Is there any evidence that suggests even the highest places on earth?

There are fossil seashells on Mount Everest. There are two possible explanations for this, one of which you mention.

1. It could be evidence of a global flood, which would require supernatural intervention, and which is unsupported by any other evidence.

2. It could be evidence of known geological forces, such as plate tectonics, which are richly supported by, among other things, direct measurements of movement by surveying equipment including GPS.

When you have multiple explanations for the same phenomena, the reasoning tool known as Occam's Razor says the simplest one has the best odds of being correct. In this case, the geological explanation is the simplest, since it meshes with a wide variety of other sciences.

"Mount Everest's Geology is Simple

The geology of Mount Everest then is very simple. The mountain is a huge slice of solidified sediments that once lay at the bottom of the Tethys Sea, an open waterway that existed between the Indian sub-continent and Asia over 400 million years ago. The sedimentary rock was slightly metamorphosed from its original deposition and then lifted upward at an amazingly speedy rate-as much as 4.5 inches (10 centimeters) a year as the Himalayas rose.

Sedimentary Layers Form Most of Everest

The sedimentary rock layers found on Mount Everest are limestone, marble, shale, and pelite that are divided into rock formations; below them are older rocks including granite, pegmatite intrusions, and gneiss, a metamorphic rock. The upper formations on Mount Everest and Lhotse are filled with marine fossils."

But that event happened long before Man appeared on Spaceship Earth

Edit

OK Rashaan

Let's do this another way

The planet is covered w/ water for a month or two which means that all of the plant and animal life on the surface is dead

Noah's animals get off the ark and the all die of starvation or being prey in a couple of weeks

Now, normally, I would just let you believe that there was a flood. But you are asking for logical evidence. You need logic to prove this, and you can't rely on faith. So, unless you have some weird kind of double standard about this, if there is a logical fallacy in this occurring then you would believe that there was no flood.

Well since you want logic, here you go. For a flood to happen, water has to cover land and, well, flood it. Now think, how much water is there on the Earth? The ocean is 97% of the water on Earth, the other 3% is in places such as lakes, rivers, and streams. So could this water possibly cause a world wide flood? No.

So the only way for there to be this kind of flood is if the water came from outer space, and then left the Earth after the flood. However, if this amount of water were to come from outer space, it would be a giant ball of ice that would completely pulverize the Earth, splitting it into several pieces before the ice could even thaw.

So if you really need logic to prove that there was a flood, then this logic should prove to you that there wasn't one. If you want to keep believing, step away from the logic and resort to faith. And never try to use logic again, or you will be proven wrong. We have the higher ground here.

Yes there is evidence that even the highest places on Earth have been underwater. No, there's no evidence that ALL of the Earth was underwater at the same time. The movement of the continental plates is why we can see evidence that the tops of some mountains were once underwater.

Over hundreds of millions of years, mountains have risen and fallen. Land masses have come together and split apart. Geology can't and doesn't have all the answers.

Those creationists are like Star Wars fans. Any gap in the plot can be explained by the force. Even if they can find no trace of flooding at Mt. Everest, the Creationists can just say something nutty like "God put the mountains there after the flood" or something equally ridiculous and then laugh at you like they've just answered your tough question. When you play without the rules of logic and reason, anything is possible.

Yes. Some of the highest places on Earth was once covered by water. Does that support the flood account as told in the Genesis myth? Not in the least.

There really is no need to worry about evidence. We know that the flood myth is just that, a myth. We know who wrote it and when it was written.

It's perfectly true, but it is true because of changes in the earth's crust from moving tectonic plates, not a global flood.

The Himalayas, and Everest, are getting higher every year because India is ploughing north into Asia at a speed of about 6cm every year.

We know that is true because we can measure it and see it happening. Radio telescopes around the world can measure the movement to fractions of a millimetre.

Read up on plate tectonics...

The fossils found at those heights, BTW, could not have even developed at those altitudes and in the period of time quoted for the length of the so called flood...

There is nothing on this planet outside of a creation myth story to indicate that it ever happened...

BTW, Everest is still rising...

IMHO

There's not even though water on earth, including melted ice caps, to cover anything we'd actually call a mountain.

This reports that if all the ice in Antarctica were to melt the oceans would raise an average of 61 meters or 200 feet.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/ear...

If we consider the north pole to be even 3/4 of that, then that gives us another 150 feet for a total of 450 feet. Yes, that's substantial and would easily cover some of the most populated cities on earth, but it's no where near covering all of the landmasses.

Not the way you're thinking. And even if there somehow were a flood that covered every bit of land on Earth (which would be impossible, because there isn't enough water on the planet or in the atmosphere) then no human could've survived it. Imagine trying to spend months on the top of Mt. Everest without oxygen tanks or special clothing to keep you from freezing solid.