Summations Only

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.

How do you know we are not that diverse? It is pretty obvious that the more people we sequence, the more variation we will find at each DNA location.And I agree that 4500 years ago the population would have been smaller, I was merely illustrating how many alleles have been recently aded. So the argument some may make that there are too many alleles to reflect 4500 years of mutating is irrelevant.

By just saying something is ridiculous, does not really make any point. It is not at all ridiculous that after a modern terrestrial flood, marine turtles and marine crocodiles could dominate the terrestrial landscape until other terrestrial animals migrate into the flooded region.In the Triassic there was the lystrosaurus, which had arguably a hippo-like amphibuous lifestyle, and yet in the early Triassic was terrestrial. It makes perfect sense that an animal that could swim, would survive the flood in more numbers than animals restricted to an ark. I believe this explains early Triassic fauna.

Ooh, even I, as a non-expert, can have a go at this one.Even if we assume that your unevidenced conjecture is correct, and that a global flood (caused in a relatively gentle fashion by constant rainfall, as opposed to the violence of, say, a tsunami) killed off all marine life in the location of the flooding, how the hell does that mean there would be no marine fossils ???This may come as news to you, but I can guarantee to you that before it became a fossil, every single fossil was the dead body of a creature or plant ! They were no more ! They had ceased to be ! They had expired and gone to meet their maker ! They were stiffs ! Bereft of life and resting in peace ! If they hadn't sunk to the bottom they'd be pushing up the daisies ! Their metabolic processes were history ! They were off their current ! They'd kicked the bucket, shuffled off their mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible ! They were ex-plants and animals !!!And just to join up the dots for you - if (and I'm assuming the "if" for argument) a global flood managed to kill all marine life, we would have had an absolute ton of dead marine bodies to form fossils !Being dead does not remove your body, does it ?

I believe the phrase "cause it to rain" could be consistent with the use of natural processes.
God could cause it to rain by stirring up tectonic processes that result in volcanic induced rainfall. God could cause it to rain by stirring up tectonic processes at the moment Adam sinned in the garden, that generally resulted in a less stable earth. Or God could have relied on 100 % natural processes. Or 100% miraculous processes. For the purpose of a scientific discussion, I am looking at natural processes and not miraculous processes to explain the flooding.

My argument was merely to point out that we all have no idea of what ratio of animals would have been on the ark if we do not know which were clean and which were unclean. Therefore the argument some are promoting that the predator/prey ratio was too high is not a good argument if there are too many unknowns to support the point.

There are basically 4 timeframes at work:1) The carbon dating timeframe
2) the radiometric dating timeframe
3) The archaeological history timeframe
4) The evolutionary assumptions timeframe (loosely based on evolutionary trees, and assumptions about phylogenetic relationships, and locked into the first two timeframes)I believe each is out by a differing scale.

Bodies eventually sink. The flood took months to reach peak levels. There was a great marine die off at the PT boundary, but this could have happened just after the terrestrial extinctions as the meltwaters warmed up and after the marine regression.

No deliberate cherry picking, I just don't get around to answering some posts then forget about them because I'm concentrating on current stuff. Sorry about that, I still haven't answered your posts 135, 279, 396, 695, 756 but I feel we have mostly covered those points, its mainly about carbon dating.

You forgot the stratigraphic time scale.