Atheist's how do you explain petrified clams on Mount Everest?

Question

As far as I can tell they don't climb mountains very good and can't fly.

It's really simple. Around 4400 years ago a flood occurred and some of the clams were buried by a mud flow from the water shooting out of the crust of the earth. In the bible it talks about mountains rising up and valleys sinking down. In a world wide flood many plates of the earth would be moving around and they smacked into each other and formed mountains. For a better answer go to drdino.com and click on downloads and watch seminar 1 (I think it's the first one but I could be wrong).

Problem with you theories . At the current rate of erosion the mountains would have eroded flat around 33 million years ago.

Here's some websites but of course you will just say it's a lie.

http://doctorprofessional.com/page3a.html
http://cs.joensuu.fi/~vtenhu/hovind/CHP-5.htm

http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/tree/browse_frm/month/2005-02?_done=%2Fgroup%2FAtheism-vs-Christianity%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fmonth%2F2005-02%3F&

Answer 1

Go back to science class and ask your teacher how a mountain is formed. It has to do with abduction, subduction, and plate tectonics.

Answer 2

Oh for the love of ...
That's utterly *amazing*. You have managed to take some of the best evidence for an old earth (that rocks on the bottom of the ocean have risen up over millions of years to form mountains) and actually turned it around and used to to propose that the earth is young and that the noachian flood occurred.
And it is *well* known that the Himalayas are *growing*! Sure, erosion is occurring, but the plate tectonics are pushing the mountains up faster than that. So they would not have eroded flat 33 million years ago.
(PS - if you think that flooding causes such a dramatic acceleration of plate tectonics that the Himalayas were raised in 4400 years then you know nothing about geology at all. Also, they would need to have risen at an average of ~2.5 m/year instead of the observed 5 mm/year)

OK - couple of counter-questions:
How did the light from stars more distant than ~6,000 years reach us?
Why are there Bristlecone pine trees in california that are dated (by ring-counting, not by carbon-dating) at 10,000 years old?
Are you asserting that all the fossils were laid down in the biblical flood? If so the - there is a fossil bed in southern Africa called the Karroo that contains an estimated 800 billion vertebrate fossils, with an average size of a fox. Even if we discount *all* other fossils on earth as being irrelevant; with the land area of the earth, that amounts to 21 fox-sized vertebrates per acre of land: more dense than any ecosystem on earth.
Why are there equal numbers of fossils of aquatic organisms as terrestrial organisms? Surely they didn't drown in the flood?
And it is commonly suggested that all coal etc. was laid down in the flood also. There is ~1 x 10^15 tonnes of coal and similar organic remains in the earth. Even if the *entire* surface of the earth was forest, that would only amount to ~2 x 10^13 tonnes, less than 1/50th of what is found. Where did it all come from?

Answer 3

I think you mean fossilized. In any case, you skipped every one of those science classes in school, huh?

People figured this one out hundreds of years ago, even though they did not know the natural mechanisms and forces or the precise age of the earth. The answer is simple: the top of the mountain used to be at the bottom of the ocean before tectonics and well understood geophysical processes moved and reshaped it into the form we see today.

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

edit –

Hey Clyde; can’t you at least get you own lies right? You mean 4004 BC not 4400 years ago — the Egyptian pyramids were already built by then, for crying out loud.

This is a joke, right? No one is this stupid. Well, maybe the President, but certainly no one else.

------

And, what would that "rate" of erosion be? And, what happened to all the "formation" processes that created the modern landscape in the first place?

Really, show some mercy; I can't keep laughing like this much longer.

------

LakynInfinity –

At least one scientist has answered, and I suspect I am not the only one.

He is not interested in the truth. The truth here is very easy to determine; and a person has to work pretty hard to avoid finding and accepting it.

----

Some are intentional lies and some are the result of ignorance. You are wrong just the same - and that's the fact, Jack.

Answer 4

And, how would you explain remnants of ferns and such found in the Arctic?

I don't know first-hand about clams found upon Mount Everest but plate tectonics is the most likely cause.

How old are these fossils? When did these clams die?

It would be nice if you could provide a little more information. Of course, if you're one of those '6,000 year' believers, then you have very little chance of understanding scientific evidence which goes far beyond the scope of a tiny 6,000 year world.


Oh, Art please. Raging plates and quick rising mountains. You're in a fantasy land.


My, God!! Petrified Clams. Is my account frozen?

Quite frankly it's the religious cult people who clique and bring up magic wand answers.

From your point of view I must assume that God, in the great flood, moved a bunch of clams from the bottom of the ocean and up the sides of Everest just to screw you around. Actually, if you study clams you will find them better climbers than swimmers. They didn't swim up the newly minted Everest and fossilize themselves. Especially in the time sense you are trying to deal with.


You're right, Art. I read your doc pro stuff. You and he know so little. Besides that, that is what you insist on believing. Some people love their blissful ignorance. I'm not going to go into a big dissertation on why you and he are wrong because you obviously have no intention of understanding the truth.

Hovid - this is more useless conjecture. By the way many animals have no sweat glands. Both northern and southern. Actually is more advantageous to have sweat glands in warm climates rather than cold ones.

Answer 5

Ummm, before India collided with Asia that part of the world was in the middle of an OCEAN! As the plates collided and crushed against each other they had nowhere to go but up and thus form the Himalayas. That process still continues today, the mountains get higher by a few cm each year.

Answer 6

To clarify your claim, somehow as he earth was being flooded clams reproduced (in the sudden infusion of fresh water that would have killed them) and their babies survied to land on top of Mount Everest only to mature and become coveed in silt in the 100 or so days that Noah spent on the ark after the rain? Not mentioning that Everest would have been one of the first places uncovered and the least likely to collect silt... Oh, then there is the small problem with documenting that clams or any fossils have bee found on Everest.

This hypothesis of yours is not nearly as sound as a sea floor having clams fossilizing and then after years a plate shift occurs and creates a mountain range out of what once was an ocean floor.

Answer 7

Plate tectonics explains the presence of fossils at the top of Mount Everest. The rocks on the top of Mount Everest were formed as seafloor sediments and raised to their present level due to the continental plates "crinkling" when the Indian plate collided with the main Asian plate.

Course your probably just going to ignore that bit of science and keep believing in a "world wide flood" cos thats way more likely!
EDIT:AGAIN YOU ARE IGNORING THE FACTS LITTLE BOY>
Old mountain ranges are eroded flat. But there are also forces creating new mountains. For example, the Himalayas are still rising.
Present rates of erosion are particularly high due to more mountain building and higher mountains than usual in earth's history. (Erosion slows as mountains lose elevation.)

Answer 8

Presuming your claim is even true, I would guess the current top of Everest was once an ocean floor.

If you want to claim that clams were "petrified" only 4400 years, how is it that nothing from ancient civilizations are petrified? Petrification requires the object to be covered in water for more than 40 days.

Answer 9

If the mountains rose and the valleys sank, what did the mountains rise from and where did the valleys sink from?

That aside, I don't know. Maybe you should ASK A SCIENTIST!? If you really wanted to know, you would. But YOU only want to attack Atheists.

Tell me, why in the HELL would your God create random clams on top of some mountain?

Answer 10

Plate tectonics explains the presence of fossils at the top of Mount Everest. The rocks on the top of Mount Everest were formed as seafloor sediments and raised to their present level due to the continental plates "crinkling" when the Indian plate collided with the main Asian plate.

Rain wouldn't cause them to be buried fast enough to be fossilized. Not a good argument

Answer 11

The fossil evidence from Mt Everest is completely inconsistent with a flood; it is rather proof that at one time the rocks of Mt Everest were part of a long established and relatively placid marine environment.

EDIT: judesp25 - you must have studied geology very well?

Does that qualify you to make such generalized and false insults instead of answering the question?