Seashells at the top of Mt. Everest

Originally posted by @sonship
The mountain top must have been under the water at some time.

Yes, of course! Don't you know tectonic movements?

Originally posted by @rbhill
530 to 540 years.

Noah to Babel
If you divide 530 by 20 equals 26.5

2x2x2 26 times = 134+ million.

I'm being conservative if people had kids every 20 years that's what it would be about by the time of babel.

They started with 3 families. We obviously know some families probably had more than 10 kids too.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Yes, of course! Don't you know tectonic movements?

I probably knew before you did.
You sound like a young fella.

You have work to do over on Women Needlessly Killed in the Bible.

Originally posted by @sonship
I probably knew before you did.
You sound like a young fella.

You have work to do over on [b]Women Needlessly Killed in the Bible.[/b]

So in terms of tectonics can you explain the shells on the MtEverest?
Please try!

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
So in terms of tectonics can you explain the shells on the MtEverest?
Please try!

All I said was that the sea shells on top of the mountain was reasonable evidence of that land being once under water. That is all I said, implying nothing else.

The Himalayan mountains are believed to have been pushed up as a result of two tectonics plates pushing against each other - basic geology theory.

Originally posted by @avalanchethecat
Oh so you don't actually know any and you want to google it up? Nah, it's alright, you clearly don't know your arse from your elbow anyway.

(edit: deleted "on this topic" )

Quite clearly it seems that you weren't even aware of the fact that assumptions are made when using any dating method.

Originally posted by @sonship
All I said was that the sea shells on top of the mountain was reasonable evidence of that land being once under water. That is all I said, implying nothing else.

The Himalayan mountains are believed to have been pushed up as a result of two tectonics plates pushing against each other - basic geology theory.

Sure, tectonics explains it all.
Some says it is a proof for the Great Flood. But we know better.

Originally posted by @sonship
All I said was that the sea shells on top of the mountain was reasonable evidence of that land being once under water. That is all I said, implying nothing else.

The Himalayan mountains are believed to have been pushed up as a result of two tectonics plates pushing against each other - basic geology theory.

But you are a firm believer in the literal acceptance of the bible, therefore to you the world wide flood is not a myth and therefore you think the marine deposits on Everest is evidence of that flood. Here is the killer of that myth: the deposits of marine life forms on Everest are MILES thick. If those deposits came from a ww flood, they would certainly have been only a relatively thin layer, say 100 feet maximum. NOT miles.

AND the layers would have been jumbled up in the event of a ww flood and not chronologically stratified like we see in the actual Everest deposits. That would happen to ANY mountain that had been ocean millions of years before and then thrust upwards by 'basic geology'. But you don't believe in any of that, do you? You believe in the 6000 year old creation story don't you?

Originally posted by @rbhill
They started with 3 families. We obviously know some families probably had more than 10 kids too.

How can you put the word "obviously" and the word "probably" in the same sentence and not create a paradox?

Either you know that some families has 10 kids or more.
Or you think, hypothesize, guess, that there are some families has 10 kids or more.
You cannot be sure and unsure at the same time.

What does the bible say about the matter? The book of Truth?

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
How can you put the word "obviously" and the word "probably" in the same sentence and not create a paradox?

Either you know that some families has 10 kids or more.
Or you think, hypothesize, guess, that there are some families has 10 kids or more.
You cannot be sure and unsure at the same time.

What does the bible say about the matter? The book of Truth?

You cannot be sure and unsure at the same time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing wrong in science or theology with saying obviously this is probably more likely then that.


What does the bible say about the matter? The book of Truth?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It strongly implies this to me - that seashells found on the top of Mt. Everest will not eradicate your need to be redeemed from the real guilt of your real sins before God.

When the infallible record of your life is set before God on the day of judgment, seashells on or not on the top of Mt. Everest will not effect your need for salvation.

The redemption of the Son of God for your justification will be much more important.

Originally posted by @sonship
[b] You cannot be sure and unsure at the same time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is nothing wrong in science or theology with saying obviously this is probably more likely then that.


What does the bible say about the matter? The book of Truth?
------------------------------------ ...[text shortened]... vation.

The redemption of the Son of God for your justification will be much more important.[/b]

This is one of the paradoxes in religion, that you can actually be right and wrong at the same moment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_truth
Science is not that way, cannot be.

If you don't say that seashells matters - why not just agree that the tectonics is the sound explanation of the fact that there are seashells at high altitudes at MtEverest? Why try to explain it with the biblical flooding when it is not needed?

This has nothing to do with judgement, redemption or any other religious stuff.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
This is one of the paradoxes in religion, that you can actually be right and wrong at the same moment:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_truth
Science is not that way, cannot be.

If you don't say that seashells matters - why not just agree that the tectonics is the sound explanation of the fact that there are seashells at high altitudes at MtEver ...[text shortened]... s not needed?

This has nothing to do with judgement, redemption or any other religious stuff.

You invoked a "the book of Truth." Knowing that your attention span is very short I addressed the relative unimportance of seashells, wherever they may be, to a much more central truth of Scripture, the need for we sinners to be reconciled to God through Christ.

It sounds like you wanted me to jump into some Young Earth Creationist mode and debate how those seashells got there. I'm not an YEC - "Answers in Genesis" type of Christian.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
How can you put the word "obviously" and the word "probably" in the same sentence and not create a paradox?

Either you know that some families has 10 kids or more.
Or you think, hypothesize, guess, that there are some families has 10 kids or more.
You cannot be sure and unsure at the same time.

What does the bible say about the matter? The book of Truth?

I admit it's like a lazy saying.
Example my dad says will you help me mow the lawn for me I always respond I guess or I will try or maybe and I do it anyways.

Originally posted by @sonship
You invoked a "the book of Truth." Knowing that your attention span is very short I addressed the relative unimportance of seashells, wherever they may be, to a much more central truth of Scripture, the need for we sinners to be reconciled to God through Christ.

It sounds like you wanted me to jump into some Young Earth Creationist mode and debate how those seashells got there. I'm not an YEC - "Answers in Genesis" type of Christian.

There are some who believe in a flat earth. There are some who believe in a young world.

There are some who use the example of seashells at MtEverest to prove there has been a global flooding that made MtEverest under water - but forgets that there are many mountains, much lower in height, that doesn't have seashells. To deny that tectonics is a much better explanation, but as it is science it must be wrong.

Tell me straight out - do you think it's crazy to think that once all land on earth was covered in waters and this was observed by man?

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
There are some who believe in a flat earth. There are some who believe in a young world.

There are some who use the example of seashells at MtEverest to prove there has been a global flooding that made MtEverest under water - but forgets that there are many mountains, much lower in height, that doesn't have seashells. To deny that tectonics is a much ...[text shortened]... s crazy to think that once all land on earth was covered in waters and this was observed by man?

Tell me straight out - do you think it's crazy to think that once all land on earth was covered in waters and this was observed by man?

I don't think it is crazy if God revealed it to some seer prophetically. I believe in a world of man flooded in the time of Noah.
How we interpret the physical characteristics of this in terms of science methods may be arguable.
And maybe everywhere Christians claim to see evidence for this may not be evidence.

Seashells on a mountain ? I don't know how that data is best interpreted.
Regardless, the flood of Noah was taken seriously by Jesus Christ.
I believed it because I got convinced that the integrity of Jesus Christ is beyond questioning.

In this day and age, with scientists telling us weirder things, it should not be that hard to believe in a flood over all of man's world at that time.

if I am told of curved space or quantum entanglement, trusting Jesus Christ on a flood as recorded in Genesis is not that difficult.

I like science very much. For the real big decisions of my life I have to trust the Bible.
Eventually every one of us will put our trust in someone.