Shpongle

I've been wondering about the creationist claim that fossil marine life on mountains is evidence of a global flood (yes, I'm aware of mountain formation via tectonic uplifting).

But what I was really wondering is in the hypothetical scenario of a mountain being covered by water (for one year) is it even possible or likely that fossils of marine life would form? I wonder, because a) would there be a mechanism to bury organic material on a submerged mountain top, and b) what about erosion from the receding flood waters?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

ps418

I can't think of any half-plausible way for a flood to deposit signficant quantities of marine fossils on top of a mountain. If significant quanities of organic remains did manage to be deposited on a mountain, they would immediately be subject to subarial physical and chemical weathering. Far from forming the deposits we see, the next rain would probably just wash these unlithified deposits right off of the mountain.

Patrick

MrDarwin

A very interesting related question is why these fossil assemblages are of organisms that are not alive in today's oceans, and why shells of sea creatures alive today are not found among them. (BTW just how many of these "mountaintop" sea shell assemblages are there, and how high are these mountains? If a global flood accounts for them, it seems to me that they should be found on every mountain throughout the world, even the highest ones.)

KnightWhoSaysNi

When a creationist tells me, "how did those fossil sea shells get on mountain tops! There must have been a global flood!" I usually respond, "great, you can find them on mountain tops,... but why are there fossil sea shells in the mountains?"

Undercurrent

Would these be the remains of really smart mulloscs that, due to their quick wits and agility, managed to escape the flood by climbing to the tops of mountains? Or are they the remains of especially boyant mulloscs which floated on the flood waters to the top of the mountain?

MrDarwin

The standard creationist explanation is that the sedimentary layers were laid down before, during, or immediately after the flood, but that the folding of the sediments into mountains occurred sometime after this. (This subsequent mountain building also accounts for how the water was able to cover everything without being several miles deep.)

Of course this poses entirely new set of problems. For example, did this mountain building occur before, during, or after the massive bombardment of meteorites that resulted in the numerous impact craters around the earth, and the breakup and mad dash of the continents into their current positions?

And I'm still waiting for some creationist to explain how fossilized mud cracks could have formed during a flood.

Happy Wonderer

The argument can be turned against Creationists. Fossilized shells on mountain tops may go a long way towards explaining the origin of flood myths. Our local Native Americans had a flood/creation myth; by a strange coincidence, the tallest mountain around has fossil sea shells in it...

hw

Grumpy

I believe it was Gould who pointed out that, sure, the Grand Canyon could have conceivably been carved out in a year -- but there's no doubt it took millions of years to lay down the rock on either side of it!

KeithHarwood

Leonardo da Vinci tackled this problem in, if I remember correctly, 1499. He noticed that the fossil assemblages closely resembled living assemblages. Therefore the fossils were laid down as living communities, not tumbled together in a flood.

It was over 500 years ago. Shows how far behind the times the creationists are.

Joe Meert

JM: The Carboniferous age Everest Limestone (from the Tethyan ream) which caps Mt. Everest is the source for much of this creationist argument. A brief review of Mt. Everest geology is given
http://www.21cep.com/nepal/npgeo.htm
here.

Cheers

Joe Meert