Post by Andrew Post by Yap Honghor
it is truly stupid to talk about a flood that covered up
to mountain top....you must be mad to imagine that!
Yet they have sea shells on their summits.
They have sea shells INSIDE them.
"The marine fossils extend through the entire
mountain (Everest) - from top-to-bottom and from
side-to-side. A single flood, especially on top of
a mountain, should be expected to leave a single
layer of such fossils. (The flood itself lasted
for only a year.) Similarly there isn't any
evidence of erosion or other evidence of the actual
land being underwater in the last few thousand years.
The fossils are really the only evidence that the
land making up Everest was EVER under water.
Another problem is that many of the marine fossils
are of deep bottom dwellers. If there was a global
flood, the mountain tops would be the shallowest
parts of the oceans. These bottom dwellers would
stay in the deeper waters.
Two other points are worth making about these
fossils that don't involve Mt. Everest directly.
One of them is that if this is all the result of
a global flood, then we should see such fossils on
top of all mountains, globally. In fact, we should
see them everywhere! If you dig deep enough in your
own backyard, you should run into such fossils. There
are, of course, many places - including many mountains
and probably your backyard - that completely lack
The final question on this subject is why wouldn't
the receding flood waters pull most of the aquatic
animals into the valleys around the mountains?"