Summations Only

Hi Granny Magda, nice posts. Another point to make is what marine fossils look like and where they occur, and more to the point - how they help disprove a world wide flood event: when we see marine fossil layers there is just too much of them for a one year flood. Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?:

quote:

---

Evidence of multiple layers of mature marine environments on mountains is rather evidence of long ages -- ages to form mature marine environments, ages to cover them, ages for the other mature marine environments to form, and ages for the sedimentary basin to be pushed up into mountains by tectonic activity.

---

Logically, then, what you need is evidence of a one year incursion of marine ecology over terrestrial deposits -- a layer with first year brachiopod shells for instance.Brachiopods spend a year as a floating larva that settles on the bottom, where they attach to the bottom with a stalk. They have growth rings in their shells.You would need to find a bed of brachiopods that floated in as larvae during the flood, attached to the bottom, but never lived long enough to form a second growth ring.There would also need to be marine plant growth of similar age.The marine incursion that Mindspawn points to suffers from this problem: the deposits left by the incursion show a marine ecology much older than a one year event.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

You're equivocationg again, "most floods" with THE Flood. The reason that vegetation can recover quickly from "most floods" is because there is unflooded vegetation nearby to propagate from. With THE Flood, you have no such source of propagation; it's all gone. The only vegetation that could ever recover from THE Flood would be whatever seeds had not been killed by it. What part of ONE did you not understand? You only need ONE species, large or small, without a bottleneck to disprove the Flood. Others have already mentioned that the human genome shows no such bottleneck. You need to address that evidence.Edited by ringo, : Added, comma.

But the particular locales to which you have been referred can't be geologically interpreted as flooding. That's why no geologists do so interpret them.Of course, they can be madly interpreted as flooding. A madman can close his eyes, put his fingers in his ears, and shout "LA LA LA I CAN'T SEE THE EVIDENCE I INTERPRET IT AS FLOODING". But that proves nothing --- after all, a sufficiently mad man could claim to be drowning in a flood while standing in the middle of a desert.But it seems to me that you're very much trying to have your cake and eat it. When geologists say there was an incursion at the PT boundary, you declare this is your Flood. When they say that it only came so high, and that certain regions were definitely terrestrial, then you dispute that and come up with your own ideas contradicting the science of geology.Well, if you're OK with doing that then why identify the PT transgression with the Flood? Why not put it halfway through the Jurassic? If your methodology involves ignoring geologists whenever they say something you don't want to hear, then someone who wanted a mid-Jurassic Flood could use exactly the same method as you (i.e. ignoring geology whenever it contradicts his thesis) and feel equally satisfied with his conclusion.And this leads me on to a question I've been meaning to ask you. You must have noticed that most of your fellow-creationists don't agree with you. Some of them put the "Flood layer" at the KT boundary. Some of them identify all the sedimentary rocks as caused by the Flood. (BTW, I should love to see you debating with a KT-Floodist.)Why can't you agree? Because your choice of which bits of geology to ignore are arbitrary.To demonstrate this, I will, if you like, unleash my alter-ego, Dr Inadequate. I will argue that the Flood layer is the KT boundary. You can try to argue me out of it. And every time you point to clearly terrestrial sediment spanning the boundary, I will take a leaf out of your book, and say: "If every spot on earth around the K-T boundary either represents flooding, or can be geologically interpreted as flooding ..."You see, you can't win against my evil twin. Because Dr Inadequate will always interpret perfectly ordinary terrestrial sediments at the KT boundary as being signs of the universal Flood. Using methods that you taught him.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But, you have been given evidence of the lack of bottlenecks in certain species 4500 years ago. In fact, someone already gave you a link to the wiki that deals with Population Bottlenecks. Just in case you need it again: Population BottleneckThe aspect that you are missing is that this bottleneck must be shown in Every species. I have seen people say constantly that a single species not having this genetic bottleneck disproves the flood, because the God character has made the claim to have destroyed every creature, with the exception of those on the Ark. Every creature. Your defense is that not every creatures genome has been studied, which would be a valid defense if it did not simply require only one species that did not suffer this bottleneck to disprove the flood...and that we have studied in depth....such as, perhaps, humans?According to the Wikipedia article, Humans last suffered a genetic bottleneck 75,000 years ago after the Eruption of the Toba volcano. So, there it is. One species, that does not show a genetic bottleneck at the time you expect. Of course, you could claim that the maths is wrong and we should find this same genetic bottleneck in other creatures at 75,000 years ago, then you can place the flood there. Well, crap, that doesn't work either because the bottleneck for the Galapagos Island's Tortoise is 88,000 years ago. Or a difference of 13,000 years.Now, you also claim that the animals would be fine with grazing on sea beans, but what you are forgetting is growth time. Percy was stating that Cows could probably survive on 10lbs of forage a day....not healthy, but survive. So, how long would your sea beans take to actually grow, which is an important step you are missing. Seeds don't hit ground (wet or dry) and instantly sprout into full size edible plants. So, what is the growth time for a Sea Bean plant to its edible stage? Well, according to Seabean.com, just to get the initial sprout requires first a soaking in fresh water after getting a hole through the protective covering, then you have to plant the seed, and in 1-2 weeks, you will have a tiny sprout, which then must be planted in good soil to ensure continued growth. This means your grazers would have had to wait 2 weeks just for sprouts, then continue to wait longer for the plant to actually grow....how do they survive when they need 10lbs of food each for 14 of them (clean animals?), when all that is available for the first two weeks are tiny shoots that must be dug up? SourceOh and ABE - What animals would we see if the Ark were real would be completely different from what we do see. The grazers would all die out waiting for food to grow and the predators would decimate the herbivore populations, especially considering they will be weakened by the lack of food around. Rotting flesh can be eaten, so I would expect large populations of the predators that are able to consume this type of meat, such as carrion eaters, many reptiles...animals such as that. Carnivores like these would be in large supply, while the herbivore population and the predators that rely on them would be decimated.Edited by Tempe 12ft Chicken, : No reason given.

Of course all the carnivores that did make it through would also show the 450-0 year ago bottleneck event signature.What we would not see would be humans.Four male and four female humans would just be a snack for the rest of the carnivores during the first couple weeks.

Are you kidding ? Noah was, like, 950 years old !! Talk about stringy !!

That's a discussion from another thread, but it does highlight the backward reasoning you're using to draw conclusions, and it's causing discussion to focus more on that than anything else.It isn't impossible that it rained here yesterday, but did it? For that answer we turn to evidence. For instance, we could look at a rain gauge. But we certainly don't say, "It wasn't proved impossible that it rained, therefore I'm entitled to believe that it rained."In the same way, it isn't physically impossible that the Earth was at one time entirely covered by water, but did it ever really happen? For that answer we turn to evidence. We certainly don't say, "It wasn't proved impossible that there was a global flood, therefore I'm entitled to believe that there was a global flood."Your claim that a global flood is not impossible is just a starting point for seeking evidence, since it would make no sense to seek evidence of the impossible. You need to find evidence for a global flood. It would also be very helpful if you would stop misinterpreting the word "terrestrial", and would understand that marine transgressions occur in all geological eras and typically take at least decades.Off course, the flood isn't the topic of this thread, but the focus on the flood developed out of discussion of the original topic, so I see no reason that the flood discussion shouldn't continue.

"In the same way, it isn't physically impossible that the Earth was at one time entirely covered by water, but did it ever really happen?"Percy I keep telling you that I am not on this thread to prove the flood. Think about it, logically that means that I would have to check every Permian highpoint on earth for signs of flooding. That is physically impossible because many of these PT boundary highpoints are covered by thick layers of basalt and have not been analyzed yet. So I can never check every highpoint on earth, I cannot prove a worldwide flood. That is pretty obvious.You claim that a worldwide flood is possible, your peers are claiming its impossible. I think that is a childish stance if one cannot back up one's view with evidence. It's only that childishness that I am refuting. I am requiring evidence, and whether you agree or not, I know its perfectly logical to require evidence for generalized childish comments that a flood is impossible. As you say, a worldwide flood is not physically impossible. At least the two of us are in agreement.

Coyote, your particular strain of evidence relies completely on the accuracy of carbon dating. although I understand your commitment to carbon dating, that is a subject for another thread.

I've covered all these points in this thread already. Seeds survive, many plants grow in saline soils, no proof has been forwarded that cows eat only grass, your picture of mountains is irrelevant because the ark did not land on the highest mountain, and there is no proof that the Middle East had any significant mountain ranges in the early Triassic. So your point is repetitively repeating old points already refuted numerous times on this thread.

Dear Granny Magda, the Xuanwei Formation covers mainly the Late Permian, the Xuanwei region covers the PT boundary. I am looking for a flood at the PT boundary in the Xuanwei area , this is all I need to show, that at the PT boundary, in the very region you mentioning, the entire area shows a trasgressive layer.. This flood relates to the clay deposits in the Chahe section. Late Permian would only represent the first stages of the flood (first weeks of rainfall - fluvial conditions). I already posted evidence that there was a later marine transgression over the entire Yangtze Platform during the PT boundary, which includes the entire Xuanwei region.ie the sea flooded the whole region. Simple as that.........................but I posted my evidence already and you are still asking me for evidence. Hmmm? Manners manners. Well now we are into semantics aren't we. Signs of a marine transgression in a terrestrial layer is all I need. You can't use the word "terrestrial" to weasel out of the recorded transgression. That is just playing with words, and not very cleverly, because a transgression is a transgression. That word too is undeniable.Do you deny a transgression across the entire Yangzte Platform during the PT boundary? I posted my proof thereof. I felt this was a reasonable point, but geologists recorded a transgression in the geology of the area. (transgression means marine flooding) I hope the moderators attend to this, I'm certainly not going to go lodging complaints, that process is laborious, impractical, and only results in 24 hour suspension. that is obviously why you feel free be rude. This is just a discussion, try control yourself please , what's wrong with manners? Again you are being naive, like you say, its about exposure. If the Xuanwei can be exposed by erosion, then so could the older layers. If the Triassic can be washed off the Xuanwei layer, this means the Xuanwei could be washed off early Permian rock. Your map is meaningless to make your point, but you wont admit it will you? You seem to be full of pride, this shows in your inability to have a decent fact-based discussion which is the purpose of this website.(understanding through discussion) Yes, that is the nature of transgressions, they cover over terrestrial regions. Do you deny the paper's claim that there was a marine transgression in that entire area during the PT boundary? Or do you prefer your head-in-the-sand approach to evidence of marine flooding across that entire area in the exact timing of my claims (the P-T boundary) Watch your manners. If within a terrestrial series of layers, geologists find a transgression, that is your flood layer. It lies within the terrestrial layer. Is this hard to understand? Maybe for you.............. (I find your lack of logic and your lack of manners amusing - I'm certainly not getting upset here) Are you fixated on the Xuanwei Formation, when I already proved the flooding across the Xuanwei region during the PT boundary? LOLMy concern is the geology at the PT boundary over the Xuanwei region. The clay represents the flooding (unless there's a mega lake that suddenly covered the region - oh wait - that would be a flood too - hahahaha) Oh your mega - lake , nice one Granny Magda, unfortunately for your argument geologists say there was transgression at the PT boundary, so I think your freshwater mega lake (that isn't a flood- haha) was washed over by the trangression.I prefer a simpler version as per the geologists, a marine transgression covered the entire Yangtze platform. Hmm, your mega-lake? geologists seem to think there was a transgression covered the region. Do you know better? You say my link does not show the flooding covering the entire Yangtze Platform.I even quoted the relevant section to make it easy for you to find:
http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf
"The two cycles accord with the sequence in the Meishan area, i.e., the Changxingian transgression after Longtanian uplift, followed successively by a late Changxingian regression, the end-Permian-earliest Triassic transgression, and the late Early Triassic regression[29]. Comparison with similar sequences over the whole Yangtze Platform[30] shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"Did you even read the part that I quoted? I will explain what it says, in Chahe they found a transgression at the PT boundary. Similar sequences found elsewhere indicate that this transgression found in Chahe covered the entire Yangtze Platform and the whole of South China. How clearer can it be?http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf
"In the P-T transitional beds (Beds 56―80), the change from meandering fluvial at the top of Xuanwei Fm. to lacustrine in the lowest Kayitou Fm. reflects a deepening and transgressive process "I rest my case.

The science is sufficient. They have done this with mtDNA Eve, and found an early single female. They have done this with Y-DNA Adam and found a later single male ancestor. So far its all looking good for the bible stories. I have not yet come across studies that have applied the same principles to find out the exact number of female common ancestors concurrent to Y-DNA Adam. Were there only four or not?

Im not a YEC. Reading Genesis 1 it doesn't appear to support a young earth, just young biology. But most discussions revolve around the 600 million bp and later dates (fauna/flora fossils) so whether I'm YEC or not doesn't affect most discussions.

Still trying?The plant's didn't survive, their seeds can survive. They can get caught up in crevasses, but I agree most of the vegetation and seeds would have ended up lower down from the hills, but its not impossible for many to be growing out from crevasses.Many many plants grow in high salinity soils, I provided my evidence, so that just isn't a problem. Neither is the survival of seeds, seeds do survive flooding over many months, I posted my evidence.Please give your estimates of how many seeds there were on earth, (20 trillion?) how many would have rotted away without germinating, the proportion of seeds that do not grow on saline soils to make your case for the death of all grazing animals. I would be very interested in your calculations. Please take into account the average number of seeds that exist in every square meter of earth and multiply this by the land area of earth, just as an estimate of the number of seeds to start with. Then you could give me your proof of the rotting rate by soaking, is it 83 %.... 99% rotted? Please provide your evidence for your rates of rotting.Then you have to reduce that by the percentage of plants that do not germinate in saline soils. Is this 99%, 93%, please give me your estimates with your evidence to back up your rates of rot through saline soils.etc etc etc . I would be interested in an actual number of plants around a small portion of the Middle East, which the herbivores can feed on. A vague estimate will do for discussion purposes.While you are working that all out, kindly provide me with the number of herbivores on the ark, compared to the number that have speciated since the ark. I am really interested in such calculations.Looking forward to seeing how you refute the ark story with more than speculation.

I'm afraid I'm going to disappoint you; you're simply trolling.