Summations Only

Where can we find a single flowering plant in the Carboniferous, swamp land or not? Why can't we find a single modern mammal in Carboniferous deposits? Why can't we find a single bird species in Carboniferous deposits?

There are floods in modern flood plains right now, but there is obviously no global flood. Why would you need a global flood to have floods on floodplains?What about terrestrial deposits at the P/T boundary? Why are they there? If what you claim is true, then we should not find terrestrial deposits on both sides of the P/T boundary, and yet we do.

You just find me ONE fossil of something resembling a modern mammal - ANY modern mammal - in the Carboniferous. In ANY formation that's Permian or earlier.Find me ONE example, mindspawn. Heck, find me ONE angiosperm fossil in Carboniferous coal.No coproliths of your imagination, now: fossils.

"No one here is saying that a global flood is impossible in principle. What we are saying is that the evidence does not support a recent global flood. Those are two different things."Let's forget "recent" because we have different time frames. I have put forward evidence , not proof, but some evidence for widespread flooding at the PT boundary in my posts to Percy. There was a marine transgression and worldwide flooding in the flood-plains at the PT boundary. There is additional evidence for the mechanism as well as the occurrence of this flooding. The mechanism is :
1) volcanic induced rainfall. volcanoes often produce torrential downpours. The Siberian traps were the most powerful volcanic activity the earth has ever known
2) Magnetic reversal. Any exposure to more solar activity /cosmic rays causes seeding of the air , increasing rainfalls
3) Ice caps melted, glaciation melted, presumably from the Siberian trapsSo we had the mechanism for flooding, and the evidence for flooding.

Taq, I think you should read that link in my post to Percy. This was not standard flooding in floodplains. From a steady sedimentation, these floodplains all around the world showed a sudden sedimentary overfill situation, and stripped vegetation. A burst of sedimentation covered floodplains in every continent at the same time. Additionally one of the proposed means of defining the PT boundary is the "boundary clay found across earth" at that time.http://work.geobiology.cn/...iscussion%20and%20proposals.pdf

That could be said about every geologic age since aquatic environments produce sediments. Finding aquatic sediments ine one place does not indicate a GLOBAL flood.We also have terrestrial deposits at the P/T boundary, both above and below. Doesn't that clearly falsify a global flood at the P/T boundary? There is flooding in the Bahamas today due to a hurricane. Does that mean it is flooding everywhere on Earth today?

Where do you have evidence of this?

"In an earlier post I described the archaeological studies I've done--over a hundred probably--which cross-cut that time period. There is no evidence of a flood in any of the sites I've excavated. What we do find is evidence of continuity of fauna and flora, human cultures, and mtDNA. You have yet to address this evidence (and don't say you believe there is a problem with the dating--that's just lame)."Maybe you have been misunderstanding me. I believe all civilizations we see now are post-flood. So I agree with you, there would be no evidence of a global flood in post-flood archaeology. This does however exist in the so-called flood myths that many civilizations do have. I would also agree with continuity of fauna and flora, with the exception that dinosaurs died out, as did some mammals. But as I pointed out earlier in this thread, these ancient civilizations do depict dinosaurs in their architecture and pottery. This may not be convincing to you, and I do understand that its possible for civilizations to see bones and depict creatures from them. But to a lot of people those dinosaur depictions are a complete eye-opener to possibilities, quite amazing actually that so many of the earlier civilizations depicted them.

What evidence led you to that belief?Wouldn't the humans present before the flood also leave evidence that we can find in sediments? Shouldn't we be able to find pre-flood arroheads or stone tools at least? Potshards?

https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm"Fluvial stacking patterns change across the Permian-Triassic (P/T) boundary in CTM from sparse channels contained within thick floodplain deposits in the Permian Buckley Formation to STACKED CHANNELS with sparse floodplain deposits in the Lower Triassic Fremouw Formation.""We hypothesize that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an OVER-FILLED basin during the Triassic""For Upper Permian and Lower Triassic strata, a number of studies have identified this change as the result of the loss of plants and INCREASED EROSION associated with the end-Permian Mass extinction. Such relationships have been identified in South Africa, Spain, eastern Australia, Russia, and Antarctica."this was not standard flooding detected across earth at the PT boundary. At the boundary the erosion increased. Sparse channels became stacked channels. Underfilled basins became overfilled basins.

"We also have terrestrial deposits at the P/T boundary, both above and below. Doesn't that clearly falsify a global flood at the P/T boundary?"Not at all, the flood was only one year long. that's all. Of course before and after you would have other conditions. What do you think?

Can I ask why you think that a change from thick floodplain deposits to sparse floodplain deposits at a single location identifies a global flood? Surely the fact that this region experiences less flooding in the Triassic than in the Permian, if anything, would tend to suggest that there was no unusual flooding here at all.I also note that your quotes are out of order and that your presentation of then is potentially misleading.

"I have worked with mammoth bones that were less than 30,000 years old and were mostly mineralized, as well as mastodon bones about 12,000 years old that were not mineralized at all, so I have some idea of how these things work."I'm glad that someone agrees with me that it doesnt have to take millions of years to fossilize bones. weren't the mastodon bones iced up? That wold preserve them without the need for mineralization.

"I also note that your quotes are out of order and that your presentation of then is potentially misleading."I was randomly copying and pasting. Honestly no attempt to mislead in any way."Can I ask why you think that a change from thick floodplain deposits to sparse floodplain deposits at a single location identifies a global flood? Surely the fact that this region experiences less flooding in the Triassic than in the Permian, if anything, would tend to suggest that there was no unusual flooding here at all."It doesn't identify the flood. There were other factors that identified the flood. And I listed them in my post, I will list them again , and then you can respond to those points:https://gsa.confex.com/...M/finalprogram/abstract_194904.htm
"Fluvial stacking patterns change across the Permian-Triassic (P/T) boundary in CTM from sparse channels contained within thick floodplain deposits in the Permian Buckley Formation to STACKED CHANNELS with sparse floodplain deposits in the Lower Triassic Fremouw Formation.""We hypothesize that the change in accommodation across the P/T boundary was the result of tectonism and differential subsidence in an under-filled Permian foreland basin changing to an OVER-FILLED basin during the Triassic""For Upper Permian and Lower Triassic strata, a number of studies have identified this change as the result of the loss of plants and INCREASED EROSION associated with the end-Permian Mass extinction. Such relationships have been identified in South Africa, Spain, eastern Australia, Russia, and Antarctica."this was not standard flooding detected across earth at the PT boundary. At the boundary the erosion increased. Sparse channels became stacked channels. Underfilled basins became overfilled basins.

So what observations would falsify a flood at the P/T boundary? Or does it even matter what the evidence is?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.