[qam1]

Yeah, I don't know how you do it posting here all the time, I can only post a couple at a time and then I have to go elsewhere before I lose my patience and end up getting banned.

But the lack of fossils in the Adirondacks doesn't make sense in terms of Noah's Flood because while there is no fossils in the Adirondacks, The valleys (Lake Champlain, Hudson, St. Lawarence)around them which are only about 20 feet to 150 feet above sea level do contain them. So why would animals sit around up to 40 days in a valley being flooded when they have 1,000 - 5,000+ foot mountains right in front of them. Plus then as now I assume there were plants on the mountains so where are the plant fossils? And ... Oh nevermind, It's just mindboggling what people choose to believe

[VadeRetro]

I can only post a couple at a time and then I have to go elsewhere before I lose my patience and end up getting banned.

There are people who think I need to do what you do. ;)

[VadeRetro]

But the lack of fossils in the Adirondacks doesn't make sense in terms of Noah's Flood because while there is no fossils in the Adirondacks, The valleys (Lake Champlain, Hudson, St. Lawarence)around them which are only about 20 feet to 150 feet above sea level do contain them.

Not to mention that other mountain ranges--which are what you and I would call "newer" ones--also contain dinosaur and even mammal fossils within their sediments.

The key, of course, is that once you warp the sediments into mountains, deposition is over. Erosion begins. Your Adirondacks are part of the same major system as my Alleghenies: the Appalachians. If you can find a fossil later than the Permian, about 250 million years ago, it's a miracle.