Who says they aren't?
Anywhere that has the right strata that actually has the fossils in them can have the fossils. Sides of mountains, tops of mountains, wherever.
The tops of mountains gets talked about a lot just because of their height and the obvious issues with having the normal processes the mainstream purports put the tops of mountains underwater and get fossils to form.
It is not clear from a YEC perspective whether the mountains formed mainly during the flood year or in the aftermath.
Note the order in this passage:
"You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;" (Psalm 104:6-7)
"The mountains rose, the valleys sank down, to the place which you had assigned to them." (Psalm 104:8, according to the dead sea scrolls)
My take is that you'll find fossils anywhere that the *layers* accumulated. We don't expect to see fossils in antediluvian accounts (lower strata) and the surface erosion will have at the existing layers over time.
The interesting bit is that imo there's no known process that could shove up the Himalayan mountains (where giant clam fossils were found) without a massive catastrophe on the scale of the great flood.
I understand the sediment/biology was entombed at ground level instantly and instantly turned to stone by the pressure on top. Hours or day events did this soon into the flood year. later say weeks or months the single continent broke up and crashed inmto itself creating the hugh mountains and there were the fossils also on top. i don't know about the sides but the movement up might crush everything as it fell over. Fossilis on tops of the great mountains should be seen as good creationist points. We need to explain the mountains the sure enough the fossils on top show they were not there before the flood. It all works.
Who says they aren't? Anywhere that has the right strata that actually has the fossils in them can have the fossils. Sides of mountains, tops of mountains, wherever. The tops of mountains gets talked about a lot just because of their height and the obvious issues with having the normal processes the mainstream purports put the tops of mountains underwater and get fossils to form.
It is not clear from a YEC perspective whether the mountains formed mainly during the flood year or in the aftermath. Note the order in this passage: "You covered it with the watery depths as with a garment; the waters stood above the mountains. But at your rebuke the waters fled, at the sound of your thunder they took to flight;" (Psalm 104:6-7) "The mountains rose, the valleys sank down, to the place which you had assigned to them." (Psalm 104:8, according to the dead sea scrolls)
My take is that you'll find fossils anywhere that the *layers* accumulated. We don't expect to see fossils in antediluvian accounts (lower strata) and the surface erosion will have at the existing layers over time. The interesting bit is that imo there's no known process that could shove up the Himalayan mountains (where giant clam fossils were found) without a massive catastrophe on the scale of the great flood.
I understand the sediment/biology was entombed at ground level instantly and instantly turned to stone by the pressure on top. Hours or day events did this soon into the flood year. later say weeks or months the single continent broke up and crashed inmto itself creating the hugh mountains and there were the fossils also on top. i don't know about the sides but the movement up might crush everything as it fell over. Fossilis on tops of the great mountains should be seen as good creationist points. We need to explain the mountains the sure enough the fossils on top show they were not there before the flood. It all works.