Summations Only

I pointed out that you are wrong many times, and provided evidence to support my claim. Do you need me to post the link again? If you want me to post the link again you must promise to address the facts contained in it.Ignoring all the evidence that another person posts is not conducive to understanding another's point of view, so you are hardly one to talk.I jumped to no conclusion. I pointed out exactly why you were wrong at least four times, and was ignored. I concluded that you are lying.

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

quote:

---

They are not that easy to find. I already provided evidence that the nature of Pangea during the Permian made the lower latitudes less habitable. The entire habitable region was covered by a thick layer of basalt. Its the only logical place for humans to live during the Permian, and those areas have disappeared under a thick layer of rock.

---

If humans were wiped out by massive volcanic eruptions, what was the point of the Flood? And why doesn't the story mention the volcanoes at all?

That result has been questioned, and the faint effect they saw has not been conclusively tied to variation in decay rates (see Evidence against correlations between nuclear decay rates and Earth—Sun distance). And they are absolutely correct. Boy boh boy, I'm looking forward to that tap-dancing! There's very solid evidence that anything you could call "weather" does not affect decay rates. Read "impossible" Any heat sufficient to affect decay rates resets the clock. Looking forward to it. Don't forget that you'd need a lot of neutrons bombarding. I hope you bring up Melvin Cook's claims from the early 50's, I'm somewhat of an expert on the errors in that one.And remember CONSILIENCE. If you can't explain the observed consilience, you have nothing.

Then stop making claims about radiometric decay.It's true that the majority of dating studies are done with U and Th, but close behind is Ar-Ar. Potassium (and Rubidium) and are not heavy isotopes, for example.The remaining methods are not calibrated against the U and Th methods. (Well, occasionally they are, but it's rare and frowned on). See Call for an improved set of decay constants for geochronological use; I can send you a PDF if you PM me an email address). You didn't even look at it, did you?Essentially none of them were "evolutionists", most of the work was done before Darwin published and some was done before he was born. And there's no reason to suspect Kelvin of being an "evolutionist", unless you can come up with some evidence. He was just investigating the age of the Earth.

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...

You really don't understand the basics do you?If even one mammal, one bird, one reptile, one insect, one plant does NOT show a bottleneck at 4500 years ago, the Biblical Flood myths are refuted.There is no need to show that there are no 4500 year ago bottlenecks; if any of the Biblical Flood myths were true the bottleneck would show up in EVERY living animal and plant today. I must be seen in every human, every cow, every elephant, every chimp, every oak, every blade of grass, every butterfly, every skink, every frog, even in Biblical Christians.But it doesn't.

Sorry Charlie:Wide spread flooding is irrelevant. The Biblical Flood myths claim universal flooding.But it still don't matter because reality is that there were no humans around at the PT boundary.And even that is irrelevant because humans do not show a bottleneck even 4500 years ago. Neither do Oak trees.

Absolute nonsense.Is your faith so weak that you just have to make stuff up to prop it up?

So you are admitting to widespread flooding? My goal has been achieved. Can you disprove it covered the Permian highlands? Up until now I have been regularly told that the flood has been disproven. Can you disprove it now that I've pinpointed a time when there was widepsread flooding? The only likely habitable region during the Permian was the northern latitudes. I posted links in this thread about that. This entire area was covered by volcanic flood basalt. If there are any humans they would most logically be under the flood basalt of northern Siberia. Kindly provide evidence.

If I quote someone who misinterprets facts, this does not make me dishonest. You seem to be trying to discredit me, when I have been posting more scientific links and backup for my comments than anyone else on this thread. Sorry but that is poor and childish debating.I have shown widespread flooding at the P-T boundary and no-one has yet disproved it could be of biblical proportions. I have explained how vegetation could gain a foothold after the flood when it has been claimed it cant, my job here is done.

LOLOf course I can refute that the Biblical Flood happened at ANYTIME when humans existed; you have been given that several times.Today only liars claim the Biblical Flood happened.

You calling me a liar? This accusation has been thrown around a few times in this thread.I am honestly just looking for a civil discussion. I have not even touched on the mountain of evidence for flooding at the P-T boundary, not just on the coastal plains but on every continental plate in the flood plains. You guys are welcome to this biased website, if the moderators were more concerned about the civil exchange of ideas they would have long ago weeded out the less civil among you.

You saying I'm making up stuff?As I said in the previous post, I am honestly just looking for a civil discussion. I have not even touched on the mountain of evidence for flooding at the P-T boundary, not just on the coastal plains but on every continental plate in the flood plains. You guys are welcome to this biased website, if the moderators were more concerned about the civil exchange of ideas they would have long ago weeded out the less civil among you.

This despite the fact that you've been asked for evidence multiple times? Why instead do you single out the poster(s) that are rude and avoid actually citing the evidence. (Which would still fall short, but at least it is a start. After all what about Kansas?)What is needed here is proof of a flood that covered every "high mountain" by at least 15 cubits. I' m sure everyone would accept evidence that extended part way up the tallest "high mountain". But instead all we've seen are preliminaries (e.g. claims "moutains weren't very high back in the day" without citing evidence", arguments that "something got wet so everything was wet").I agree that calling people liars simply because they claim to believe something the evidence suggests is ridiculous is wrong. I wish it would stop. Past experience is that pointing such things out to the moderators brings the whip down. In an effort to show some good will on my part, I'll make such a complaint right now.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.