Summations Only

What the heck is your problem? The labels and the captions in your diagrams are in Russian. We can't read Russian, and we can't cut-n-paste the labels and captions into a translator because they're part of an image and are not text. Here's one of your diagrams: Do you see the labels at the top? They're in Russian. We can't read Russian. Do you realize the labels can't be cut-n-pasted? They can't because they're part of an image.Do you see the caption at the bottom? It's in Russian. We can't read Russian. Do you realize the caption can't be cut-n-pasted? It can't because it's part of an image.Is the meaning of what I've just said clear to you, that you're going to have to translate the labels and the caption for us before we can understand your diagrams?--Percy

I couldn't quite make out too many of the letters or I might have tried entering them manually into a translator, though that would probably have been very tedious.--Percy

Am I correct in concluding from this that you believe the last layers of the Permian represent the flood? What is it about these layers that say "global flood" to you?--Percy

If you go back to Message 1 you'll see that the thread's originator was inquiring about the principles of flood geology. If the principles you're applying don't include any dating methods then that's fine, but there's nothing in the thread's original proposal that excludes them.--Percy

Hi MindSpawn,It's important that we understand your position, so thank you for providing that, but now that that's out of the way we need to understand the evidence that led you to your position. Apparently someone named Rohl had some evidence that was persuasive to you. Perhaps you could describe that evidence?--Percy

Hi Mindspawn,Would it be possible to give a clearer statement of what layers you believe came from the flood, because you appear to be saying that both Carboniferous and Permian layers could be flood layers, and later you say that the P-T boundary could represent the flood layers. They can't all be the flood layers.So remaining focused on coal layers, are Carboniferous coal layers pre or post flood, and why do you think so? Are Permian coal layers pre or post flood, and why do you think so? Or if you think the coal layers from the flood are somewhere in mid-Carboniferous or mid-Permian or even somewhere else, why do you think those are the flood layers?--Percy

After carefully rereading all your posts, I find that the relevant ones are all very unclear about which geologic layers are the flood layers. Is it the P-T boundary? Somewhere in the Carboniferous, and if so where? Somewhere in the Permian, and if so where?And wherever you think the flood layers are, what evidence led you to this conclusion? And ultimately we want to understand what principles you're applying to the evidence.An aside: I don't think you're off-topic when you're talking about the flood itself. You just got here and and deserve a chance to lay out your position before getting into the details of flood geology. If Dr Adequate wants to talk about things like genetic bottlenecks or limestone layers then perhaps he could propose the topic.--Percy

And you referred to the Carboniferous, too, and you talked about coal layers in both the Permian and the Carboniferous, so I don't know what to think. Would you agree with this statement: Assuming that's what you think, I'll interpret the rest in that context. There are marine transgressions in all eras. Do you mean globally? Do you have evidence that the entire earth was submerged by marine transgressions at the P-T boundary? How is this evidence of a global flood? I'm not familiar with any evidence for melting glaciers at the P-T boundary, but glaciers advance and retreat all the time. How is this evidence of a global flood? How is this evidence of a global flood? Obviously something caused the mass extinctions. For the K-T extinction an asteroid strike is suspected because we have evidence of an asteroid strike, but the mass extinctions are not considered evidence of an asteroid strike. Mass extinctions are not themselves evidence for any particular cause. So what is your evidence that the P-T extinction event was caused by a global flood? I'm not familiar with this evidence. Did the sedimentation in flood plains change in ways indicating a marine environment throughout the world at the P-T boundary? So a magnetic reversal triggered cloud seeding which in turn triggered rainfall? There are magnetic reversals every few hundred thousand years recorded in the geological layers. Is there any evidence in those layers of magnetic reversals causing a global flood? Besides, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is about .01% of the water in the ocean - if it all fell as rain at once it wouldn't contribute much to water levels. Non-marine fungal spikes are somehow evidence of a global flood? How can there be anything "non-marine" during a global flood?Anyway, if you read about fungal spikes in the Dating the extinction of the Wikipedia article on the Permian-Triassic extinction event you'll see that the much of what were thought to be fungal spikes turned out to be something else.--Percy

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.

I have no idea why Dr A elected to be wrong with you, but scientific theories do not become accepted because they haven't been disproven. They become accepted through supporting evidence.I suppose you are correct that anything not disproven is possible, but being possible doesn't make anything a scientific theory. It doesn't even make it something to be believed. That's the meaning of the celestial teapot analogy of scientific philosopher Bertrand Russell that I mentioned earlier. This is from the Wikipedia article: You can't disprove that there are little green men living deep beneath the surface of Mars secretly kidnapping mothers from Earth to serve as nursemaids. Do you really believe your inability to disprove it makes it an accepted scientific theory?Persuasive evidence is what makes a theory. As I said in Message 165, there are marine transgressions in all eras. Your one-page link is referring to a transgression "in one section in the Canadian Arctic where it occurs some distance above the base of the Griesbachian Formation..." When he talks about marine transgressions and regressions in the next paragraph he's still talking about the P-T boundary sequence in that same formation. You need evidence of a world-wide marine transgression.Googling the Internet for text to misinterpret will not be successful for you. When you encounter a passage that appears to be saying there was a world-wide marine transgression at the P-T boundary then you need to find the evidence used to reach this conclusion. Just telling us that someone somewhere said something isn't going to convince anyone, it certainly isn't evidence, and it's especially worthless if you've misinterpreted the text. Like the paper you quoted earlier (http://golubeff.narod.ru/...Triassic_Russia_stratigraphy.pdf), this one also says nothing about marine transgressions. It is well known that there was substantial climate change at the P-T boundary, but that's not evidence of a global flood.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Clarify one point by making it clear what I was referring to - no change in meaning.

No, I don't think that I am disregarding your evidence. You said: And I replied: So you see, I did not disregard your evidence. I examined it and I explained how you had misinterpreted it. You can perhaps try to argue that you did too interpret it correctly, but you can't accuse me of ignoring it.Explaining this once again, you misinterpreted the text. What you erroneously interpreted as a description of events on a global scale was just referring to a tiny region of the Canadian Arctic.If the technical literature were filled with descriptions of global marine transgressions at the P-T boundary then everyone here in this thread would agree that there was a global flood at the P-T boundary, but the technical literature describes no such thing. As in all geologic eras there were marine transgressions and regressions, tectonic uplifts and subsidences, seafloor spreadings and subductions, volcanic eruptions, erosions and depositions.What's unusual at the P-T boundary are the Siberian Traps (extended and excessive volcanic eruptions) and an increase in depositions on floodplains.Concerning the Siberian Traps, volcanic eruptions in Siberia did not cause global flooding.Concerning increased depositions on floodplains (floodplains are flat landscapes split by rivers that frequently overflow), your references are describing increased deposits typical of floodplains carried there by wind, rain and rivers from upland regions denuded of vegetation. If the landscape were submerged then the deposits wouldn't resemble those of a floodplain. None of your references (just for clarity, that would be zero, zilch, nada) describe "major worldwide flooding in flood plains at the PT boundary." They talk about increased deposits of erosion products from upland regions denuded of vegetation. Just as chopping down a forest on a hillside today increases runoff and erosion of that hillside, loss of vegetation during the P-T boundary period caused increased erosion and runoff of upland regions. That's all they're saying. They aren't saying anything about floods. If they were describing floods then they might use words like, oh, I don't know, maybe "FLOOD"? Ya think?What your link (https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm) actually says is this: Did you read and understand that? The increased deposits were due to "tectonism and differntial subsidence", not a global flood.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Not that I've ever heard. The Wikipedia article on the Siberian Traps doesn't mention rain. The Wikipedia article on volcanic eruptions doesn't mention rain, except of volcanic ash. The Wikipedia article on Mount St. Helens doesn't mention rain. Articles on the aftermath of the Mount St. Helens eruption in Portland don't mention rain. Even if the Siberian Traps caused every ounce of water vapor in the atmosphere to fall as rain, that's only .01% of the amount of water in the ocean - it wouldn't have any impact. I don't think so. The Wikipedia article on the Siberian Traps doesn't mention glaciers melting. The Wikipedia article on the the 1883 Krakatoa eruption says that its release of dust into the atmosphere had a substantial cooling effect: So I would surmise that the amount of dust thrown into the atmosphere by the Siberian Traps could have caused extreme global cooling for at least thousands of years. Given that life on land didn't recover for millions of years, whatever happened was pretty extreme. I can imagine the icecaps reaching the equator and the oceans freezing over. Remember, 96% of marine life went extinct at the P-T boundary, and a global flood seems a bit too friendly to marine life to have caused that. You're asking whether there was a marine transgression at the P-T boundary? Why would you ask such a question? Marine transgressions appear throughout the geological record, and I'm sure many marine transgressions can be found at the P-T boundary. What would have been extremely unusual would be if there had been no marine transgressions at all. No. Were there a global clay layer at the P-T boundary it would be as unusual as the iridium layer at the K-T boundary. If you look up clay you'll find that it apparently usually forms in (quoting Wikipedia) "very low energy depositional environments such as large lakes and marine basins." It would take thousands and thousands of years to deposit significant clay layers, and your supposed flood lasted only a single year. I'll go as far as saying it's a lot, but not of evidence. A lot of misconceptions, perhaps. I referred to it once, and it was the only link in your message that I replied to, Message 209. By the way, you screwed up that link, you cut-n-pasted it from a previous message, so you included the "..." that the software includes when it abbreviates the text of a long link. I fixed it in my own post when I quoted you.--Percy

You're pretty free with your accusations, MindSpawn. First you accuse me of disregarding your evidence when I didn't, and now you're accusing me of misquoting the article when I didn't. Maybe you could just keep your focus on the topic and not worry so much about what misdeeds other participants might be committing against you.Or perhaps you meant I misinterpreted the article? Possibly. But just declaring I'm wrong with no evidence or argument is merely a statement of opinion.If you're only trying to explain what it is you believe then you're doing a good job, but you'll never convince anyone if you can't provide valid explanations for what science led you to those beliefs. And if it wasn't science but religion that led you to them then why are you bothering with scientific arguments at all? That article was not about sedimentation across the Earth. The article was REEXAMINATION OF CHANGES IN FLUVIAL STACKING PATTERN ACROSS THE PERMIAN-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICA. Read the last six words of that title again: "In the Central Transantarctic Mountains, Antarctica". Do you understand that this article was about a tiny region of the world? Just as the other article you cited (Comment - The Permian-Triassic Boundary: Recent Developments, Discussion and Proposals) was about a tiny region of the world. By the way, your other misinterpretation about clay being an indicator of the P-T boundary is mentioned in neither. Hypothesized is a fine word, and what they hypothesized was "tectonism and differential subsidence," not a global flood. Not even a local flood.Trawling the Internet for text to misinterpret is not going to get you anywhere. The technical literature does not describe a global flood at the P-T boundary. If it did they would use the word "flood", even if it were a local flood. They would use phrases like "flood deposits" instead of "fluvial [river or stream] deposits".Have you no comments on anything from my Message 229? Nothing about volcanoes not causing "torrential downpours"? Nothing about all the atmospheric moisture being insufficient to contribute significantly to sea levels? Nothing about volcanoes throwing dust into the air and cooling the planet, thereby increasing glaciation and causing drops in sea levels? Nothing about the ubiquity of marine transgressions in all geologic eras? Nothing about the lack of a global clay layer at the P-T boundary?Your only response was an indirect one, a declaration to Jar that you reject "evolutionary timeframes", but no explanation for why. It's beginning to seem that your criteria for acceptance and rejection has everything to do with whether it agrees with what you already believe and nearly nothing to do with actual evidence. Your judgment is so colored by your own beliefs that you even cite in your support clearly written English that disagrees with you.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.

Well, then you're making a pretty silly point. I was just directing you to the relevant phrase "tectonism and differential subsidence," not claiming hypothesis is fact. That would be ridiculous. You can trust that I understand the tentative nature of science that is always ready to change in light of new evidence or insight.Concerning the rest, you're still ignoring the fact that the articles refer to fluvial deposits, not flood deposits. Had the region been submerged then the deposits would not have the appearance of fluvial deposits. You're not going to get anywhere arguing that fluvial deposits are actually flood deposits, because the two are different. It's not like geologists can't tell the difference.Addressing one specific misunderstanding: Actually I did not say "The article was not about sedimentation."I said, "The article was not about sedimentation across the Earth."What happened is that you had claimed that it was about a global event "across the Earth", and I was only pointing out that it wasn't about a global event "across the Earth." It was about a local event in the Central Transantarctic Mountains. It would make no sense to deny that it addressed sedimentation when it obviously did.In any region that is lower in elevation than surrounding regions there will be sedimentation. Since the entire world has regions like this, there will be regions of sedimentation worldwide. In a global event such as took place at the P-T boundary, with decreased vegetation to hold back erosion there will increased sedimentation worldwide, and of this we have evidence. We have no evidence of a world-wide flood.By the way, you accidentally included a non-working link again when you included the elipsis, here's a correct version: REEXAMINATION OF CHANGES IN FLUVIAL STACKING PATTERN ACROSS THE PERMIAN-TRIASSIC BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL TRANSANTARCTIC MOUNTAINS, ANTARCTICAThe title of this webpage is The Earth before the Flood: disappeared continents and civilizations. So this is where you got your idea of a world-wide clay layer at the P-T boundary? I'm not saying it exists or not, I just haven't seen any reliable evidence of it yet. Anyway, the section you quoted about geological layers in China and correspondences to many other regions of the world refers to the paper "Yang et. al. 1995". I tracked this paper down, here's the reference: So in reality we see once again global claims based on a paper about a tiny region. In this case the region isn't even in China as your article claims, but in Death Valley in the United States. And interestingly there must have been some problem with the paper, because it has been excised from the journal in which it originally appeared, check it out: Notice that the article is not listed in the table of contents, and that the pages of the other articles skip over the pages 306-322 of this article. I don't know how we'd ever find out what happened to it, but it doesn't give one any confidence that it contained useful information.--Percy

It's not possible to tell what you're claiming floods can do. Do you mean that floods can cause a loss of vegetation? That floods can cause increased erosion? Both?Since flood deposits do not resemble fluvial deposits, let's assume you just meant that floods can cause a loss of vegetation. Your claim then becomes that a global flood denuded the landscape world-wide, and after the flood receded there was increased erosion from the denuded landscape. You might consider trying the much more likely scenario that the Siberian Traps threw massive amounts of dust into the air for millions of years, sending the planet into an extended global winter that killed much life everywhere. When the ice finally receded from a landscape now shorn of vegetation erosion would be greatly increased. We have actual evidence of the Siberian Traps, but no evidence of any global flood. More correctly, this region of Antarctica represented conditions of the PTB in that area. Some of these conditions would be representative of many geologic eras, some would be generatlly representative of the PTB, and others would be uniquely local. You certainly cannot do what you're attempting, just assume that conditions of the PTB layer in this Antarctic region are generally representative of the PTB layer everywhere. I think we all agree that denudation of the landscape and increased erosion is a characteristic generally representative of the PTB. What is not generally representative is any evidence of a global flood.--Percy