Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(4)
Message 222 of 991 (705715)
08-31-2013 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by mindspawn
08-30-2013 1:36 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Thanks , I would enjoy a debate on my theory that the flood occurred at the P-T boundary.
We had one. You lost, publicly humiliating yourself rather badly as I recall. But by all means let's go again.
Although I disagree with the timeframes , I do agree with most accepted mainstream thought on the geologic layers that we observe.
No. You don't get to say that.
If you disagree with the time frame, then you disagree with all geology. You have swept away the very foundations of the discipline. You need a whole new explanatory framework. You can't just pick and choose as is convenient.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that disputes that a world-wide flood occurred at the P-T boundary,
This is a lie. Your talent for self-deception is as sharp as ever.
in fact mainstream geologic evidence specifically states there was a widespread marine transgression and extremely significant marine regression at the P-T boundary.
Love to see some citations on that. After all, watching you cite studies that say the opposite of what you think they say is always priceless.
And there are signs of mass sediment movement across the continents at that boundary, which have been closely studied.
Did the geologists who studied these sediments conclude that they were the result of a global flood? No?
I agree that the mainstream creationist theory that most geologic layers were caused by the flood is pretty easy to disprove.
There is no mainstream creationist model. All creationists behave as you do; lying, making shit up, misinterpreting the work of real scholars and ignoring corrections. It seems to me that every creationist on these boards has believed something different. Talk of a standard creationist model is nonsense.
The links I have posted in this thread concerning evidence of the flood are not proposing the standardised flood model, and deserve more than the vague and unscientific response of "the flood has been disproven". And so I'm looking forward to a more in-depth critique of the theory of a world-wide flood at the P-T boundary.
And I'm looking forward to you providing us with just one Permian or Triassic human fossil.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by mindspawn, posted 08-30-2013 1:36 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 5:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(3)
Message 224 of 991 (705717)
08-31-2013 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by mindspawn
08-31-2013 5:02 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Its the consensus of geologists that there was a major marine transgression and a significant worldwide marine regression at the P-T boundary. This means that science itself has already confirmed worldwide marine flooding at the P-T boundary.
No it doesn't. Obviously it doesn't.
Do the studies you refer to mention a worldwide flood? Yes or no mindspawn...
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 5:02 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 6:55 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 226 of 991 (705719)
08-31-2013 5:48 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by mindspawn
08-31-2013 5:40 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
That's your perception. You probaby think you are winning this debate as well. lol!
Generally speaking, when someone provides citations that disprove their own argument, as you did repeatedly, that person is considered the loser.
Here's my summation in that thread, you see there was not ONE good argument proposed against the geological evidence of a flood at the P-T boundary.
Apart from the fact that there were no humans. And no worldwide flooding.
Obviously the marine transgression and regression cannot be denied, because these are recorded.
You are denying them. The events you cite were not worldwide. They may have been very major, but they were still not universal. That refutes your entire thesis.
The fossil argument was not completed by the time of summation,
Damn right it wasn't. I eagerly await your proof of humans in the Permian.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by mindspawn, posted 08-31-2013 5:40 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 8:04 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 273 of 991 (705814)
09-02-2013 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 6:55 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Granny writes:
Do the studies you refer to mention a worldwide flood?
mindspawn writes:
The answer is YES
This is a lie.
They don't use the word "flood" , using the more applicable term of "transgression".
But not once does this paper refer to a worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land. It surveys shallow marine environments, but it does not mention any worldwide flood. Indeed, the very fact that they are able to identify and count numerous such shallow marine environs comprehensively disproves any global flood.
quote:
"The end Permian mass extinction has long been related to a severe, first order lowstand of sea level Newell, N.D., 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geol. w Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 89, 63—91. based primarily on the widespread absence of latest Permian ammonoid markers, but field x evidence reveals that the interval coincides with a major transgression."
But the beginning of the Triassic sees an even greater marine transgression, as you can see in Fig. 2 of the paper. When exactly did this flood happen? Because if if we take your argument, and it goes right on the P-T boundary, then it seems that God broke his promise not to flood us again.
The extinction at the end-Permian coincides with a MAJOR transgression. This means that there was a major increase in sea levels relative to land.
But still not a global flood. An increase in sea levels doesn't mean that all the land was covered any more than an increase in burglary rates means that every house in the world has been robbed. There are plenty of terrestrial fossils from throughout this period. The continent of Pangea, as massive a landmass as you could hope for, was above water through the P-T boundary. That disproves a global flood.
Science isn't claiming a biblical flood
One thing we agree on there.
, but science is certainly claiming a worldwide flood at the P-T boundary.
No, not in the sense that you are trying to present it. You have misunderstood this paper.
Mutate and Survive
PS; Oh, I nearly forgot! Did you notice that much of the dating in that paper was done by conodont biostratigragphy? A conodont is a fossil, from a fish-like animal. The dates were established using our knowledge of conodont evolution. So the paper you're so proud of finding... is based on evolutionary science. Still keen on it? It uses some radiometric dating as well. I thought you disapproved of that? Or do you only disapprove when it's not telling you something you want to hear?
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 6:55 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 5:22 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 274 of 991 (705815)
09-02-2013 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by mindspawn
09-01-2013 8:04 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
mindspawn writes:
I cannot prove the biblical flood.
You really ought to have stopped there.
But you had to spoil it...
As for human remains, the list of anomalies is endless. None of them are taken seriously by the scientific establishment.
Gee, I wonder why.
One or two problems with those articles;
1) They're bollocks.
2) None of them mentions any Permian human fossils.
Without human fossils from the Permian and Triassic, no-one in their right mind is going to treat your little pet theory as anything other than crank nonsense.
You have to understand that we have a very good understanding of the history of evolution, one that is backed up by over a century of research and a great many fossils. Not one of those fossils supports your story. If you want people to believe that there were humans in the Permian, you need to show us some really compelling evidence; human fossils. A few unverifiable claims by internet lunatics is not going to cut it.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by mindspawn, posted 09-01-2013 8:04 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:40 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 300 of 991 (705871)
09-03-2013 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 281 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 4:40 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.
This is a lie.
You know for a fact that there are other methods of geological dating. You've been discussing them in the Age of Mankind thread, so you are quite aware that other methods exist. Feel free to dispute those methods if you wish, but please don't waste our time by pretending that they don't exist.
The higher latitudes did not experience the earlier extinction crisis. This "Siberian" area is the most likely habitat of the small population of humans during the turbulent extinction period of the Guadalupian stage (mid-Permian). This entire area was covered by lava during the P-T boundary and under this lava is where you will most likely find evidence of human settlement.
Until you can provide evidence for this, there is no reason to think that this is anything other than wishful thinking on your part. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously without evidence for your claims, not just "Might-have-been", or "Could-have-been", but good, solid evidence that your ideas are actually true. I need to see solid evidence that you're not just making things up.
If you want to claim that there were humans in the Permian, you need to provide us with Permian human fossils. Nothing else is sufficient.
mindspawn writes:
{during the Permian} the more likely place for human settlement would have been in the northernmost section of Pangea, please refer to the linked map:
mindspawn writes:
During the Triassic, humans were in Turkey, and had not spread around the world yet.
So they moved? What is now Turkey was on the Western side of Pangea.
But again, without solid corroborating evidence, there is no reason to treat this as anything more than just another fanciful notion that you made up.

Let's condense my responses to your two messages into one.
I never said the article supports a "worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land"
Then it does not support the Flood, because a "worldwide complete transgression sufficient to cover all the land" is exactly what the Bible narrative describes.
The landscape was flatter then, in the absence of proof of high Permian mountain ranges, its possible that the waters could have covered all the land, science has not disproven that at the P-T boundary.
Another example of an excuse that you have plucked from thin air.
We've been over this. There were mountains on Pangea. Worse for your case, the Bible very clearly mentions mountains in the Flood story;
quote:
They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. - Gen 7
The bible account claims that there were mountains before the Flood. If you are going to posit a scenario where there where no mountains, then that cannot be regarded as evidence for the Flood.
The article does not only survey shallow marine environments but also points to flooding of vast areas of the interior of Pangea (found in Australia/Madagascar/Greenland)
'The culmination of the long-term sea-level rise occurred in the Griesbachian when several seaways flooded into the interior of Pangea e.g., in eastern Greenland, western Australia and Madagscar . This inundation was short lived and marine deposition in these areas ceased in the Dienerian."
This too disproves the idea of the Flood occurring at that time.
Every time you find a source saying that "Area A was flooded" you implicitly acknowledge that the remaining areas were not flooded. That is contrary to the Biblical account and therefore evidence against the Flood.
Conodonts became extinct. I don't see your logic that extinctions prove evolution??
You miss my point. I never claimed that.
The point about the conodont dating is that for you to sensibly make the claim "The Flood takes place at the P_-T boundary", you must have some way of dating the P-T boundary. For you to make any claim about the history of the Earth, you need to have some sort of dating method. Without such a method, you cannot make any kind of what about what happened when. Your P-T claim would become meaningless, since you would have no way dating the Flood, the P-T or anything else.
I am simply pointing out to you that the paper that you are so fond of is founded upon the assumptions that a) evolution is true (the conodont dating is based on this assumption) and b) radiometric dating is accurate (because the paper incorporates radiometric dating).
You can't pick and choose. Either radiometric dating is reliable, or it is not reliable and neither is any date that relies upon it. Either evolution is real or evolution is false and any date which relies upon evolution must be called into question. In attempting to utilise a paper that uses methodology that you denounce, you are guilty of hypocrisy and deeply flawed logic.
Granny Magda, the end Permian and the early Triassic are the P-T boundary.
Good grief... I know that, okay.
What I'm saying is that the paper you cite shows the highstand persisting well into the Early Triassic. Look at figure 2; it clearly shows a greater highstand during the Griesbachian (Earliest Triassic) than in the latest Permian. So if the Flood took place at the boundary point, then either God broke his promise and flooded the place again in the Early Triassic or the Flood waters persisted for a whopping one million years!
I have no idea why you're so keen on this paper. It simply fails to support your version of events.
Mutate and Survive
Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 4:40 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:56 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 302 of 991 (705873)
09-03-2013 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 10:14 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
mindspawn writes:
radiometric dating is based on a modern rate of decay that is assumed to be constant. The assumption does not have a strong basis, due to the fact that there are a few known and also unknown ways in which it can be affected.
But... how do you know that?
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:14 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:22 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 306 of 991 (705878)
09-03-2013 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by mindspawn
09-03-2013 10:56 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
You throw around this accusation too freely, its not a practical way to create "understanding through discussion", which is the purpose of this website.
You claimed "You have only the debatable theory of radiometric dating to support your long periods of time.". You know that's not true. If you don't want me making false accusations, then you should perhaps more precise in what you write, rather than making loose and inaccurate claims.
Yes but those deal with recent ages (0-60000 years). For the really long ages all you have is radiometric dating and the assumption of slow processes.
Yes and we have already talked about biostratigraphy, which is not limited to recent times.
I would be interested to know what dating methods you do accept.
The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt.
I don't think that's true.
Its the only logical place for humans to live during the Permian, and those areas have disappeared under a thick layer of rock.
You say this as though this basalt were some sort of impassible barrier. It's not. There are plenty of exposed Permian rocks available, all over the world. This is a naive portrayal of how geology works. There are plenty of forces that expose underlying geology, the break-up of Pangea being a single pertinent example. This is no excuse for not finding the fossils.
So you are asking for miracles when I have provided logical reasons why those fossils have not been found.
I understand that you honestly believe that you are providing logical reasons, but in reality, all you are doing is engaging in rationalisation. Instead of trying to explain away the lack of evidence, you need to actually provide evidence. Without hard evidence, you have no foundation upon which to build your claims. That has to be the starting point.
Perhaps if you had some real positive evidence to show a P-T Flood, a few weaknesses in your supporting evidence could be excused. Instead, it seems as though every piece of potential supporting evidence is missing and all you can do is provide us with excuses for why it's not there. It's just not convincing. It is certainly much less convincing than the mainstream geological model.
Look at the following list of anomalies,
Those are mostly spores and pollen. Some algae. The Flood myth doesn't really mention algae. It does mention humans though, so if you want to place the Flood at the P-T, you have a human fossil problem.
Mutate and Survive.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by mindspawn, posted 09-03-2013 10:56 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 4:50 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 385 of 991 (706029)
09-05-2013 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 321 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 5:22 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
You miss my point. I was joking.
All I was trying to point out is that it is absurd for you to claim that there are "unknown" problems with radiometric dating. That's just gibberish. If you knew of an unknown problem with the dating, then it would cease to be unknown, now would it?
This is what I mean when I say that you need to be more precise in what you write. If you are so sloppy that you repeatedly write things that cannot possibly be true, then you can expect a certain degree of ridicule.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 5:22 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 390 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 11:09 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(2)
Message 391 of 991 (706035)
09-05-2013 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by mindspawn
09-04-2013 4:50 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
I agree with biostratigraphy for relative dating. In itself , biostratigraphy does not point to millions of years.
Then you have a big problem, and a fatal one for your Flood idea; there are no human fossils below the most recent strata. Even in terms of relative dating you have a huge problem. For you to have any kind of case, you need to show human remains dating back to before the Flood and running right through from the post-Flood Triassic, to the present day. Instead what you have is a total lack of human fossils until the Pleistocene. Whether that is considered a couple of million years ago or some shorter span, you need to show human habitation before and after your Flood to bring a case.
The Flood story features humans; you need human fossils to have an argument. Without those fossils, you have nothing to corroborate your story.
mindspawn writes:
The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt.
Untrue. Even the crude map you posted shows that the traps do not cover the entire NE region.
mindspawn writes:
This is the greatest layer of basalt known to man. It is pretty impassable.
Completely untrue. There has been extensive mining of the coal zones around the edges of the intrusions for years. If the area had been inhabited by humans (or any other modern animal), then they would have found evidence.
Anyway, this is merely excuse-making on your part. Why can't you provide evidence? Because it is hiding! You previously claimed that fossil whales were hiding in mysterious inland seas. Now you are claiming that human fossils are hiding under a lava field. This is not how honest enquiry is carried out. This is just rationalising.
Note that this image is showing the high latitudes of Pangea, the red portion is where the basalt layer is, covering nearly all of that portion.
Nearly all. But not all.
Hallam and Wignall claim the high latitudes did not experience the early to mid Permian extinction crisis:
Hallam and Wignall only describe "higher latitudes" as being spared the Gualdalupian disaster; they do not demand that only the area covered by the Traps was habitable. That notion is entirely your own invention. There are plenty of Late Permian tetrapod fossils from lower latitudes. The more Southern latitudes simply suffered higher extinction rates, they were not uninhabitable, nor was the entire Northern region of Pangea covered by the Siberian LIP.
I proved a dramatic rise in sea level, all transgressions cause coastal flooding, i proved this was a particularly dramatic transgression. It also involved flooding into the interior of Pangea that is now discovered across 3 continents.
All of which facts completely disprove a global flood at that time.
It ought to be obvious to any rational observer that a partial flood is not a global flood. Your continued refusal to accept this simple logic is baffling.
And you still deny flooding at the P-T bounday?
I have never denied flooding at the PT Boundary. That is a complete untruth. It is your repeated habit of making such patently untrue claims that has led to unkind assesments of your motives in this discussion.
I do not deny flooding at the PT. You have successfully proved flooding at the PT. What you have failed to do is to provide evidence for a GLOBAL FLOOD at the PT. Instead, by providing clear evidence of incomplete flooding at the PT Boundary, you have disproved a global flood.
The Bible describes a complete global flood. You have proved that no such condition exists at the PT. You have disproved your own claim. Nice work.
More research needs to be done on exposed layers in northern Siberia. Pre-boundary pollen has been unexpectedly found, and I agree with you that I need pre-boundary human skeletons to be found there to add strength to my case.
Then might I suggest that you try and persuade some your fellow creationists to fund such research? Certainly no-one else is going to take you seriously unless you have some pre-Permian human fossils to show us. Without that, you do not have a case to strengthen. All you have is conjecture and wishful thinking.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by mindspawn, posted 09-04-2013 4:50 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 7:49 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 392 of 991 (706036)
09-05-2013 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 390 by mindspawn
09-05-2013 11:09 AM


Re: Another brief off topic note
Most people do not need to be told that they do known know things which are unknown.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by mindspawn, posted 09-05-2013 11:09 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 420 of 991 (706131)
09-06-2013 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 414 by mindspawn
09-06-2013 7:49 AM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
Fair enough regarding {human fossils in} the pre-flood period.
And fair regarding the post-Flood period as well. You would have us believe that Noah and his family landed in what is now Turkey - as per the biblical account of the Ark landing on Ararat. That should leave us plenty of human fossils in that region that are not hidden underneath your precious lava. The Book of Genesis describes the descendants of Noah founding cities and even nations within two generations. We should see evidence of that. Instead we see evidence of these very cities some hundreds of millions of years later. Even if we accept your accelerated chronology (an assumption that you have given us little reason to believe) that leaves us expecting to see human activity soon after the Flood. Instead we see no Flood and no humans.
I have conjecture that the pre-flood fossils lie underneath the Siberian basalt which I feel is a reasonable hypothesis.
It's not. It's a ridiculous excuse that you have concocted out of nothing.
Take a look at that basalt layer;
It's not quite the neat impassible layer that you portray it as; it's actually far more patchy than that. Plus, you can clearly see that there is plenty of land around the traps that would have been equally habitable.
You have no reason to suppose that only the covered areas were inhabited and you have no reason to claim that fossils from this area would be missing.
I'm sorry Mindspawn, I know that you have invested a lot of time and energy into this idea, but the facts are just not backing you up.
But the reptiles of the Triassic could have been rapidly adapting Permian marine reptiles that discovered a desert landscape devoid of any competition.
This is another excuse that you have made up off the top of your head.
There exists a perfectly satisfactory fossil record of land animals throughout the End Permian and Early Triassic. The events you describe never happened.
These reptiles could have survived the 5 month flood period on debris and then through swimming. ie Lystrosaurus.
That's just silly. Lystrosaurus was terrestrial. It's also one of the many terrestrial fossils that disprove a flood at the PT Boundary.
It took hundreds of years for small animal populations to spread from Turkey and so the dominant fauna throughout the terrestrial regions would have been of reptilian fauna but of amphibious habits. (able to swim through the flood, and able to adapt to a harsh dry landscape as well)
We know that's not true, because what is now Turkey was underneath the sea at the beginning of the Triassic. Take a look;
Further, there are terrestrial fossils from the Early Triassic that lived far away from what is now Turkey.
This would explain the dominance of reptiles during the Triassic and Jurassic as tiny populations of humans/mammals spread out from the Arabian plate. This would explain Triassic /Jurassic fauna.
Not even close. Just take birds for example. This is a group that is mentioned in the Bible as having existed since Eden. In reality, they don't show up in the fossil record until the Late Jurassic. And this is only one of the hundreds of facts that contradict your bizarre theory.
Without a specific Flood layer to point to in the geological record and without any suitably ancient human fossils you have nothing. Your entire case is just hot air.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 414 by mindspawn, posted 09-06-2013 7:49 AM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 4:21 PM Granny Magda has replied
 Message 444 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 4:48 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 483 of 991 (706288)
09-09-2013 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 443 by mindspawn
09-08-2013 4:21 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
The first cave dwellings are in Turkey.
No they're not.
The first building is found in Turkey.
Nope.
The first towns are found in Turkey.
Iraq.
The bible then describes the first civilization in the plain of Shinar (location Arabia)
From the Wiki;
quote:
Shinar is a biblical geographical locale of uncertain boundaries in Mesopotamia.
So your certainty as to Shinar's location seems unwarranted. But it hardly matters. Shinar is described as being founded by Nimrod, who comes only a few generations after Noah. If your timeline were correct, we would see those cities in the Early Triassic. We don't.
The oldest ziggurat is found in Babel, where the biblical tower of Babel was built.
Babylon (Babel) is in Iraq and not part of the Arabian Plate.
Maybe you are right about incomplete basalt coverage. But the fact that basalt does cover the region and its relative remoteness seem to have slowed research of Permian fauna/flora in the region. Until Siberian fossils of Permian age are studied as much as every other continent, the scientific community will be in the dark as to what extent modern fauna/flora existed in northern Pangea.
Utter nonsense. Until you provide positive evidence that humans existed in the Triassic, your claims will continue to be dismissed and quite rightly.
The fact remains that the Siberian Traps are nothing like your naive imaginings.
For many reasons, John Miller proposes a Permian origin for angiosperms and quotes 3 other studies that propose earlier sub-arctic origins for flowering plants. So I am not the first to believe there was a sub-arctic "cradle" of the modern biome in the Permian.
The articles you cite do not support the existence of modern angiosperms in the Permian, nor do they support your ludicrous notion of a Northern habitable zone.
I have told you this several times; there is no evidence that only the Northern parts of Pangea were habitable. All of Pangea was habitable. The only reason you came up with this rubbish is because you misinterpreted a single sentence from the Hallam/Wignall paper. The reality is that we have plenty of fossils form the Southern latitudes.
In what way would {lystrosaurus} disprove a flood?
Because a Flood would see almost all Lystrosaurs wiped of the face of the Earth in a single clear event. That isn't what we see in the geological record. Instead we see Lystrosaurus already widely distributed at the Early Triassic.
I believe the controversy is simply because it was amphibious and became terrestrial during the Triassic.
This is another example of something that you have made up. You have no evidence for this.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 4:21 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 549 by mindspawn, posted 09-16-2013 3:49 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 484 of 991 (706289)
09-09-2013 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 444 by mindspawn
09-08-2013 4:48 PM


Re: The flood story (getting pretty off the topic core)
The relevant portion of Turkey described by the bible is the Arabian plate.
No it isn't.
This was not under the ocean, but attached to Africa during the Triassic.
Sure. The Arabian Plate was above water during the Triassic. But Mount Ararat isn't on the Arabian Plate.
Mount Ararat is on the edge of this plate,
Mount Ararat is well North of the Arabian Plate boundary. Also, it didn't exist during the Triassic. You're about 180 million years out.
This is easy to check.
This fits in exactly with what I have been saying.
No it doesn't. The bible demands that birds precede the Flood. You have no pre-Flood bird fossils. To pretend that this fits your argument is absurd.
As predicted by scientists there was a northern latitude biome vaguely resembling our modern biome.
This is a misrepresentation. Scientists predict no such thing.
This is where the birds/angiosperms/mammals/humans would be found.
And where are they hiding before the Flood? Under some lava? In an inland sea? Your excuses are increasingly desperate.
During the early Triassic, none of these fossils would be present except for in Turkey, if you use compressed timeframes.
Can you show me these fossils? No. They must be hiding as well. What's your excuse this time?
Apart from the fact that even in the very earliest Triassic there are fossils of terrestrial life from all over the world. You are quite right to say that this is what we should expect to see, but it is not what we actually see.
The rest of the world had only flood survivors of Permian lower latitude fauna/flora. (reptiles and surviving vegetation from floating seeds)
quote:
Genesis 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die. Except any animals or plants that mindspawn finds useful for his excuse-making. Those I'll let live.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 444 by mindspawn, posted 09-08-2013 4:48 PM mindspawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 497 by mindspawn, posted 09-10-2013 6:05 AM Granny Magda has replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 485 of 991 (706292)
09-09-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 477 by mindspawn
09-09-2013 6:34 AM


Re: But the Biblical Flood myths have been totally refuted.
I place the flood at the P-T boundary before the later mountain building tectonic events. The subsequent elevation of the "hills of Ararat" occurred later when the Arabian plate crashed into the Eurasian plate.
Yes. Much later. 180 million years later. Even with you're compressed time scale, you're still shafted.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by mindspawn, posted 09-09-2013 6:34 AM mindspawn has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024