Summations Only

Ok , sorry I misunderstood you. You feel the data could be faulty because of external influences on the equipment? I agree that any studies showing daily/seasonal variations should be checked against environmental influences on the equipment. I would assume that institutions like The Geological Survey of Israel, and Purdue University would adjust the data for any such influences. Nope. The variations may be influenced by the environment, not the "readings":
"These measurements exhibit strong variations in time of year and time of day, which may be due in part to environmental influences" Call it what you like , the fluctuations occur at the same time every year. They are annual fluctuations:
"We have previously found these oscillations in nuclear-decay data acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), and we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior. A curious property of the GSI data is that the annual oscillation is much stronger in daytime data than in nighttime data, but the opposite is true for all other oscillations."Look at the diagram below: Ok so these rates are "annual" and not "seasonal". See how they always peak in June/July? Very interesting how these decay rates vary annually. The entire theory of ancient rocks is based on constancy, yet something unknown is causing variation. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Thanks for making that effort. Looking at the Hebrew I feel the following two translations are better:Wycliff Bible (first version):
For yet and after seven days, I shall rain on [the] earth forty days and forty nightsYou included this one:
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA):
For yet a while, and after seven days, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and I will destroy every substance that I have made, from the face of the earth.Like I already said, God could have caused that rainfall through triggering off an earlier event (loss of magnetic field can seed rainfall). Due to the fact that we don't know how He intervened, and if He used natural means to intervene, I prefer to discuss these issues from a scientific perspective than falling back on supernatural causes.Except for the creation/biogenesis argument, that is always my approach.

Exactly, I have been saying all along that I can prove a worldwide flood, but cannot prove it covered every mountain.The reason for my participation in this thread is to show that a biblical flood has never been disproved.
In post 151 Coyote said there are irreconcilable problems with my claims
In post 166 Catholic scientist said "we know that the entire planet has never been covered in water"
In post 176 Paul K said "the flood story has been investigated and found to be untrue"Now I have proved vast flooding in various places around the world at the P-T boundary, can anyone back up their statements and provide ANY evidence that the water did not cover the highest peaks then?

Where is your evidence for this? The article you quoted does not hint at that. You are saying the environment could influence the equipment, you need to find some support for your position.

Humans normal live in the safest areas, considering that the lower latitudes experienced major extinction it makes sense that humans would have lived in the higher latitudes. That ENTIRE REGION was covered by basalt. So this "ridiculous fantasy" is just dramatic wording for a logical place to find human fossils.The fact that they're talking about a transgression means that they're talking about where the water meets the land. That means there has to be land that is not covered in water. That means its not a universal flood.[/qs]That logic makes no sense when I have already posted evidence that vast interiors were flooded too. A transgression means sea levels rise. A major transgression means there are major rises in sea levels. How high? No-one has yet proven a limit to this transgression. Exactly , I haven't even begun to scratch the surface of the amount of evidence there is. I have not yet begun to post evidence of large movements of sediment within Pangea found on nearly every continent. Also I have not focussed yet on the subsequent regression, middle Permian layers missing from the record , followed by early Triassic sedimentation. The proof of transgression and regression at the P-T boundary encompass nearly the entire Pangea, just from already existing studies. I'm not grasping at straws. I'm proving an incredible flood event of massive proportions across the entire continent of Pangea. I haven't even scratched the surface of the amount of scientific focus there has been on the P-T boundary. Science is rapidly seeing this transgression and regression event as highly significant to the P-T extinction. I agree though that the initial cause is not the flood itself, but the Siberian Traps.

Claims are true if proven.If the first few posts claim that most fauna would die off, they must have some evidence for it.
If anyone feels too many predators were on the ark, they must give their estimated breakdown of the predator/prey ratios on the ark with some intelligent points why they feel that distribution would be so likely.If someone claims that vegetation cannot gain a sufficient foothold on land inundated with salt water for 5 months and then left to recover for 5 months, then they must post their studies why this is impossible.If anyone feels that salt water fish cannot ever be selected to handle fresh water in a few hundred years, they must provide evidence for this.If someone wishes to claim that the massive flooding during the P-T boundary did not reach to mountains , they must provide evidence.These are not claims I am making, these are claims made by others on this thread, if they wish to make those claims, they must back them up. Or they should refrain from making the claims.(the first to make a claim, must back up their statements, only then can debate ensue once the evidence is looked at)Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Expect ridicule? That's something only rude people do to others who know less or make semantic errors. More mature people educate.

I've never claimed I can scientifically prove that P-T boundary flooding covered over mountains.My proof of flooding in the P-T boundary was merely in response to claims that it has already being disproved. If so I would like to see the evidence.Of course there's radioactive dating, but that's a subject for another thread, but I'm referring to geological reasons to deny a flood.

Thanks for your research. It took me some time to delve into the exact location of the P-T boundary within that stratigraphy, it appears the Balfour formation represent late-Permian, and the Katberg formation represents the early Triassic.
Page not found | CSIR
"primarily represented by late Permian, Balfour Formation sedimentary rocks"The evidence of flooding is found during and at the top of the Balfour (sheet sandstones). Woody debris is overlaid with fungal remains. This is consistent with a widepsread fungal spike at the P-T boundary.
http://www.geo.tu-freiberg.de/...eminar/os03_04/Zamecnik.pdf
An up to 6 km thick sequence of lacustrine mudstones, fluvial overbank mudstones and channel
sandstones dominated by a high sinuosity river system change to multistoried channel (Balfour
Formation) and sheet sandstones with intermediate layers of mudstones, sedimented by a braided
river system (Katberg Formation). The 1m thick layer of woody debris overlain by a layer with
abundance of fungal remains — the 'FungiSpike Horizon'— is located about 0,5 m beneath the
base of Katberg Formation. These sediments could represent a phase of ~2000y. For the P/T
boundary definition elements of the vertebrate faunal assemblage, e.g. Lystrosaurus are used
(Steineretal.2003).In the early Triassic (Katberg) there are "accelerated rates of sediment accumulation". This could very well indicate flooding.
http://gsabulletin.gsapubs.org/content/118/11-12/1398.full
"In both the Poortjie and lower Katberg sandstones, weakly developed paleosols indicate accelerated rates of sediment accumulation (Retallack et al., 2003). "

This alleged regression was the earlier assumption for the P-T boundary. Since then the majority of research has indicated a major transgression at this boundary as supported by the link below. This study debates the claim of a strong regression at the P-T boundary in favor of a strong transgression, and peaking sea levels:
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdfI have posted many other posts as evidence of a strong transgression at the P-T boundary. So I suggest your link is either badly researched, or based on old data.

This is all semantics. If sea levels keep rising they will keep covering more land. So far only one person has tried a to find a place on earth that was not flooded. That to me is a more convincing argument for your position.There are "unconformities", places where flooding has removed Permian layers, and we jump from early Permian to Early triassic. Even this indicates a flood, a geological event that removed large sedimentary layers. (strong regression would do this)

I haven't seem anything vaguely convincing yet. I have been shown a graph which reflects a regression not a transgression at the PT boundary. My earlier posts already refuted that. And a claim that layers in South Africa that show rapid sedimentation cannot be flood related, needs to be justified.

Exactly! I also thought that "disproved" was a wild claim.Signs of widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time is more than a "shred" of evidence. I cant prove the flooding covered every mountain, but I can certainly prove the flooding was extensive across Pangea, and I'm still trying to discover a place that definitely was not flooded. The absolute absence of an unbroken terrestrial sequence at the P-T boundary showing no signs of flooding speaks volumes, unless you can find one.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I see I didn't answer this post. If the predators ate the fish, they didn't need to eat the poor cow. The cow could then eat the growing vegetation. After the P-T boundary there were many temporary lakes. Its not far fetched that fish would have been easy eating while these lakes dried up.
Triassic Volprihausen Formation
The following sandstones of the Volpriehausen formation are characteristic of sandplains dominated by aeolian processes and temporary lakes.Seeds grow into plants. Even in a few weeks vegetation can grow to edible size. I've just planted grass a few weeks back. It already needs a mow. The bible story said the plants had 5 months to establish themselves before Noah let the animals out the ark. Even if significant plant life only started growing after 4 months, that's still enough time to grow plants. Plus the bible hints at an absolutely ingenious way to re-seed the planet:Genesis 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.Were they fed seeds, and then excreted them over the Turkey region when released? Did Noah leave piles of seeds on the deck of the Ark, so the birds could be fed for months afterwards? Impossible to say, but whatever way it happened there were specific plans before the flood, to keep seed alive on the land.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Entirely true. I cannot prove a flood of biblical proportions although the proven one is dramatic and widespread.I do only have conjecture. It makes sense that humans and other mammals and flowering plants would be in the cooler northern regions that were less susceptible to extremes of heat and subsequent glaciation that caused extinctions during the early and middle Permian. Unfortunately the entire northern Siberia region that I suspect holds these fossils was covered by volcanic rock. So I am left with an unproven scientific hypothesis, its only my faith in the bible that makes me so certain that is where the fossils are lying, which understandably does not mean much to the scientific community.I have yet to make a good case for increasing fossil anomalies in the region, and am hoping to research this further.