Summations Only

If you can kindly point to specific posts or points that I have ignored, I would appreciate that. I could have easily missed something. I am not claiming a lack of evidence against the flood proves it. I am not proving the flood.I just think its interesting that from a geological perspective no-one can find a spot on earth that cannot be geologically interpreted as a PT boundary flood. I have repeatedly stated that I cannot prove a flood, and so you are misrepresenting me.

I don't see the relevance of a few extra mice to this thread, unless you feel mice have been specifically proven to have no bottleneck. Have you got evidence for this?And anyway you don't need any loophole, my view is consistent with the wording of the bible. There's two possibilities, maybe more , and we have to be careful not to add or take anything from the bible:
1) And if any other animals and birds find their way onto the ark other than those I specifically bring, destroy them because I will only allow two pairs or 14 pairs. So even if there are extra mice on board, you must track them down.
2) And if any other animals sneak onto the ark, don't waste your time tracking them down, you have more important things to do. The important thing is for some animals to survive the flood, the small numbers are only because of the restricted space on the ark and have no great religious significance.My point is to refrain from adding wording to the bible if its not clear. ie we have to leave our options open, or we would be incorrectly adding specifics to the bible when the bible is not specific. Is this a bible debate?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I am referring to mammal bottlenecks between the period of 65 000 ya and 130 000 ya according to mainstream timeframes. The Toba eruption was in this period.Population bottleneck - Wikipedia
During the Toba eruption, bottlenecks had existed amongst humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, cheetahs, rhesus macaques, orangutans and tigers.The human bottleneck was erroneously attributed to the Toba eruption, it is known the bottleneck occurred, what caused it is unknown:
Toba super-volcano catastrophe idea 'dismissed' - BBC NewsEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Not confusing this at all. I am referring to words and their meaning. True.

Yes I'm a creationist.It appears that the main argument expressed in this thread relates to timeframes, and this is a good argument because there is science behind the mainstream dating methods. I believe the science is in fact incorrect. I will be dealing with this soon in the dates forum.

Lol, well at least I'm enjoying myself.

I do embrace geology, but obviously not the timeframes. I am sure you know my position by now.

I am nearly ready for the dates forum, we can discuss dating rocks there. It appears to be the main argument against a flood at the PT boundary.

Sweeping statements! Are you seriously stating that all the water would boil off the planet without any links or maths to back it up?In the Japanese Tsunami the plates moved 50M in a matter of hours with little effect. Its only in mountain building tectonic movements that the friction is high. If you think of two dinner plates clashing, compared to one dinner plate sliding smoothly over another one, the effects will of course differ. You need to quantify your estimates if you wish to contribute significantly towards this discussion.

I enjoyed your maths in your posts, but those were rough estimates, and the PT boundary is well known for a temperature increase in accordance with your calculations. Yes this temperature increase was a major source of extinctions.Permian—Triassic extinction event - Wikipedia
Further evidence for environmental change around the P—Tr boundary suggests an 8 C (14.4 F) rise in temperature,[15] and an increase in CO2 levels by 2,000 ppmI am an old earther, not a YEC. I believe there were many tectonic movements prior to creation of biological life 6500 years ago.Then I believe there were massive tectonic movements before the flood, and during the flood (ie at the PT boundary) which did increase world temperatures in the manner you describe.Then I believe there were major tectonic movements after the flood as well, which have slowed down in recent centuries, but this is probably only a temporary respite. In our lifetimes we may just see tectonic movements of massive scale as in times past. We will have to see.

There is no con-game, I'm merely eliminating all possible strawman arguments that could come about by restricting the bible to assumptions rather than looking at the actual wording. I do not see how having a strict view on bible wording is a con, what is a con is stating that the bible says something when it does not. The bible does not say mice did not sneak it, but its a fair assumption that elephants did not sneak it. So I am trying to be realistic here, its realistic that there were more than 14 wood-boro, more than 14 mice. It was possible that there were more than 14 birds. It was highly likely that there were more than 14 amphibuous reptiles (survived in the oceans during the flood). so without strawman arguments its easier for us to discuss large mammal species. And some large mammal species do show bottlenecks in timeframes perfectly consistent with my compressed timeframes model.So now is your chance to show that pigs and cows and giraffes and hippos and other large mammals do not have a bottleneck in the 65000-130000 ya period. Anything else is simply a strawman argument.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You seem to misunderstand me. I am waiting for this thread to quieten down, then I will be ready timewise to participate in other threads. I am ready regarding information, I am not ready regarding my time.And I have respect for science, I do not call scientists incompetent , I have already stated that I feel they have good reasons for current timescales, I just feel that there are some factors that have been overlooked.

At least we agree on something, lol. Glad you got it sorted. This is the only good point you made. Just for your information, the precise location of the PT boundary is still under discussion, but I do see that slight overlap on your diagram. Some have argued that the clay layer should be the true definition of the PT boundary. The rest of your post is denial of the transgression (marine incursion) that occurred in that entire region during that period, I posted the evidence of this already and wont bother to post my links again, they are on record for all to see.Just to clarify my position, I believe the flood included late Permian and early Triassic layers, and in the Xuanwei region the flood is mainly reflected in the Kayitou layer that lies above the Xuanwei Formation, although the highest Xuanwei layer could also be a reflection of flooding due to the increased fluvial deposition (higher rates of sedimentation).Due to the magnetic reversal during the boundary, the one year flood period covers a mainstream period of a few million years traversing the PT boundary. This would include late Permian fossilization and rapid sedimentation and also include early Triassic clays and lacustrine environments indicating a transgression. End of story? There is no reason to believe any marine life would have survived the inland travel during the temporary marine incursion. Could you describe what marine life you feel would have survived that process please? Please also take into account the massive marine temperature changes and salinity changes that actually did kill off a lot of marine life during the PT boundary. Read my links again, its the geologists that associate the lacustrine environments with the marine transgression. They do not exclude saline waters from their recognition that conditions have change from fluvial (river systems) to lacustrine (large areas of relatively still water)You seem to misunderstand the geological term "lacustrine" as you also seem to misunderstand the geological word "transgression". Your swearing invites me to swear back. I refrain.
It would promote better discussion if you refrain from rudeness, it really is unnecessary.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This has to be dealt with in the dating forum. I have done nothing of the sort. It is Granny Magda who misunderstands clear geology about widespread transgressions. It is Bluegenes who has a head-in-the-sand approach to my legitimate arguments against his genetic discussion . Other than those two there has been little science brought forth in opposition to my views.All that is left is carbon dating and radiometric dating. This conversation has reduced itself to exchanging insults, including your post because the genetic and geological arguments have frankly run out.

Sometimes a few simple mutations can cause major outward changes, like gigantism, dwarfism. The mechanism for changes to allele frequencies is simply variation and fitness selection. The more suitable alleles are bred into a population through increased fitness. This is evolution, but it is rapid and is not related to mutations, and is restricted by the number of alleles already existing in a population. The variety of new allele combinations is virtually limitless, even from small original populations.