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.
™ Version 4.2
(1)