this slow "uplift" process allow for erosion to remove, or at least bring these fossils close to the surface, over those millions of years?

I'm merely asking because it doesn't make sense to me. Anyone with any common sense can easily see that erosion is most prominent on the top of a mountain. High winds and lots of snow (and therefore runoff) alone create an environment that's very erosive. I realize that through this very slow "uplift" process that the land in question wasn't always a mountain, and therefore exposed to high winds. The first part of the process, the land was likely exposed to "normal" erosion conditions. And as it gradually rose, so did the amount of erosion that took place.

Is my logic faulty?

Another thing that doesn't make sense to me. The claim is that since the fossils are deeply embedded, this means that the fossils were deposited before the mountains rose. I agree with this claim. But what I don't see is how it refutes the possibility of a flood. Why isn't it possible for the land to have been flooded before it was lifted up to become mountains? Why isn't it possible for both events to be connected?

Just questions. Who's got answers?
Bikerman
Satori wrote:
I've read all your linked sources, but still have questions. Say that this is the case and that these fossils were laid down before the "uplift" occurred. Let's also agree that this "uplift" does in fact take millions of years. What happened to erosion during these millions of years? Assuming that these fossils are initially buried deeply in sediment layers, wouldn't this slow "uplift" process allow for erosion to remove, or at least bring these fossils close to the surface, over those millions of years?
Yes, and some fossils do occur close to the surface, but most don't.
Quote:
'm merely asking because it doesn't make sense to me. Anyone with any common sense can easily see that erosion is most prominent on the top of a mountain. High winds and lots of snow (and therefore runoff) alone create an environment that's very erosive. I realize that through this very slow "uplift" process that the land in question wasn't always a mountain, and therefore exposed to high winds. The first part of the process, the land was likely exposed to "normal" erosion conditions. And as it gradually rose, so did the amount of erosion that took place.
Is my logic faulty?
Yes. Erosion through wind force is a very very slow process - much slower than erosion through water, for example. I've been riding my bike up a particular mountain (Snowdon) for 20 years and have seen no noticable erosion at the peak. I haven't got any figures for wind erosion rates but I suspect that are very very slow. Snow, in itself, is not very erosive either, especially if it is permanent or semi-permanent. Some mountain peaks will perhaps have 1 period of melt per year which will tend to affect a narrow channel where the melt runs off - here you will see erosion on a larger scale. You will find far more erosion at the bottom where natural vallys will tend to form stream and river courses.

Now if there is glaciation then that is different - glaciers will carve great chunks out of mountains pretty quickly (relatively speaking) and you will almost certainly get fossils exposed (if the mountain is a result of sea-bed uplift).
Quote:
Another thing that doesn't make sense to me. The claim is that since the fossils are deeply embedded, this means that the fossils were deposited before the mountains rose. I agree with this claim. But what I don't see is how it refutes the possibility of a flood.
It doesn't. It just doesn't provide any evidence of a flood.
Quote:
Why isn't it possible for the land to have been flooded before it was lifted up to become mountains? Why isn't it possible for both events to be connected?
In what way could uplift be connected to a flood?
Much land was flooded before it was uplifted - sea-bed - and those mountains are where you find marine-creatures fossilised.
The question you asked was how marine-fossils occur on mountains. This has been answered. If you want to find evidence for a flood then you will have to look elsewhere....
Gagnar The Unruly
As far as I know, uplift + erosion are involved in the discovery of most fossils. Fossils get buried after they deposit. Uplift brings them to ground level, or close, and then erosion exposes them to discovery. That's one reason fossils are so often found on cliff-sides.

My native Kansas was once covered with an enormous, shallow (several meters!) inland sea. The land uplifted about 1000 feet and the sea receded, leaving behind a dark shale (shale is formed from mud) rich with fossil artrhopods. The shale was buried and then exposed by glaciation and subsequent stream erosion (and highway construction). Now, without too much trouble, you can find riverbanks and overpasses overflowing with 300 million-year-old trilobite fossils. The trilobites weather more slowly then the shale, so they fall out like gravel. At first you think the earth is just gravelly, until closer inspection reveals it's about 50% trilobite and 50% shale & clay.
jeremyp
Bikerman wrote:
I've been riding my bike up a particular mountain (Snowdon) for 20 years

Good grief. I can walk up and down it in a day. What's taking you?
Indi
jeremyp wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I've been riding my bike up a particular mountain (Snowdon) for 20 years

Good grief. I can walk up and down it in a day. What's taking you?

^_^; Classic.

Satori wrote:
Another thing that doesn't make sense to me. The claim is that since the fossils are deeply embedded, this means that the fossils were deposited before the mountains rose. I agree with this claim. But what I don't see is how it refutes the possibility of a flood. Why isn't it possible for the land to have been flooded before it was lifted up to become mountains? Why isn't it possible for both events to be connected?

Bikerman gave the short answer, i will give the longer one because i think it is particularly illustrative of one of the most fundamental of core scientific concepts... and one of the most poorly understood.

Here is an unusually honest answer to your questions: of course it's possible for that to have happened (or for both events to be connected). It is also possible that there was no uplift at all, and continental drift started a hundred years ago or so.

The second possibility is apparently easily ruled out. There's no reason to believe that plates started moving a hundred years ago. There is every indication that they have been moving for millions of years, and there is no mechanism that anyone has proposed (that i know of) that started them moving in the late 1800s . That does not mean that it is impossible, but without a reason to make that assumption... well, it just sounds absurd, doesn't it?

The first possibility seems more difficult to rule out... but in actuality, it's done using exactly the same mechanism. There is no reason to believe that there was a massive worldwide flood at any point in Earth's history. There is every indication that it didn't happen (if the mountain tops were flooded over, how come sea fossils are not found everywhere - not just uplifted land), and no mechanism that anyone has proposed (that makes scientific sense) for where the water came from, where it went, and how come there is no sign of the massive vertical shift in the plates that would have occurred if all that water was dumped on it, then taken off. That does not mean it is impossible, but without a reason to make that assumption... you see? The only reason to make that assumption these days is that it is described in a 5000 year old Jewish mystical text... and other civilizations that existed before, during and after this alleged flood did not mention it (although many ancient civilizations have flood myths, few have any that can seriously be matched to the Biblical account of a global flood).

As for why this idea - that you cannot accept anything with a reason - is so critically important, consider taking the next step. Suppose i asked: Why isn't it possible that aliens who love practical jokes seeded the mountains with ocean fossils, just to mess with our minds?

You'll notice that question is the same as the one you asked, just with a different flavour. In fact, i could make a functionally infinite number of such questions, of varying plausibility. Watch: Why isn't it possible that ancient pteranodon preyed on ancient sea creatures like modern fisher birds, swooping down, catching these creatures, then taking them up to their mountain roosts to eat, leaving the bones behind? Why isn't it possible that giant tornadoes sucked up the sea creatures and dumped them on the mountains? Why isn't it possible that meteor impacts in the ocean splashed up the fish onto the mountains?

The answer to all of these questions is identical: it is possible, but there is no reason to believe it. Once you take into account all of the things we do have reason to believe (plate tectonics and such), everything is explained satisfactorily. We don't need to suppose anything else.
Satori
This post is for Bikerman and Indi mainly, but anyone else interested can check this out too.

Ok, you keep saying there's "no reason" other than a 2000 year old book to believe that a flood could have happened. Well, that's where we differ. The only thing that's even made me question evolution and the existence of the flood is ONE book that I have recently read that is NOT the bible. Here's what you guys should know about me before I share this link:

- I am NOT religious (I do consider myself to be a spiritual person, but lack a religion because I don't agree with many of their practices.)

- I used to believe completely and unfalteringly in evolution. Not because I'd read any books on it, but because it seemed to be the most logical conclusion, compared to the alternatives.

- I still haven't ruled out evolution as completely possible...I have merely started to question if there isn't more to it, or other possibilities as to how we got to our present state.

These things being said, I one day stumbled upon the following web site after googling "cliffs of dover" because they're in a great decemberists song and I wanted to find a picture so I knew what he was singing about. I had no intention of even reading what I found, yet something managed to ensnare my curiosity and I began to read "compelling evidence for creation and the flood."

I don't expect you guys to read the entire book, though I did. What I discovered was incredibly interesting to me. I found a completely scientific debate about the possibility of creation and the flood. YES, this was written by a creationist. YES, it's obvious at times. But surprisingly, there isn't ANY religion in the book until the very end where he at last uses scripture passages to help support his theory. I of course wasn't interested in the religious aspect of it, as the bible to me isn't anything more than a story book that may have some semi-accurate depictions of historical events and mainly a lot of good moral advice.

But, this guy is a scientist. And he does indeed give a compelling argument for a global flood. I would love to hear both of your opinions after reading his book. Seeing as how you two both seem to be quite rational and intelligent people.

Again, I must stress that I don't believe entirely in his theories. He wasn't able to convince me that noah's ark exists (though he does try of course.) He wasn't able to convince me that the earth was created within the past 10,000 years. But he was able to force me to consider that it was entirely possible that a global flood occured...something I would have scoffed at before reading his book.

Anyway...here it is. I'd love to hear your guys thoughts on this:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html
Gagnar The Unruly
Instead of reading a book written by a creationist who's obviously got ulterior motives, try reading an invertebrate paleontology textbook. I'm sure there are dozens available, and they'll give you a glimpse into a very active field. Do you really think tens of thousands of researchers on millions of dollars of support could actually all be mistaken on this point? Can there really be any valid point made by a creationist that rationally undermines the principles of decades of geologic, paleontologic, and biologic research?
Indi
First, let's do the reality check, and point out what's blatantly incorrect in the post itself:

Satori wrote:
Ok, you keep saying there's "no reason" other than a 2000 year old book to believe that a flood could have happened. Well, that's where we differ. The only thing that's even made me question evolution and the existence of the flood is ONE book that I have recently read that is NOT the bible.

And... where did that book get the idea from? Yeah. Exactly.

Satori wrote:
I found a completely scientific debate about the possibility of creation and the flood.

There are two problem words here.

First, "scientific". If there was anything "scientific" going on, it would be debated in scientific circles. Why? Because that's how science works. Scientists get together in journals and workshops and such and debate the validity of ideas. Those ideas that survive this process become science. Those that don't, don't. If there was anything valid about creation theory or the global flood theory (or Brown's pet theory, hydroplates), it would have been brought up in those circles (all have), discussed by scientists (all have), and been found valid (whoops! none have).

Second, "debate". A monologue is not a debate. ONE book (emphasis as you used it) written by one author does not constitute a debate. What you read was one person's pet theory. Nothing more. (And, interestingly enough, if you do a very brief background check on the author, you will see that although he has apparently shot his mouth off about wanting to debate "evolutionists" on the topic, he invariably finds ways to dodge those debates.)

Satori wrote:
YES, this was written by a creationist. YES, it's obvious at times. But surprisingly, there isn't ANY religion in the book until the very end where he at last uses scripture passages to help support his theory.

i direct you to Figure 1 on page xiii. Yes. That's figure 1. The first figure. Right in the preface. It's also mentioned right in the first chapter. (For giggles, note also that figure 2 has a picture of Noah's Ark.)

In the second chapter (introduction): "The scientific evidence showing the hand of the Creator falls into three major areas..."

In the second chapter (first part): "Understanding DNA is just one small reason for believing that you are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Ps 139:14)"

In the second chapter (second part): "Far too many textbook authors and popular science commentators, who influence teachers and students alike, do not understand that “the heavens are telling of the glory of God.” (Ps 19:1)"

Seriously, did you read this freaking book? It has no religion in it?

Satori wrote:
But, this guy is a scientist.

No, he is not. He is a mechanical engineer. He says so, right on the first page.

-----------------------------------------

And now, for the deeper issues:

Satori wrote:
Ok, you keep saying there's "no reason" other than a 2000 year old book to believe that a flood could have happened. Well, that's where we differ. The only thing that's even made me question evolution and the existence of the flood is ONE book that I have recently read that is NOT the bible.

Stop me at any point i am wrong.

So, after having read absolutely nothing on evolution (by your own admission), you stumbled across a book on the Internet.

You read said book, and thought it sounded plausible - again, although you've read absolutely nothing else on the topic besides this book up to this point at least.

i'm going to guess that you have done nothing in the way of checking up on the writer's credibility, the level of general acceptance of his theory (you know a theory has to be bad if even creationists disown it!), or any scientific rebuttals to his arguments.

Is that right so far?

And now you think that people who have read quite a bit on this stuff (interestingly, although i did not know the book or the author by name, i have read about his theory), and who have already casually dismissed it as nonsense, will be impressed?

Satori wrote:
Here's what you guys should know about me before I share this link:

- I am NOT religious (I do consider myself to be a spiritual person, but lack a religion because I don't agree with many of their practices.)

- I used to believe completely and unfalteringly in evolution. Not because I'd read any books on it, but because it seemed to be the most logical conclusion, compared to the alternatives.

- I still haven't ruled out evolution as completely possible...I have merely started to question if there isn't more to it, or other possibilities as to how we got to our present state.

There are many troubling aspects of the above.

First... i didn't need to know and do not care about the status of your religious beliefs (or "spiritual beliefs" if you want to all them that). i don't even understand how or why you might think they would be relevant to whether or geology. Yes, i did mention the Bible - because the idea of a global flood is essentially flood geology, which, as you will see if you look it up, is Biblically-based "science". i stand by my assertion: "The only reason to make that assumption [a global flood] these days is that it is described in a 5000 year old Jewish mystical text..." You could be Wiccan or Scientologist for all i care, it doesn't change the science, or the fact that flood geology is Bible-based.

Second... what alternatives? If you hadn't done any reading on the topic before the turd you linked to, what alternatives have you studied? That text represents one of the most major of alternatives - in fact, you could even say it is the alternative, the only alternative. How can you have considered alternatives and never heard of it before?

And finally... what does flood geology really have to do with evolution? If you don't buy the other crap in that book - the young Earth and Noah's Ark and all that stuff - and if you are only interested in the flood geology... what does that have to do with evolution? Evolution is biology, flood geology is geology.

Satori wrote:
I don't expect you guys to read the entire book, though I did.

Oh, i might, eventually. At the moment i have far more important things to read. When i have time, it might be amusing.

Why don't you try doing a little reading yourself. You have the name of the book, the writer and the theory, and you have the most powerful information system in the history of the world at your fingertips (Google). Why not look up some challenges and criticisms, and see how they stack up?

Satori wrote:
the bible to me isn't anything more than a story book that may have some semi-accurate depictions of historical events and mainly a lot of good moral advice.

Oh i'd question that. ^_^; Both parts of it. But that's for another thread.
Bikerman
Since the question was directed at me also, let me just add that I think Indi has summed up my own feelings on the matter quite adequately. I find it incredible that you would 'buy into' a world-view based on this book and, at the same time, fail to read anything on evolution before deciding it is wrong.
If you are interested in 'flood' theories then there are some genuine scientific areas to look at. There is absolutely no support for a 'global' flood event and many reasons for thinking such an event impossible, but there is plenty of evidence for catastrophic flooding events in history. It is, I believe, quite possible that one such event might be responsible for the earliest flood myths (the Sumerian myth - long before the Biblical version). There are many such myths; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html so it is reasonable to assume that there may be some historic underpinning for at least some such myths.

We know that gigantic flooding events have occured in Earth's history - Mega-Tsunami and glacial ice-dam melts being two obvious examples. You might also want to look at research on the Black Sea which seems to indicate a possible source for the Biblical myth - and this is genuine science not creationist cant.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_noah.htm

Other reading you might enjoy:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/jul/18/geography.geology
http://uktv.co.uk/history/item/aid/573328
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> General Science

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2007 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.