No need to play the get mad game. You may be so brilliant as to know just how Mt. Everest came into being but I'm sure the rest of us dummies do not know. Why do the rest of us dummies not know? Simply because we were not there and neither were today's geologists and neither were you. Where does that leave you? Your right back in the theological pot the same as all humans are. You tell the ATS readers in your 60 seconds spiel just where is your proof that the marine fossils which are at over 29,000 feet came as the result of land upheaval.
Mad? No. More amused by the fact that you could have found the answer to your question in less than a minute had you cared to. But you don’t actually care to know. The right answer for you will always be that Bible is correct, regardless of what evidence is found to the contrary. Trying to act like there’s zero evidence for the explanation I gave you so you can try to level the playing field and give it equal footing to your faith is incredibly dishonest. The wiki page for Geology of the Himalaya gives an excellent overview of the formation of the entire mountain range, complete with a laundry list of references at the bottom of the page.
The National geographic Society claims that the Mountain is being pushed up at about the rate of 1.6 to 3.9 inches per year. At the rate of 4 inches per year it would have taken well over 49,000 years to attain its present height. The problem is not the height it is today but the rate that it took to attain this height. The reason it is a problem is that the marine fossils could have had ample time to escape the sudden destruction at the 4 inches per year rate. This leaves two other possibilities and they are as follows. At the onset it up heaved at a tremendous rate and then settled gradually to the rate of today or it was the result of a flood which is recorded in both the Hebrew literature and outside literature.
You’re laboring under the misapprehension that the fossils found were of marine life that died during the upheaval. The rock that the Himalaya range is formed from was a seabed. The marine organisms died, some were fossilized, then the mountains were formed. It’s hardly the false duality that you’re trying to establish here where either they died during the upheaval or the Biblical flood must be true. Further, you do realize that not all natural processes proceed in a linear fashion, right?
So now, you are so brilliant and above reproach, suppose you tell us dummies the rate of upheaval and why the marine life was caught in such a destruction. Geologist admit that they theorize this phenomenon but apparently you also know more than the geologist know. If geologists are entitled to the theological process then why are not Christians entitled to the same? Or is it because you simply hate Christianity?
The difference between the scientific theory of plate tectonics, and the subsequent explanation for mountain formation, is hardly theological in nature. I know that you’ve at least seen an explanation for what constitutes a scientific theory, given that I’ve been one of the people that’s provided you with that information in other threads, so your attempt to once again drag science down to the level of faith by playing the “it’s only a theory” card is just sad to see on a forum whose motto is “Deny Ignorance”.
So as you can understand, it's not a simple matter of what you want it to be but also what it could have been. I did not accuse you in anger because I realize that you have a problem with your attitude towards others. Perhaps if you would cool your temper and rationalize other people's opinions you would also learn to not insult others. By the way I did not write that article but for your information I do theorize that the flood of Noah is the reason for the petrified marine life on Mt. Everest and many other places in the world.
Leave the internet psychology at the door. You tried to play the “we don’t know how this happened, God did it” in a case where we do know how it happened. I’d say that I’m sorry if my earlier post offended you, but it would be insincere. I stand by what I said in that post: you could have taken the time to do some research yourself and didn’t; instead, you were content with the answer you already had which was, ultimately, an argument from ignorance. You're basically trying to play the Bill O'Reilly "tides come in, tide go out, can't explain that" game with something that we can explain, you just didn't know the explanation.
edit on 19/11/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)
