Summations Only

Thanks for the tips. I have delved into this before, as usual I do not take the standard creationist line.

What a pile of equivocating cobblers. You're just trolling. This is the mechanical translation of the Hebrew:כִׁי לְּיָּמִׁים עוֹד שִׁבְּעָּה אָנֹכִׁי מַמְּטִׁיר עַל הָּאָרֶץ אַרְּבָּעִׁים יוֹם 7:4
וְּאַרְּבָּעִׁים לָּיְּלָּה וּמָּחִׁיתִׁי אֶת כָּל הַיְּקוּם אֲשֶר עָּשִׁׂיתִׁי מֵעַל פְּנֵי
הָּאֲדָּמָּהGiven.that to~ Day~ s Yet.again Seven
I make~ Precipitate~ ing(ms) Upon the~
Land Four~ s Day and~ Four~ s Night
and~ i~ did~ Wipe.away At All the~
Substance Which i~ did~ Do from~
Upon Face~ s the~ GroundWhich is:given that for yet again seven days I
will make a precipitating upon the
land forty days and forty nights and
I will wipe away all of the
substance I made from upon the
face of the ground,It couldn't possibly be clearer - God did it. Why are you trying to wriggle away from it? Do you not believe the bible mindspawn?http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/bookstore/e-books/mtg.pdf

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

If I am not precise enough in my explanations, you should rather point out that I am wrong, than jump to the conclusion that I'm a liar. Your approach is not conducive to understanding another's point of view. I agree with biostratigraphy for relative dating. In itself , biostratigraphy does not point to millions of years.Egyptian chronology is a good method of dating, except it should be adjusted according to Rohl's new chronology. Thanks for not calling me a liar this time. This is the greatest layer of basalt known to man. It is pretty impassable. Some rivers flow through the area, I'm not too sure of the extent of their penetration through the basalt.Siberian Traps - Wikipedia
More evidence for mass extinction | Nature 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. Hallam and Wignall claim the high latitudes did not experience the early to mid Permian extinction crisis:http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf
" Low latitude faunas from carbonate environments were particularly hard hit by the first event; many fusulinids, echinoderms, brachiopods and bryozoans were amongst the victims Jin et al., 1994a There is, as yet, little evidence that the crisis spread to higher latitudes Hallam and Wignall, 1997"So if there were humans in the Permian, their cities were most likely underneath that basalt. 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. And you still deny flooding at the P-T bounday? C'mon you can do better than that. I only pointed out those anomalies to show you that Russia is a hotspot for the discovery of organisms that should be recent, but are discovered in ancient layers. contradicting traditional evolutionary theory). 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.

General comments are not evidence. Sure cheetahs showed recent bottlenecks (during the last couple of hundred years).How does this disprove bottlenecks 4500 years ago?I need actual evidence that there are no 4500 yo genetic bottlenecks among large terrestrial animals. So far you have just given me unsubstantiated claims.

There is a definite seasonal pattern to radiometric decay:
From the Annals of the Impossible (Experimental Physics) | Observations on Quantum Computing & PhysicsThey have not yet discovered the cause/effect of this pattern and yet brush off the changes as negligible. I agree that the currently recorded changes are negligible, but unless we can discover the actual cause we do not know if the changes would be significant under past weather conditions which were vastly different through the ages. I will deal with possible cause and effect in the dating forum when I have time, and how rates could be vastly affected.Known causes of changed decay rates in heavy elements are neutron bombardment and heat.
Heat is an unlikely cause of inaccurate dating, but neutrons do occur in nature. I will also deal with this in the dating forum in future.

The consilience is due to most methods measuring specifically the decay of heavy isotopes. The remaining methods are calibrated against those methods.Please see my previous post, this isn't the forum to discuss radiometric decay. These were mainly evolutionists who required long time frames for their evolution to work. So their "knowledge" of long timeframes was based on assumptions that remain unproven.Radiometric dating was acceptable to science because it compared well with evolutionary theory. If they looked at erosion rates or salination rates they would have seen how little sense there is on these long timeframes and it radiometric dating would not have been accepted. It was unintentional cherry picking based on the presumption that evolutionary theory is the truth.

I was referring to radiometric dating as a whole, not specifically C-14. Please see my posts below.

I can't find exact figures. It was far more extensive than today's glaciation.http://www.pesa.com.au/...cations/pesa_news/june_01/abs4.htm
http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/28/3/279.abstractThe Permian terrain was vastly different to today. There was a vast shallow ocean, the Tethys, and landmasses had generally flatter terrain. Widespread coastal wetlands dominated the coasts. Tectonic mountain building events mainly occurred later. These conditions made the coasts and even the interior far more conducive to flooding than current conditions.

Are you giving me Hebrew lessons? Why don't you give me an in depth analysis on the specific Hebrew word for "make" in that sentence? That would help your case. Or you could just continue with your strawman argument. That will not help your case.

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.

Yes, it seems I have to. Also logic lessons. And biology and physics and geology. It seems that your intellectual cupboard is bare.You are wriggling and squirming your way all around a very simple issue but one that is absolutely at the core of whatever weird argument you are trying to make. Obfuscation and evasion seems to be your methodology.It's just making you look ridiculous.If you can't even say that God caused the flood, given the text and the entire Christian and Jewish interpretation of it, there's no point discussing anything at all with you.You are indeed a troll.

Aah so you want me to interpret the bible your way, without actually showing me that your way is correct? And you want to make points about my "intellectual cupboard"? That's funny. Really funny.What is seriously amazing to me is that I have given evidence of a major rise in sea levels that also flooded vast portions of the interior of Pangea, and not one person has admitted to widespread flooding at the P-T boundary. Say what? Is there not even one person on this site that could admit, yes the P-T boundary does show widespread flooding?And not one person has posted a study proving that land that has been covered by salt water for 5 months, cannot grow vegetation 5 months later. Of course it can, even if its just plants that handle high salinity. I've answered every one of the objections related to the impossibility of the flood, and also gone further to show that in fact there was a widespread flood, not just localized.

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.'

"Mainstream science assumes constant decay rates" is part of the standard creationist line, and is found nowhere else.