Thanks Sosick and CTD. I could have put up just the link, but I figured that it would be better to get it up there with the pictures. Sometimes people don't bother checking out links either. I hope you guys might check out the links to the free videos you can upload and watch. If you get time to do that. Well worth a view.
All over the world there have been marine fossils found on mountain tops. One must ask....how did they get there?
Marine Fossils High above Sea LevelIt is beyond dispute among geologists that on every continent we find fossils of sea creatures in rock layers which today are high above sea level. For example, we find marine fossils in most of the rock layers in Grand Canyon. This includes the topmost layer in the sequence, the Kaibab Limestone exposed at the rim of the canyon, which today is approximately 7,000–8,000 feet (2,130–2,440 m) above sea level.1 Though at the top of the sequence, this limestone must have been deposited beneath ocean waters loaded with lime sediment that swept over northern Arizona (and beyond).
Other rock layers exposed in Grand Canyon also contain large numbers of marine fossils. The best example is the Redwall Limestone, which commonly contains fossil brachiopods (a clam-like organism), corals, bryozoans (lace corals), crinoids (sea lilies), bivalves (types of clams), gastropods (marine snails), trilobites, cephalopods, and even fish teeth.
These marine fossils are found haphazardly preserved in this limestone bed. The crinoids, for example, are found with their columnals (disks) totally separated from one another, while in life they are stacked on top of one another to make up their “stems.” Thus, these marine creatures were catastrophically destroyed and buried in this lime sediment.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/wpsepmdjoo.jpg">
The Explanation There is only one possible explanation for this phenomenon—the ocean waters at some time in the past flooded over the continents.
Could the continents have then sunk below today’s sea level, so that the ocean waters flooded over them?
No! The continents are made up of lighter rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the mantle beneath the continents. The continents, in fact, have an automatic tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above the ocean floor rocks.4 This explains why the continents today have such high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins can hold so much water.
There had to be two mechanisms for the sea level to rise. First, water was added to the ocean. Second, the ocean floor itself rose.So there must be another way to explain how the oceans covered the continents. The sea level had to rise, so that the ocean waters then flooded up onto—and over—the continents. What would have caused that to happen?
There had to be, in fact, two mechanisms.
First, if water were added to the ocean, then the sea level would rise.
Scientists are currently monitoring the melting of the polar ice caps because the extra water would cause the sea level to rise and flood coastal communities.
The Bible suggests a source of the extra water. In Genesis 7:11 we read that at the initiation of the Flood all the fountains of the great deep were broken up. In other words, the earth’s crust was split open all around the globe and water apparently burst forth as fountains from inside the earth. We then read in Genesis 7:24–8:2 that these fountains were open for 150 days. No wonder the ocean volume increased so much that the ocean waters flooded over the continents.
Second, if the ocean floor itself rose, it would then have effectively “pushed” up the sea level.
The Bible suggests a source of this rising sea floor: molten rock.
The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.
Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins. As indicated earlier, Psalm 104:8 describes the mountains being raised at the end of the Flood and the Flood waters draining down valleys and off the emerging new land surfaces. This is consistent with much evidence that today’s mountains only very recently rose to their present incredible heights.
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/snelycyuhp.jpg">
What geological results would a yearlong worldwide flood leave? A global, catastrophic flood, would produce fossils showing signs of being rapidly and catastrophically deposited by water. But how would you detect this? What differences should be observed between fossils produced by a flood over one year, and the slow death, burial and accumulation, so often used to illustrate how fossils are believed to have formed.
During a walk along the beach you are bound to come across the type of shells shown in the following photograph.<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/czneqdwans.jpg">
These bivalve lamellibranch shells are very common on beaches and are usually dead. Now look at the following photos of fossilized lamellibranch shells.<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/apblvwasqz.jpg">
'What is the difference?' you ask. When next you go walking along the beach, or skin-diving, notice one thing about the living or dead present-day shells—they are there as part of an ecosystem. Along with the dead or living shells are a variety of dead or living plants and animals. Observe the following photo of fossil shells:<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/vqruypnpys.jpg">
Note that it is not simply a buried ecosystem. Whatever the shell lived with or wherever it lived, its environment and its companions are not preserved. These shells are buried alone. They have been washed to where they are now buried. At the same time their previous life companions have not been washed to this location.
Only a current which had considerable sorting power could do this, i.e. it flowed for a significant distance and had significant force to sort out objects of a particular shape, texture and density and then drop them in a new location.
Study the following photos of a shell from the beach or sea floor and a fossilized shell. One more distinction is obvious in many cases. <img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/vqruypnpys.jpg">
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/apblvwasqz.jpg">
All shells shown are dead, but the fossil shell is shut, whereas most present dead beach shells are open. When a lamellibranch dies, its muscles relax and the shell automatically opens. The connecting ligament decays and the shells separate into halves and then proceed to break up into fragments. However, the fossil specimens shown are closed. Only one conclusion is possible: these shells were buried alive.
In attempting to explain how the shells got there, we are really trying to postulate what type of conditions could:
(a) Enter an environment
(b) Remove some or all of the occupants, both plant and animal
(c) Sort out the objects
(d) Dump the objects into deposits of the same type of organisms
(e) Bury the organisms with sediment
(f) Achieve all of this before the shells died and opened
(g) Solidify the deposit before the pressure of sediment caused deformation
To insist as do many geologists that shell deposits of this type were buried over eons of time where they lived, is not a viable explanation. The observable data (fossil remains and behavior of present dead shells) is only consistent with a rapid and catastrophic flood type of deposition.
Precautions: When you discover a single bed or deposit of shells like the ones described in this article, you have not proved a worldwide flood. But the more deposits we find which can only be explained on the basis of "catastrophe", then the more geology will be made to work within a flood framework rather than an evolutionary one.
Research for Those Who are Interested: (a) Would this argument using lamellibranch shells be valid if we tried it on Brachiopoda shells?
(b) Do any fossil shell deposits show evidence of being buried ecosystems?
<img src="http://herballure.com/ForumExtras/Images/nnqgoqieag.jpg">
ConclusionThe fossilized sea creatures and plants found in rock layers thousands of feet above sea level are thus silent testimonies to the ocean waters that flooded over the continents, carrying billions of sea creatures, which were then buried in the sediments these ocean waters deposited. This is how billions of dead marine creatures were buried in rock layers all over the earth.
We know that the cataclysmic Genesis Flood was an actual event in history because God tells us so in His record, the Bible. Now we can also see persuasive evidences that support what the Bible has so clearly taught all along.
