Summations Only

No problem, but look at those links in post 110. I find them fascinating. These are not just pictures, but archaeological observations.

CS can you post your evidence for the lack of bottlenecks? Are there more than 14 alleles found in certain large non-aquatic organisms? Have you any other evidence?

I'm not dealing with other threads. Just this one. Sorry I'm already stretched too thin here.

We will have to agree to disagree on those dinosaur depictions. When most civilizations depict their concurrent animals, why do only the older civilizations reconstruct dinosaurs in their art?

Dr A said : "On the other hand, this means that you're somwhat off-topic. 'Cos "flood geology" is not merely the belief that the flood happened, it's the attempt to explain away the geological record in terms of the supposed effects of the flood. Anyone who identifies the flood with the PT boundary is not trying to do this."You are correct. I am somewhat off-topic, because I am explaining only minimal layers formed by the flood. I can exit the thread if you like or if the moderators think it s best?Regarding chalk, current rates of accumulation are not appropriate for some forms of coccolithopore which can proliferate chalk production during periods of high co2 prevalence , as per the conditions just after the PT boundary.

Short essay ? lol!

Its inconclusive. I believe your evolutionary time frames would cause you to prefer the "reconstruction" theory of those ancient dinosaur depictions. My biblical time frames cause me to prefer the concurrent theory of dinosaurs living concurrently with humans.I dont know of any current civilizations that have artwork based on extinct skeletal remains.

I didn't use cheetahs as an example of an ark bottleneck. I believe they are a more recent bottleneck. I havent got the time to wade through an entire thread to look for your guys proof, if you could post summarized evidence for the lack of bottlenecks observed in modern species, that would be helpful.

Ok I will bow out of this thread at your request.

It seems like a bit of a procedure to propose new topics and get administrator approval and all.

You asked me to leave, but you still making points, and so I assume thats implicit asking me to continue to post in this thread?? I will assume you want me to post and not leave, the alternative is that you like to make one-sided points after someone has left a thread, which isn't really fair? As the originator of this thread, which is it?Lol, regarding current depictions of dinosaurs, i walked straight into this one, I should have rather referred to recent civilizations not current ones (before the fascination with evolution over the last few hundred years.)

Coragys I feel the burden of proof is on you in this particular matter. You are the one claiming that under all post-PT boundary situations, chalk cannot produce fast. Even when conditions cause them to proliferate. What therefore limits the populations of coccolithopores to producing chalk at less than 15cm a year? 15cm a year would be enough to create those chalk deposits.These organisms were abundant during the late cretaceous compared to today:
Coccolithophorida | algae | Britannica
"The coccolithophores became so abundant in the Late Cretaceous that vast quantities accumulated to form the substance for which the Cretaceous Period was namedchalk."

Yes I would, just for curiosity sake. It won't really add to either argument, my point wasn't a good one. (easy to see in retrospect - haha)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Percy, I referred to the Permian and the P-T boundary.At the P-T boundary there was a marine transgression, Siberian traps (volcanic rainfall), melting glaciation, a large death event, changing sedimentation in flood plains, a magnetic reversal (cloud seeding). The world change from cold and wet, to desert-like Triassic conditions. There were marine and non-marine fungal spikes.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : correcting wording

It guess it could be possible for those ancient civilizations to find dinosaur bones and make perfect reconstructions of them and how they fit together. Its possible those ancient civilizations had a good understanding of skeletal structures and could depict these accurately on temples and pottery etc. So yes my point was not 100% conclusive.Moving on, what about carbon dating dinosaur bones, recent dates were found through carbon dating that contradict the standard view on their ages:
C-14 Dating