Is it possible for you to read the thread discussion and offer a relevant comment?
It's just pitiable that you YEC'ists will insist your bible tales and fables are true and inerrant Yet we both know that there is not a shred of credible evidence to support such absurdities.
/shrugs...the only possible comment relevant to your posts is that you don't know what you're talking about and have to lie about others to have something to post......even then, its merely repetitive......
So was it a global flood or not? And how do we know that Noah was 600 years old?
it was wide spread enough to kill all the human beings not on the ark........did it touch the top of Mt Everest?......no.......
Yes it did.
The Mathisen Corollary Crinoids on Mount Everest
Crinoids on Mount Everest?
Crinoid fossils and other marine fossils have been found on top of almost every mountain range on earth. In fact, crinoid fossils have even been found at the summit of Mount Everest, the highest point on earth.
Actually, if you think abut it, it is highly unlikely that any sea/ocean/lake creatures would have gotten deposited in large numbers on any mountain if we relie only on the explaination of a flood.
The Biblical did nt put them there. There would have to have traveled not only upwards, but also thousand of miles to make it near the top of a mountain in waters that did not harbor the natural food supply of these organisms. Especially in 40 days!
Its like saying it is ok to traversing the Sahara without proper preparations, or knowing where the oasis are. Such a route would take years to create underwater even if Mt. Everst existed at the time these organisms where able to travel in the region.
In other words, unless these organisms fell from Heaven with the rain, it is unlikely the flood "deposited" them on the mountains in the short time span given.
If you would have read the article it explains it.
On the other hand, the hydroplate theory explains the presence of these marine fossils on top of Everest and other high continental mountains quite satisfactorily (just as it explains many other difficult issues in geology that cannot be satisfactorily explained by conventional tectonic theory, such as the question of why
ancient monuments such as the Giza pyramids, Stonehenge, Newgrange, Mnajdra and others are still aligned after several thousands of years of supposed continental drift, or how
undersea canyons such as the Ganges Fan, the Indus Fan, and the Monterey Canyon were carved, or why
the Grand Canyon plows right through a huge massif if it was really carved over tens of millions of years by a simple river the way we are supposed to believe it was, or why there are
arc-and-cusp patternsin the deep ocean trenches that are impossible to explain by the action of subducting plates, or why -- if subducting plates really cause deep ocean trenches --
sophisticated modern gravity measurementsfind gravity vacuums under the trenches instead of gravity spikes the way one would expect if these trenches are really created by a diving oceanic plate).
The
hydroplate theory explains why Everest itself is composed of sedimentary rock -- in itself a remarkable fact. It explains that the
layered strata (with their rapidly buried fossils) were laid down during the global flood, that the events surrounding that flood caused the continents to drift away from the rupture that would become the Atlantic Ocean and towards the basin that would become the Pacific and Indian Oceans, and that the violent compression of these continents (and their sedimentary layers) pushed up the mountain ranges including the Himalayas. The theory argues that this flood event could have happened only thousands of years ago rather than tens or hundreds of millions of years ago -- solving the problems that uniformitarian explanations have (such as why the successive ages of annual freezing and thawing have not eroded all these ancient fossils away, and why there are still modern crinoids that look just like these supposedly extremely ancient crinoids).
This theory explains the
preservation of fossils in the first place -- which do not generally form under normal conditions and which pose a real problem for uniformitarian theories (normal conditions plus lots of time do not create fossils). Its explanation for a rapid creation of the Himalayas is also crucial to the understanding of what caused earth's "
Big Roll" (the evidence for which has been discussed in several other posts such as
this one and
this one, and which other analysts have tried to explain using theories such as the "earth-crust displacement" theory or theories which involve Venus bouncing off of the earth in an ancient time).
