What an excellent question! Creationists believe that a great FLUD washed sea creatures up from the bottom of the sea to the tops of mountains, and somehow embedded them inside the mountains. What a display of ignorance of the principles of science. Floods do not wash things up - floods wash things down.Another example of such blithering ignorance of creationist arguments it does nothing but expose the true character of EvC, but of course there's nothing new about that. It's just been getting to me lately. Of course unfortunately no well-prepared creationist will go to EvC any more, so they have some excuse. Not much, though. A website that purports to have a debate about these things should be able to do much better.
Anyway, sigh: Creationists do NOT think the Flood put fossils in mountains, creationists know the mountains were built from strata already laid down in the Flood, and this is SO well known it's offensive in the extreme that such stupidities can even be expressed at EvC.
I grew up surrounded by mountain ranges and spent lots of time in those mountains as a student biologist. From a hill outside of town I could see the snow capped peaks of five different mountain ranges in July (Pryor (8,822 ft.), Crazy (11,214 ft.), Beartooth (12,807 ft.), Absaroka (13,153 ft.), and Bighorn (13,167 ft.)). As far as I know, no sea shells have ever been found in or on any of these ranges. Compare that with the Himalayas. Wikipedia lists 13 peaks that are twice as high as the highest peak of the Beartooth, and 25 peaks that are higher than any of the ranges I listed. I suspect there are more.This isn't even a straw man, it's pure fantasy beyond the usual fantasizing silliness.
And yet, sea shells are found on all of the peaks that tower 4 and 5 miles above sea level while none are found in the smaller ranges of the western United States. How do creationists explain this?
If creationists are giving such an impression get rid of the creationists because they are misrepresenting creationism, but although I've seen some pretty bad creationism at EvC I can't consider this an excuse for the majority contributors to propagate it. As I've been saying, the quality at EvC is so bad it shouldn't even exist. Has it deteriorated over time? I'm not sure, maybe, but it's been getting to me lately.
WHY IS THIS EVEN A QUESTION? WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE SOME MOUNTAINS WITHOUT FOSSILIFEROUS STRATA? I LIVE NEAR THE SIERRAS, A VOLCANIC RANGE WITH NO STRATA AND NO FOSSILS. Where are these people getting these straw man arguments from anyway?
All it does is prove beyond a doubt that creationists should STAY AWAY FROM EvC.
And the rudeness of Pressie in dealing with my argument below just confirms everything I've said about the attitude to the debate at EvC. Of course I couldn't resist playing gadfly because of his particularly stupid straw-man misrepresentations of creationism. Alas, it appears that pandion has equalled him in that.
He even somehow connects my comment about how participants should be required to know something about both evolutionist and creationist arguments to this particular thread about fossils in mountains? Does the guy think at all?
It's really really sad to see what passes there for scientific debate. "Straw man" hardly gets at even a tenth of the problems there. What a bunch of smug know-nothings they are there.
Oh brother, another comment from Pressie:
Sorry, got another e-mail from Faith G where she (it's a she apparantly) threatens to keep on commenting on her blog about us! Be warned. She is going to overturn every natural science in the world on her blog!Na, Pressie me lad, I just want you to know the blog is here, because nothing intelligent is being said at EvC as it is here. But of course you are beyond the ability to make such a judgment. Sad.
What's REALLY REALLY sad is that what I'm objecting to is the NON-SCIENCE of the comments at EvC. THEY are the ones destroying science.
Well, too bad. An email exchange with Pressie went nowhere. He kept accusing me of lying and being mentally ill and didn't give a single example of anything I've written in the emails or on my blog that is an example of either. I guess I walked into that one. Unfortunately of course it simply confirms my judgment of the spirit of EvC, there is no real interest in fact or science there, all they want to do is get rid of creationists.
Oh and hi back to Percy who sent me "fond wishes." How sweet.
AND THEN DR. A had added his own straw man to that thread earlier which I'm just now getting around to noticing:
And yet, sea shells are found on all of the peaks that tower 4 and 5 miles above sea level while none are found in the smaller ranges of the western United States.Well since creationist water washes sediment upwards, clearly those mountains aren't tall enough to have any marine deposits. The layers of seashells must be somewhere above them, and presumably have thus far been mistaken for clouds by godless scientists blinkered and prejudiced by their uniformitarianismist assumptions about gravity.
Apparently it's OK with Percy and everyone else that lies about creationist arguments are posted on "science" threads? And RIDICULE is regarded as "scientific" argument too?