Summations Only

What more do you need? Worldwide layer of clay, plus sedimentary filling in many of the major flood-basins of earth. A PT boundary loss of vegetation across flood basins on many continents. A simultaneous eroding across many flood-basins across earth. Something major happened, and waterborne sediments filled up flood-basins across earth.A flood at the PT boundary is at the least a theory worth examining. Do you know that the experts are still arguing among themselves what actually caused the death event at the PTB? yet a worldwide flood is discarded. The end cretaceous extinction is clear, an impact event, iridium layer across earth. I think its time for a bit of consensus about the PTB too.I have described the mechanism earlier. The ice caps melted, the glaciation melted, the air was seeded by volcanic activity, volcanic activity causes torrential downpours. the landscape was low-lying. there is a recorded marine transgression plus recorded overfilling of flood-basins across earth.Not conclusive , but there is some evidence there.

If insults were a sign of intelligence, you a genius!I am learning as I go along, that's what I like about these discussions they force me to do research.If you would like to show me any studies of carboniferous fauna/flora in the thinner air highlands regions of the carboniferous rather than the more common swamp areas, I would like to see it. It would be foolish to assume the entire earth was covered in swamps. It was not, otherwise the carboniferous coal would be even more widespread than it currently is. Unfortunately the main idex fossils that even show a layer to be carboniferous, are swamp animals.

I will discuss the dating faults in another thread one day. In the meantime do you have any evidence to contradict a worldwide flood at the PT boundary? Maybe you know enough about geology to comment on the sediments that filled up these flood-basins across earth. I don't know about it, but if you discuss that point I will research it as well. Maybe the grain sizes are not consistent with flood sedimentation?Other than rock dating, have you got any more of these "thousands of facts" to give me, that would contradict any major flood at the PTB?

Yes, but in addition to post-flood erosion, both the transgression and regression would have caused increased erosion and could have contributed towards the overfill situation in flood-plains across earth.The study was referring to changes to fluvial patterns before and after the PT boundary. It was not stating that the overfill was caused by fluvial flows, but was focussing on the changing nature of the fluvial flows before and after the boundary. You are incorrect about the extended global winter. These events may cause short term cooling, but the result of the Siberian traps was extended warming.
http://www.killerinourmidst.com/P-T%20boundary.html In addition to denudation and erosion, there is also worldwide overfill. I honestly do not see how increased erosion itself would cause these changes across earth without increased waterflows contributing towards the increase in sediment volumes. Do they detect fluvial patterns within the overfill itself?

PaulK, yes you are definitely correct here about the worldwide layer of clay relating to the volcanic eruptions. But that volcanic ash needs water to turn the fine sediment into clay. It indicative that the Siberian traps were active during the time that vast regions around the world were covered in water.You say sedimentary basins normally fill. this is true, yet at this point in earths history large flood-basins all around earth show the same rapid overfill situation. the extent of the phenomenon is not common, its unique.Yes the loss of vegetation is not sufficient evidence on its own, and there are other quite good alternative explanations for this, however combined with the huge movements of water-borne sediment at that time, a flood becomes a possible theory.

lol, I said other than rock dating have you got any more of these "thousands of facts" that would contradict that flood.You then repeated yourself about dates. Well dates may contradict a biblical flood, but not a global flood at the PT boundary. Then you refer to "all the rest of scientific knowledge" . at least others are showing me actual objections, if the knowledge is there, post it.

What more do you want , I already quoted from a link concerning a Russian discovery of angiosperms in the carboniferous.

Ok so we know there was a significant transgression, we know there was a significant regression, and we know that there was a worldwide overfill situation. As you point out, one of these 3, just the regression, is one of the scientific possibilities of the cause of death. If we combine all 3, the transgression plus huge sediment movements in flood-plains and then the regression, this is another possibility to add to the strength of the regression view. I didn't reply to your point before, because it is such common knowledge that volcanoes cause torrential downpours. It is also common knowledge that the Triassic was warmer than the Permian. This is so well known that the world's temperature increased at the PT boundary, you are welcome to post your contrary evidence on this. It would be nice to reach consensus on common knowledge more quickly, it would help getting to the meat of the debate more quickly.What is your proof that water vapor levels were the same as today during the Carboniferous? Everything I have read is that there were great fluctuations in humidity during the late carboniferous and Permian. The Siberian Traps could have occurred during a humidity spike. The following Triassic is renowned for its dry, low-humidity conditions, so there was a drop from relatively higher and fluctuating humidity levels, to low humidity. Precipitation could have added to the flood conditions of the transgression and regression at the PT boundary.

Percy, regarding covering mountains, you should read up on the landscape of the carboniferous. FLAT. Not mountainous like today. This flat landscape could more easily be covered by 70M of water. I believe tectonic movements and the Siberian traps occurred during the flood and these major tectonic movements continued after the flood for hundreds of years.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

The worldwide layer of boundary clay is found in China, Iran , Canada, Europe, Caucasus, and elsewhere according to the link in post 235. Please read the links in post 249 for confirmation of a worldwide sedimentary overfill situation. The links relate to Russia, Africa (Karoo) , Australia, and the original Antarctica has been discussed repeatedly.ps that original link regarding overfill was "hypothesized" as caused by tectonic events. The worldwide overfill is fact. The cause being tectonic is not fact, its an hypothesis.

Hi Granny Magda, sorry to be slow to reply, but I enjoyed your post and was waiting for the time to reply. When I read this I had a good laugh because of the truth of what you say. Yes I am being a little self-indulgent, yet in my defense this is one of the reasons I'm on this site. both to challenge evolutionists on some points they may not have thought through, and also to test some of my pet theories against a level of expertise that I don't find on creationist sites.I also agree on the unlikelihood of a novice like me discovering anything new, but in my defense Google is actually an effective tool to research across a number of disciplines and latest research extremely rapidly, and although this isn't the best form of research academically I do believe it is easier than in the past for a novice to discover unique trends through deductive reasoning. This is my point, that there is an overemphasis on swamp-based fauna and flora during the carboniferous, and other environments could have easily existed. Could you post links on the Pangea interior to back up your point that there has been research on dryer interior regions. You are correct here, I have been focussing on land based areas because of the questions posed to me regarding mammal and angiosperm fossils in the carboniferous. More correct wording should have referred to the main terrestrial animals, you are correct about there been many marine index fossils too. And thanks for pointing out the "rice" too, but the land-based carboniferous layers are mainly identified by swamp fossils, the swamp formed carboniferous coal is even the reason for the name "carboniferous".

Lol, good one. I gave you a Cheers for that. But my point still stands, the carboniferous is well known for its relatively flatter landscape compared to today.

Hey JonF, just going back to this post of yours about the alleles. Thanks for your well researched post. Logically we cannot use the HLA genes to prove or disprove a bottleneck, because each human already has many such alleles in this "super locus". Logically it is a normal locus of two alleles that we would have to look at. Thus Noah's ark would not require a bottleneck because even 8 humans on the ark is enough to carry many many HLA alleles. In any case the human bottleneck is not claimed by the bible, the bible claims subsequent DNA injections after the ark and so there is no bottleneck claim by creationists regarding humans. Its the larger terrestrial animals that would show this genetic bottleneck, and be limited to 14 alleles across populations in specifically those regions of the genome that normally only contain two alleles. But even these alleles would contain slight mutations since the ark, yet highly retain their similarity to the original.19 alleles in cows is actually a bottleneck situation. Unfortunately that Starkenberg et al link you provided did not open up, and I cant see if two or more of those were mere mutant allele variants or had major core differences in allele structure.An additional point is that there are a number of creatures that would not be limited to 7. The ark was huge, to assume that no extra lizards, geckos, mice, ants, beetles etc etc survived would be illogical. Even with modern technology, many ships that are supposed to have no rats or mice, often have rats or mice on board.So the cow shows a bottleneck (19 allelles). Have you got any other allele numbers for large animals for me.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You are missing my point by referring to the HLA REGION of genes. MY point relates to specific genes at specific locations, to count the alleles in an entire region of genes to make your point, actually completely misses my point.Furthermore, my original point does not refer to humans, because the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood, and therefore a few more alleles remains consistent with the partial human bottleneck at the flood. It's animals like cows that we should be looking at. I'm fine with this, but a few alleles is at least consistent with a bottleneck. Have you got any proof of any lack of bottleneck in large terrestrial animals?

I don't see much evidence generally for the flood already having been falsified. Not much on this thread either. Your post is pretty theoretical, name some evidence that disproves "biblical dogma like the Flood". Its easy to make sweeping claims, this thread is about evidence. This has been my own point from the start, so I don't see how I could be misunderstanding this point, when I have been pointing out this very fact about the Carboniferous on this thread. I was a bit confused with this answer, I was curious regarding your proof of carboniferous studies of interior non-wetlands land-based regions and asked for a link. Instead you give me a link regarding the Appalachians which are full of sea, coastal and wetlands fossils. I would really appreciate it if you could back up your original point about terrestrial non-wetlands regions in the Carboniferous. Have you got links to prove that these regions have been studied?Regarding the Appalachians, have you got proof that they were highlands before the carboniferous? There are some terrestrial fossils high in the Appalachians, but these are normally of a low wetlands or rain forest type landscape of fauna/flora. If you have proof of high altitude fauna/flora carboniferous/permian fossils in the Appalachians you would have a point that the Appalachians were not low lying before the PT boundary. What you are asking for is completely illogical. The ocean before the PT boundary was oxygen rich, and cold. The ocean after the PT boundary was oxygen depleted and warm. The marine life that survived into the oceans of the Triassic would have been in isolated salty oxygen depleted warm lakes, something of complete rarity in the carboniferous. Find that rare lake, and I will find you your fossils. Only problem is that lake would be filled with Triassic marine life and therefore dated to the Triassic instead of the carboniferous.To find a turtle in Carboniferous oceans is as illogical as trying to find a lion in carboniferous swamps.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.