Summations Only

As I understand it; sub-Saharan Africans don't carry Neanderthal genes. Interbreeding between some humans and Neanderthals occurred in Eurasia after a group or groups of humans moved out of Africa. How do these tie into what you wrote? Did the Flood miss sub-Saharan Africa as those people without Neanderthal genes also survived ? Edited by Pressie, : Spelling mistakes

mindspawn, I checked the reference provided here: It is from an anti-scientific, fundamentalist religious YEC organisation. The article was written by John Woodmorappe (real name Jan Peczkis, who describes himself as a ‘science teacher’).He has a table with what he calls anomalous fossils. The reference to a South African so-called anomalous fossil in his table drew my eye immediately.Peczkis claims the proper age of Archeocyathids is Cambrian. He said they were found in Permian deposits at Dwyka, South Africa.Well, the word Dwyka rang a bell. The Dwyka Formation is the lowest formation in the Main Karoo Basin, occurring over wide areas of the country. It is a glacial deposit, consisting a mixture of, amongst others gravel and boulders. Obviously that gravel and boulders didn’t appear from thin air, but were obtained from already existing rocks.The gravel and boulders therefore are older than the tillite; not the age of the tillite. Some of that gravel and boulders do contain fossils. Way older than the Permian Dwyka Formation, simply because those boulders in which they occur are way older than the Dwyka Formation. The result is that it’s very possible to find a Cambrian fossil in Permian tillites.I consulted the original article he referenced and it turned out that I was right!Rozanov A. Yu. and F. Debrenne. 1974. Age of Archaeocyathid Assemblages. American Journal of Science, Vol 274, October 2, 833-848.On page 845. My bold.Then from the Glossary of Geology:
GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute. Nothing anomalous about finding Cambrian fossils in Cambrian clay, sand, gravel and boulders deposited as Permian tillite.Seems as if the creationist was trying to mislead people again. He wrote an untruth. Why do creationists always have to tell untruths about everything? It seems as if it’s all they have.I won’t even bother to check the rest.Edited by Pressie, : Spelling

mindspawn wites

quote:

---

Good point, and thank you for taking the time to look at the link. I'm also reluctant to use religious sites for evidence, but felt that the references would speak for themselves. But obviously Peczkis has misinterpreted the data. When I have time I will look through some of the other alleged anomalies to see if there are any decent ones I can use in future discussions.
  —mindspawn

---

Trying to wiggle your way out of the fact that your source didn't tell the truth?Jan Peczkis has been shown to have told untruths before. Lots of them. He's an untruth-teller of note. Yet you referred to him.Seems as if you are just as dishonest as that source you referred to. Been shown here on this thread already.Accept the fact which has been demonstrated: you are just as dishonest as the sources you referred to.Edited by Pressie, : SpellingEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence. It doesn't get fixed in the post, though. Last sentence should read 'Seems as if you are just as dishonest as that source you referred to. Been shown here on this thread already.'

Yes, JonF. They tell untruths. As always. That's all they have. Mainstream science certainly does not assume constant decay rates.

I don't know whether he looked at it or not, but it is very obvious that he told untruths about it. For example, Lord Kelvin was not 'an evolutionist' at all. I think that mindspawn is not telling the truth here...

No, there isn't.From the source you, yourself, provided.Under the heading Update and Forums Round-Up: The references to these studies are provided there.

Nope.From the original study http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205 My bold.They base their studies on data obtained between January 2007 and May 2010. More than 3 years of data. The study was published in 2012.Needs to be repeated by independent labs before anything is accepted.Hope you do realise that 'variations in time of year and time of day' strongly suggests that it is the equipment they used to measure those 'fluctuations' which show variations and not the decay rate varying.....

Nope. This thread started with a question.It read:

quote:

---

Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?

---

Sure can provide those.The Beaufort Group straddles the P-T boundary.Keyser, A.W. and Smit, R.M.H., 1977-1978. Vertebrate bionization of the Beaufort Group with special reference to western Karoo Basin: Ann. Geol. Surv. S. Afr. , 12, p. 1 -35.In it, on page 5, a table , Numbered Table 2.1- FORMATION NAMES IN THE AREA NORTH OF GRAHAMSTOWN.Stratigraphy from top to bottom:1. Molteno Formation- Glittering sandstone, grit and conglomerate with grey and black shale and mudstone.
2. Burgersdorp Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red and bluish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone and siltstone
3. Katberg Formation, Tarkastad Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Sandstone; subordinate red siltstone and mudstone.
4. Balfour Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Grey, bluish- and greenish-grey mudstone; subordinate sandstone.
5. Middleton Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Red, bluish-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate sandstone.
6. Koonap Formation, Adelaide Subgroup, Beaufort Group- Greenish, bluis-grey and greenish-grey mudstone and siltstone; subordinate mottled sandstone.
7. Waterford Formation, Ecca Group- Dark laminated mudrock with abundant ripple-marks; numerous sandstone beds.No sign of a global flood.You should see those Biozones in this reference. No sign of a global flood there, either.Another scientific reference to look at, disproving a global flood at the P-T boundary, is Handbook 8 of the Geological Survey of South Africa, by the South African Committee for Stratigraphy, compiled by L.E. Kent in 1980. You should see those biozones in the Beaufort Group (straddling the P-T boundary) listed there. The table on page 564 is excellent to describe those biozones in the Beaufort Group, with ranges, which don't co-incide with the stratigraphy.From there:
Kannemeyeria-Diademon
Lystrosaurus-Thrinaxodon
Diccynodon lacerticepts-Whaitsia
Aulacephalodon-Cistecephalus
Tropidostoma-Endothiodon
Pristerognathus-Diictodon
DinocephalianGlobal flood around the P-T boundary disproved with biozones in the Beaufort Group.

Please don't tell untruths about what I wrote. I didn't say that at all. Their instruments were not faulty at all.Anyone who's ever been in a lab would know that external influences, such as variations in temperature, humidity, pressure, etc., would influence the readings obtained from any equipment.There's a reason why they try to keep temperatures and humidity in labs constant with air-conditioning and humidifyers.Nothing faulty about that equipment. Just facts such as that temperature variances influence readings as the equipment is subjected to those environmental variances. Nope. Not faulty equipment. They say their readings may be influenced by environmental influences. Temperature, pressure, etc. Exactly. That's what they suggested. Please remember that it's not a seasonal. They said it themselves. I didn't provide a link; you provided the original link which contained a link to the original research. I recommend that you start providing accurate renditions of my viewpoint, instead of writing what you think I wrote.I'm not discrediting equipment at all. It is a basic fact that equipment get influenced by external, environmental factors such as temperature, pressure, etc. It's not the decay getting influenced, it's the technology measuring it getting influenced by environmental factors. Luckily we can measure rates from the past. Hope you do know that radioactive decay rates have been in measured in Supernovas, hundreds of thousands of light years away? Hundreds of thousands of years in the past? That light is reaching us now. And the radioactive decay rates are the same as we have on earth, now? Did you know that?

It has. The Beaufort Group.

This one was funny. Read it again.

Yes. That's also what the researchers hinted at. Yes. Everything so far has shown that the 'seasonal variations' are a result of influences on the equipment. The atom theory is very robust and has stood the test of time. They sure should do it. From that source you provided, it seems as if the institutions did their part of the job, but the researchers didn't do theirs.Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Remember that one.Edited by Pressie, : Whole reply changed.

Hope you do know that palosoils are the opposite of flooding. Especially when you consider that vertically there's more than one palosoil horizon present. The word 'soils' in it should have given you a hint.From GARY, M., MACAFEE R (JR), and WOLF, C. L. (eds), 1977. Glossary of Geology. American Geological Institute. Your global flood at the P-T boundary has been debunked by palosoils in the Karoo Sequence alone. You should read up on those biozones, too.

It was a non-event in the areas of the Karoo Sequence studied there. Not deposited in a 'Fluddy'.Start at The terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary event bed is a nonevent to be found at The terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary event bed is a nonevent | Geology | GeoScienceWorld. Then go to other studies. http://jsedres.sepmonline.org/content/79/5/316.full.pdf+html.No 'major transgressions' in the study areas of the Karoo Sequence. No 'Fluddy layer'. It seems to me as if the word 'transgression' means 'The Fluddy' to you. It doesn't.