Summations Only

It has been claimed several times that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. If that is the case, where are the bones?From dinosaurs we have fossils, but no bones. Where are the bones?We have bones from a host of critters now extinct, including mammoth and mastodon, horses, camels, etc. Google the La Brea Tar Pits for some good examples. Some of those sites include human bones as well.What we don't have are human and dinosaur bones (or fossils for that matter) found together.So the whole case for humans and dinosaurs co-existing falls apart completely on this one fact alone--we have no dinosaur bones.If you disagree, show me the bones!

Hi MindSpawn,I'm going to start with your concluding sentence: Probably I can, just by enumerating a number of geologic sites that were never under water at any time close to the P-T boundary, but more importantly...Can you name any scientific theory that became accepted just because no one disproved it? Hint: this is a rhetorical question.Now I'll go through the rest of your post: You're not being asked to prove it. You're being asked what evidence convinced you, because in examining that evidence we'll be able to see the principles of flood geology that you've been following. And I 'could have' had a car accident on the way to work this morning, but did I? There are a number of factors indicating that it is possible. Statistics say that many accidents happen every day. If you look up whether there were any accidents on the roads around where I live and work you would find that there were a number of minor accidents. All these are factors indicating that I 'could have' had an accident this morning?But did I? To answer that you'd need better evidence. All you've got so far is the possibility. By the way, I didn't have a car accident this morning.So let's say I agree with you that there 'could have' been a global flood at the P-T boundary. But there could also have been a sentient dinosaur, rainbows on Mars, and a cosmic tea kettle in orbit around the sun. There 'could have' been many things that never happened, or that we have never found evidence that they happened. The abstract to this paper says nothing about a marine transgression. It says that the cause of increasing sedimentation rates was devegetation: Page 2 of this book has no text that I can see, other than "This Page Intentionally Left Blank". Your evidence either has nothing to do with a global flood (e.g., Siberian Traps) or appears in many places of the geologic column (e.g., magnetic reversals).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Fix link.

Actually, all of them. Every single scientific theory stands "just because no one disproved it". That is the best thing that one can say about a scientific theory.Mindspawn is not asking us to believe a scientific theory because no-one has disproved it. If he did, he'd have the scientific method on his side. What he is actually asking us to do is to reject a hypothesis because we can't conclusively prove that there's no counterexample. This is the complete opposite of the scientific method.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Mindspawn, you place the Flood, and the Permian Triassic boundary at about 4500 years ago. This is the conventional dating for the building of the Great Sphinx.When do you think that the Sphinx was built, and what geological era does that date correspond to ?[Given the moderator warning below I would like to add that there is a geological issue here. But sorting out the chronology is a necessary preliminary. We DO need to understand a view before criticising it]Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Well in order to fit into the chronology, it would have had to have been built like on Tuesday.

And was it built by humans or by Seymouria baylorensis?

That is the great question about creationism. Is it falsifiable? In other words, is it scientific?We can make this much more general than just the P/T boundary. In your opinion, what features would a geologic formation need in order to falsify a recent global flood? How is flood geology falsifiable?

The Biblical Flood has already been disproven. Years ago. Something like 200 years ago, as a matter of fact.Why should anyone waste anymore time on this?

All messages should have specific geology content, and not shoot off on some flood related tangent.Adminnemooseus

"Actually, all of them. Every single scientific theory stands "just because no one disproved it". That is the best thing that one can say about a scientific theory."thanks for stating this. exactly, I'm not asking you to believe in a global flood, just asking if you can disprove it at the PT-boundary, that's all.there are many arguments against the current flood model, I am asking if you have any against the PT boundary flood model.

I'm interested, tell me more how it is or was disproven?

By looking at the geology. For example the current flood model would have to explain why there are various layers of land formed basalt in the flood layers. Would have to explain isotopic changes between early layers and later layers reflecting differing atmospheres in early so-called flood layers compared to later so-called flood layers. There are many ways to attack a theory. The burden of proof is on the one who says a global flood is impossible at any given point to back up their position.

The sphinx was built a few hundred years after the flood. The Old Kingdom of Egypt was biblically soon after the world's population spread from the Sumeria/Babylon region.

And what geological era did this correspond to ? Triassic ? Jurassic ? If it's only a few hundred years after the start of the Triassic it'd be one of those, right ?

"Can you name any scientific theory that became accepted just because no one disproved it? Hint: this is a rhetorical question."Rhetorical question or not, as Dr A pointed out, this is the nature of all scientific theories. If you cant disprove it, it stands as a valid possibility.I thought it was common knowledge that there was a marine transgression at the PT boundary:
http://work.geobiology.cn/...iscussion%20and%20proposals.pdf
(you see how this guy defines the boundary as "boundary clay", saying this was when the Permian/triassic transition occurred. And he also refers to the marine transgression and then the major regression as the special feature of the PT-boundary - inflows and then rapid outflows)That loss of vegetation and sedimentary overfill situation occurred across the earth. the earth changed from cold and wet to hot and dry with the same changes to sedimentary patterns occurring across earth at the PT boundary
https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm