Quote:Coral and sediments on top of the world's tallest mountains indicate they were once undersea.
So it dispatches the oft stated objection to the Flood:
You then agree with me t5hat they were once "UNDERSEA". SEA is not a flood, it is a SEA. AFter they were deposited in a blanket that was originally horizontal to the sea level in which they lay, they were then moved, just . like a big carpet to their present mountain top locations. The evidence for these facts is that we have remnant "markings" of structural deformation that allows us to track back to their depositional bedchambers. Just like we use "scratch marks" on bedrock to show how a glacier has moved, we can also see from structural joints, cleavage patterns , fractures, quartz lenses, migmatites(remelted rok that hardens at right angles to the maximum force, and lastly, oriented iron minerals which become mobilized on remelt and then harden in line with the (then) earths magnetic field..
Theres no simple "They were proof of a flood" because I am kinda laughing at your very simplistic , way of interpreting structural geology.
In actuality , the layers of oceanic sediment that lie near the top of Everest, are parallel to the next adjacent layers , so these layers, above the marine sediments are actually metamorphic rocks, and the layers just below the marine sediments are granites. All the sediments are sammiched in between and , since theyre not burnt from contact, it looks like they "moved in at separate times. (All the while, the steep angles >20 degrees from horizontal) indicate that these rocks were "pushed" or "rode" into place, they werent even deposited along the massif.
At the very top of Everest , is the YEllow Band Limestone Formation tht lies in contact with schists and greenschist metamorphics beneath and leucogranites(light colered) beneath that. (All at angular repose to each other and the present horizon) Did the flood rise up and then recede to leave the lower elevations void of any sediments?The interesting thing is, l we have incontravertable geologic evidence that the Himalayan formations in contact with each other are all "post depositiona;l" that is, the whole mass of the sedimentary, metamorphc , and some igneous remelt layers of the mountains were moved into place by pushing India against Asia and the original ocean bed sediments that lay in the ocean and upper mantle in between these two masses of continents, were squeezed and pushed up as a giant vectoral resolution problem.The Himalayan range is undoubtedly an "outlier" a giant mass of rocks that was slid into place. We can see this because the rocks of the entire massif are nowhere else repeated In the Asian subcontinent except at the floor of the Indian Ocean where remnants of the marine sediments and the upper mantle rocks can be seen to be "ripped" away from and a vast deposit of the Indian Ocen Floor is "missing" and now resides atop the mountain range separated by two giant regional slip faults called "detachments" whcih, like the Pine Mountain Overthrust of the Southern Appalachians, goes on for a few hundred kilometers to the North.We know that the Himalayas were slid into pace on the runners of these two separate and distinct detachmentsThere is no controversy of that geologic interpretation Ive just repeated to you. Even OEC's understand and can follow the evidence. No Flood Need be invoked to attempt to explain it. In fact, a FLOOD, true to the principles of Occams RAzor, would be far too difficult to invoke and then evidence of which, would have to myteriously Disappear from the slopes of the massif and all over the rest of the Asian subcontinent.
Youve really gotta get clear with the differences between "depositional" and "Post depositional " features
