Summations Only

"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.

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?

"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.

"What's unusual at the P-T boundary are the Siberian Traps (extended and excessive volcanic eruptions) and an increase in depositions on floodplains."Aren't volcanic eruptions associated with torrential downpours? Wouldn't extended and excessive volcanic eruptions associate in extended and excessive torrential downpours?Did the ice caps and glaciation melt during the Siberian Traps?Couldn't the extensive erosion and deposition relate to flooding?Although there were also marine transgressions, wasn't there also one at the PT boundary?Wasn't there "boundary clay" widely distributed at the PT boundary?This isn't proof, but its a lot of evidence.I noticed that you keep referring to the Canadian link, and not the other links that do show worldwide changes.

If there were no unique worldwide conditions relating to increased sedimentation and/or clays and no unique triggering events, this would nullify any preference for the flood at the PT boundary.Edited by mindspawn, : putting in quotes

You misquoted that article Percy. The facts were increased sedimentation across earth. the interpretation of the facts was "hypothesized" as due to tectonism and differential subsidence. It was not concluded, merely hypothesized.

I don't agree with evolutionary timeframes.

The fact that there are no signs of flooding in those civilizations as pointed out already. but there's a lot more evidence than that. The fauna and flora associated with those cities are post-Permian. these civilizations often have flood myths. One or two of the earliest known Sumerian cities have recently been discovered as having the same archaeological names corresponding to the biblical descriptions of the first post-flood cities. Some of these have been found, but disregarded by science. there are many many sites like this, filled with anomalies:
Page Not Found - YecHeadquartersThe internet is full of this stuff as you know, and some are hoaxes and are easy just to write it off, but these anomalies are continuously found and a lot of them come with written statements of where the artifacts are found. It is very disconcerting to creationists when this evidence is written off first without even being examined. This just shows how deep the assumption of evolution is, that scientists do not go rushing out to examine claimed anomalies, therefore the anomalies are not examined scientifically, and not recorded as scientific evidence.Another point to consider is that the concentration of analysis of the carboniferous is the swamp areas. This is for two reasons, swamps fossilize better and so you are more likely to find swamp fossils than non-swamp fossils. Secondly carboniferous swamp formed coal is extensively mined, therefore these fossils are found more than any other. swamps are the least likely place to find human settlements and artifacts.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Percy in your previous post you stated this as fact: The article claimed
"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."A hypothesis is not a fact, if I point this out to you, its nothing personal, I'm just making my point :-) You say the article was not about sedimentation, this wasn't their focus, but they definitely referred to increased sedimentation at the boundary. You already acknowledged this in an earlier post when you pointed out that it was increased erosion due to lack of vegetation, so I thought we were all agreed on the increased erosion and sedimentation as described by the article, and our point of disagreement was whether flooding caused it. Let me repeat some quotes: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."There was loss of vegetation and increased erosion in many places around the world during the PT boundary, the article is clear on that. Yes they were specifically examining a local area to understand what happened to flood plains at that boundary event, the entire article is very focussed on sedimentation:"This study re-examines the fluvial deposits in the central Transantarctic Mountains (CTM), Antarctica to better understand the controls on sedimentation during the Late Permian and Early Triassic." It is mentioned, you just have to read the conclusion of the article. He sounds a bit skeptical about all boundary markers but clearly prefers the use of boundary clay as a better method of marking the PT boundary than parvus fossils.
http://work.geobiology.cn/...iscussion%20and%20proposals.pdfthis boundary clay is better mentioned in the following well written article about the PT boundary which covers a wide range of information:Earth before the Flood: Disappeared Continents and Civilizations There is a widespread clay layer at the PT boundary.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

There are indications of angiosperms in the carboniferous (Scagel 1965 Spores similar to pollen grains were discovered in the Carboniferous.)
Just a moment...Due to the sudden appearance of angiosperms in the cretaceous its unlikely that their sudden appearance and diversity was evolved, there being no signs of any intermediates before then in the early cretaceous. Angiosperms are suited to modern conditions of low oxygen, low air pressures and so it is more likely they were in rare enclaves in the highlands during the carboniferous, obviously highlands having lower air pressure and oxygen. Much like the toothwart of Scotland, you wont find any, not even a hint, of them in the jungles of the Congo or Amazon today. the same applies to isolated highlands of high latitudes in the Carnoniferous, even if flood waters flood them, they would sink long before reaching equatorial swamps.same with mammals, isolated northern high latitudes,, were far away from the carboniferous swamp areas. These areas were covered by the Siberian basalt flooding, very difficult to explore under there to look for rare carboniferous fossils and lost human cities.

Its just an analogy to illustrate the angiosperm situation. Many varieties of angiosperm could have been confined to the highlands of Northerm Siberia during the Carboniferous. Northern Siberia was not even close to the arctic regions at that time. We don't find these fossils because carboniferous fossils are normally associated with certain index fossils that you would associate with only the wetlands regions. I don't know of any studies of the fauna /flora that were living in dry highlands during the period when wet lowlands were mainly predominant.

Can you explain your point? I thought we were referring to Carboniferous angiosperms.

Well that's my point, the P-T boundary shows loss of vegetation throughout many continents of earth, and increased erosion. Floods can do this, so can tectonics, or maybe both together, or something else that removed the vegetation first. I am not saying I have proved the flood, I am saying there is indication of a worldwide loss of vegetation and erosion event that could point to a flood. The PT boundary is unique in the extremity of this event.As you correctly point out they focussed on Antarctica, but this was not because this area was unique. They focussed on this area because it represented conditions at the PTB, and they wanted to understand the PTB better, not just Antarctica. During the Permian these flood basins were under filled, at the late Permian/PTB they were overfilled (filled up with sedimentation.) Not just in Antactica:
Karoo Page not found – Fossil Fuel FoundationAustralia
http://vibexp.com.au/pdf/fielding_et_al_1993.pdfRussia http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0037073899000093