Summations Only

The problem for your view is that thousands of people do read these threads, and they can read the links for themselves. So a couple of evolutionists egging eachother on does not make your interpretation of the links better than my interpretations of the links, the public is reading for themselves.

I can see this point from an evolutionary perspective. Nevertheless recent human genetic bottlenecks do specifically support the biblical perspective as well. (by recent I mean <13000 methods)

Indeed. This is how marine fossils form. Well, once again, we have utterly unevidenced conjecture. But quite apart from that, this isn't what you said in response to Granny Magda's point is it ? There, you said that the flood brought inland with it the non-surviving marine life.Which, as you point out above, would have sunk to the flooded ground. Where some of it would have formed marine fossils.Except there aren't any.

Actually, I think your statement of belief is wrong. You don't actually have anything like an organized belief about this stuff other than that you do not accept scientific dating. The various dating systems have correlate between them anyway, so that it is simply not possible for your belief to be something you've thought through while considering the evidence.But worst of all, your purported explanation does not address the question you've created and that I've asked. If you want to show that I am wrong then tell me which scientific scheme it is that you believe gives a 130,000 year date for the P-T boundary? That is after all the scientific date that you are claiming maps to the flood date, right?And of course there is no such dating system.

Wow. You actually believe you are doing well here. I find that astounding.

My own posts are not important. I would not accuse you of cherry picking if you never responded to any of my posts. Given that there is only one of you, I think responding to even a quarter of the posts here is a great job. Don't take Percy's comment to mean you have to address all posts. I don't think there is anything in my posts that somebody else hasn't asked. Just respond to the questions once if that is your goal.When I refer to cherry picking, I am referring to not answering the most important questions in the post you chose to respond. I am also referring to your cherry picking of information from the references you cite. Claiming that your reference put a few hundred year date on the cheetah bottleneck, or ignoring that another reference cites dates of > 60000 years because you like the way it counts mutations is the kind of cherry picking I refer to here. You continue to talk about rats and birds sneaking on the ark, when nobody has raised the issue of rats and birds having a bottleneck.You haven't covered carbon dating in any successful way, but you don't need to refer to my posts for that.

Actually the Bible says that rats and birds should show a bottleneck signature and in the case of birds the bottleneck signature should vary dramatically between the clean birds or unclean birds.

I said the "relevant portion of Turkey described by the bible is the Arabian plate".You replied "no its not". At that stage I was not referring to Mt Ararat, I was referring to the "relevant portion of Turkey" and so I was not weaseling out of anything. You are correct, Mt Ararat is on the Anatolian block. This is what the bible says, I cherry picked some translations to illustrate my point:Wycliff bible:
4 And the ship rested in the seventh month, in the seven and twentieth day of the month, on the hills of Armenia.NIV:
4 The ship rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on Ararat’s mountains.Douay:
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia. In what manner does my theory not fit the biblical narrative?As for the repeated flooding, please put forward your evidence of the entire plate, including the levant, being flooded during the Cretaceous. I am not trying to prove a flood. Just quell the notion that the biblical flood has been disproven. The birds would have been in the more moderate northern latitudes at higher altitudes before the PT boundary. Insects dominated the lower latitudes. After the PT boundary they would have been restricted to tiny populations in Turkey and the Levant during the Triassic/Jurassic. Under compressed timeframes not enough fossils to show during the Triassic/Jurassic. I agree that the studies only dealt with plants, I wasn't deliberately trying to misrepresent those studies.My point is that the concept of a pre-boundary biome containing modern flora is already supported by some scientists. I am saying that under compressed timeframes, its possible that same biome could have contained modern fauna, not just modern flora. The Siberian plateau is largely covered by basalt rock, and is relatively under researched because of remoteness. This is the reality. Fine, I can't prove that is where the pre-flood human fossils are, this is not the purpose of my participation in this thread. I am just saying that if you want to disprove humans before the PT boundary, this is where you would have to look for human fossils.Some ancient myths eg Vedas, place the origin of mankind in Siberia. Once again, this is not any evidence, just something to think about...... The world shows some life directly after the Pt boundary, worldwide. This is mainly reptiles of amphibous habits, and various plants . I have already shown that various plant seeds can survive the flood. And then there is radiation from the MiddleEast/Africa (and India). The radiation is basically from northeast Gondwanaland to the rest of the world. The very criticism is the theory's very strength, reality of the fossil record is exactly what we would expect. As is mitochondrial DNA analysis, and more recently Y-chromosome DNA analysis.

Fair enough. The misunderstanding that rocks have to take millions of years to form, and that stratigraphy represents millions of years of sediment.

Sure you are.But you ran out of places to try and put it! You couldn't find evidence of any global floods in recent human history so you have had to go back some 250 million years in search of a place you could shoehorn your flood.Of course, this means you had to put modern humans back there also, some 250 million years before they actually developed, and that in turn meant you had to play silly games with geology and paleontology, dating and several other fields of study.All because you can't admit that the flood story has been disproved since at least the 1830s!

I believe I go straight for the most significant issues. I dealt with the cheetah issue, showing where I got the short term bottleneck from, and also dealing with the 10 000 year bottleneck which is according to mainstream timeframes. None of this challenges my view because of expanded timeframes.Because I am dealing with a lot of posts, I have to get supporting information very rapidly and may sometimes misread the info, this is not deliberate cherry picking or misinformation, but due to time pressure. It is self defeating to post inaccurate information, I am merely human. Not that I was wrong on the cheetah issue, on careful analysis there was that recent bottleneck in both cheetah populations.As for the genetic study, Bluegenes needs to acknowledge some facts there. No cherry picking there, I have posed a lot of questions, he has answered a few of them, and has not answered a few more. I am finding holes in his argument, that is what a debate is about.

I don't recall saying anything even remotely like that, can you refer me to a post please. And could you please give me more than conjecture of where and when and why the marine life would die, and at what speed and why the bodies would float inland during a marine transgression. If the glaciation is on the landmass, it makes more sense to me that water would be travelling away from the landmass and not towards it, even at higher sea levels.

Certainly. Your words were: That is saying that the flood brought inland with it the non-surviving marine life.As for asking for more than conjecture as to where and when the marine life would have died, let me remind you that it was your conjecture in the first place that the marine life died at all in the flooded areas. You go first with the evidence, therefore. I am all ears.

Oh, and whilst we're about it, this is the quotation I gave just now, from your message to Granny Magda: And this is a quotation from your message to me just now: Which way do you want the water travelling - inland, or away from the landmass ?

Let me get to this in the dating forum. I will possibly participate this week. Regarding carbon dating I have a loose set of ideas, regarding radiometric dating I have a definite mechanism that falsifies it, and regarding archaeology I prefer Rohl's revised dating to mainstream Egyptology.I dont have a specific dating system of my own, admittedly I do rely on the bible which has been proved accurate date-wise through Rohl's revised dating. The familiarity of many early civilizations with Triassic/Jurassic fauna, including Gobekli Tepe, Egypt, Pompeii and Angkor Watt adds to this Further methods are to look at rates of sedimentation to get approximate dates for example the Mississipi valley. (going back to the Triassic/Jurassic)