Summations Only

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for that, but it will not help because of the stance of the site. The moderators have a very tolerant approach. So you can be repeatedly insulted from a number of people before anyone gets banned. In the meantime they are not quick to pick up the problems, and so you have to lodge complaints. The end result, due to slow and weak moderating this site does not foster "understanding through discussion". The problem lies directly with the level of intervention of the moderators.As for flooding at the P-T boundary, huge flooding did exist then, and if it cannot be disproven to cover the peaks, then the claims of many here have no scientific backing.

I hope you realize that you are being quite nasty to me. Maybe this will increase your esteem on this site.

There is a seasonal pattern. The graphs indicate such. The seasonal pattern is not related to sun-distance, they are correct. So they still have to determine what actually caused the seasonal variations in radioactive decay, now that they have eliminated sun-distance. Makes sense?

I also participate on Christian bible debate forums, and am experienced in discussing Hebrew. We go into more depth than just choosing two translations and assuming the 2 translations that we cherry picked support our view. You neglected other translations that disagree with your view, and you need to tell me which Hebrew word says God "caused" the rain. I can tell you categorically there is no such word. So your argument falls flat.Anyway you have wasted many posts trying to make a side-point, this thread is about evolutionists trying to prove a flood impossible. Yet to see any good argument. (is it impossible for plants to grow on land that has been drained of salt water after 5 months of recovery? - Still waiting for the evidence).

The only evidence presented is the 250 million year timeframe which is for the dating forum. No on topic geological evidence has been presented showing that the P-T boundary flood is impossible. This thread started with evolutionists having weak arguments that the flood is impossible. Evolutionists should not just make statements, this thread is about backing up your statements with facts. Evolutionists seem to believe the following:
1) Vegetation cannot grow on saline soils after a five month recovery period
2) The flood has been repeatedly disproved
3) There were too many predators on the boat to explain survival of modern animals.If people want to say things like that they should then back up their loose statements with actual facts. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I have always made myself clear that I cant prove the biblical flood (covering every mountaintop) but I can prove a worldwide flood.Rather than waste my time discussing the meaning of the word "worldwide", let me use the word "widespread". Across various parts of the coast and interior of Pangea.

This makes perfect sense. If you can find that high water mark at the P-T bounday, then you will have disproved that was the biblical flood. Of course it would have to be undeniable evidence.

Your insistence that the P-T boundary occurred 250 million years ago is a topic for the dating forum, this forum is about geology.A sea level rise does equate to a global flood (flooding on every coastline on the planet.)
A major sea level rise as proven at the P-T boundary was so dramatic that it flooded large portions of the interior of the huge continent of Pangea. I posted evidence for this already in this thread:
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf
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 DienerianI hope this link works, in China this late Permian transgression shows the transformation of coastal swamps (forms paralic coal) into marine environement (marine carbonate):
http://work.geobiology.cn/...IASSIC%20IN%20SOUTH%20CHINA.pdf
The paralic coal forming environment in Nanjing, Nanchang, Shaoguan, and both sides of the Yunkai Oldland was changed into the marine carbonate facies or silicate depositional environment."In the USA the rising sea levels left behind an inland sea of ocean water:
PNW Geology Lecture 10
"Late in the Permian period the sea transgressed and deepened over parts of Idaho and adjoining Rocky Mountain states, forming a closed basin of deep, stagnant ocean water. In this basin layers of mud rich in organic debris were deposited, along with layers rich in phosphorous."Middle East: (Arabian Platform)
Lyell Collection
Deposition during the Permian to Campanian occurred during five main sedimentary cycles. In the Late Permian (Murghabian), a widespread marine transgression covered the edge of Gondwana in a tensional setting. The ‘Fusulinid Sea’ transgression was followed by the deposition, lasting until the Triassic, of a thick regressive sequence, the Akhdar Group, which was terminated by emergence and weathering in a continental environment.So far I have shown flooding in these areas of Pangea:
USA, Australia, Greenland, Madagascar, China, Middle EastI have excluded South America, Africa mainland, Antarctica and Europe because I'm at work, will attend to them maybe tomorrow. There are a number of studies that relate these areas to a major marine transgression during the late Permian/early Triassic.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Really? Faulty equipment at two respectable institutions? The very article you quoted did not even hint at faulty equipment, but suggest that the variations are caused by:
" may be due in part to environmental influences"
"we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior"I would recommend you stick to the suggestions of your own link, rather than trying to discredit the equipment. If radioactive dating can be affected by mere daily "environmental influences" this makes one think how those rates would have behaved during periods of completely different environmental influences in the past.

I thought this was against forum rules to call people liars and fools?
Science is based on facts, instead of calling me a fool, why don't you enlighten me on the truth in an educational manner? Maybe your facts are so overwhelming in favor of evolution I will convert? This would entail decent discussion.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.