Summations Only

This alleged regression was the earlier assumption for the P-T boundary. Since then the majority of research has indicated a major transgression at this boundary as supported by the link below. This study debates the claim of a strong regression at the P-T boundary in favor of a strong transgression, and peaking sea levels:
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdfI have posted many other posts as evidence of a strong transgression at the P-T boundary. So I suggest your link is either badly researched, or based on old data.

This is all semantics. If sea levels keep rising they will keep covering more land. So far only one person has tried a to find a place on earth that was not flooded. That to me is a more convincing argument for your position.There are "unconformities", places where flooding has removed Permian layers, and we jump from early Permian to Early triassic. Even this indicates a flood, a geological event that removed large sedimentary layers. (strong regression would do this)

I haven't seem anything vaguely convincing yet. I have been shown a graph which reflects a regression not a transgression at the PT boundary. My earlier posts already refuted that. And a claim that layers in South Africa that show rapid sedimentation cannot be flood related, needs to be justified.

Exactly! I also thought that "disproved" was a wild claim.Signs of widespread confirmed flooding in every continent at the same time is more than a "shred" of evidence. I cant prove the flooding covered every mountain, but I can certainly prove the flooding was extensive across Pangea, and I'm still trying to discover a place that definitely was not flooded. The absolute absence of an unbroken terrestrial sequence at the P-T boundary showing no signs of flooding speaks volumes, unless you can find one.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

The evidence for a widespread rise in sea levels is something which everyone here seems to accept. (I'm guessing that tectonic plate movements and/or global temperature cycles leading to ice cap shrinkage are likely culprits, but over to the geologists on that one).Where you don't have a shred of evidence is that humans or any modern animals were around at the time. You have conjecture, sure, but no evidence about that.

I see I didn't answer this post. If the predators ate the fish, they didn't need to eat the poor cow. The cow could then eat the growing vegetation. After the P-T boundary there were many temporary lakes. Its not far fetched that fish would have been easy eating while these lakes dried up.
Triassic Volprihausen Formation
The following sandstones of the Volpriehausen formation are characteristic of sandplains dominated by aeolian processes and temporary lakes.Seeds grow into plants. Even in a few weeks vegetation can grow to edible size. I've just planted grass a few weeks back. It already needs a mow. The bible story said the plants had 5 months to establish themselves before Noah let the animals out the ark. Even if significant plant life only started growing after 4 months, that's still enough time to grow plants. Plus the bible hints at an absolutely ingenious way to re-seed the planet:Genesis 7:3 Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.Were they fed seeds, and then excreted them over the Turkey region when released? Did Noah leave piles of seeds on the deck of the Ark, so the birds could be fed for months afterwards? Impossible to say, but whatever way it happened there were specific plans before the flood, to keep seed alive on the land.Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

Entirely true. I cannot prove a flood of biblical proportions although the proven one is dramatic and widespread.I do only have conjecture. It makes sense that humans and other mammals and flowering plants would be in the cooler northern regions that were less susceptible to extremes of heat and subsequent glaciation that caused extinctions during the early and middle Permian. Unfortunately the entire northern Siberia region that I suspect holds these fossils was covered by volcanic rock. So I am left with an unproven scientific hypothesis, its only my faith in the bible that makes me so certain that is where the fossils are lying, which understandably does not mean much to the scientific community.I have yet to make a good case for increasing fossil anomalies in the region, and am hoping to research this further.

Hi MindSpawn,Participants in the science forums are expected to have at least a rudimentary scientific background so that threads aren't burdened with requests for evidence of basic knowledge.The damage that salt water flooding causes to soil and the inability of most salt water fish to survive in fresh water and vice-versa are well known. If you're unaware of these simple facts then please avail yourself of Google and look them up. Do not waste thread time and space with them.The current scientific understanding is that there was never any world-wide flood. Science believes this because it has never found any evidence of a world-wide flood, not because it has found evidence proving there was no world-wide flood. It makes no sense to request proof that waters for which there is no evidence never reached the mountains. If you have evidence that there was a world-wide flood that reached the mountains "during the P-T boundary" then you should provide it.But please don't do it in this thread. This thread assumes a world-wide flood about 5000 years ago and asks participants to speculate about what the world-wide distribution of fauna would look like had it radiated from a single point in the Middle East after the flood.I suggest again that you look up the celestial teapot because you're getting the burden of proof backwards. Or think about how you'd prove that unicorns never existed.

Fair enough regarding the pre-flood period. I have conjecture that the pre-flood fossils lie underneath the Siberian basalt which I feel is a reasonable hypothesis. But the reptiles of the Triassic could have been rapidly adapting Permian marine reptiles that discovered a desert landscape devoid of any competition. These reptiles could have survived the 5 month flood period on debris and then through swimming. ie Lystrosaurus. It took hundreds of years for small animal populations to spread from Turkey and so the dominant fauna throughout the terrestrial regions would have been of reptilian fauna but of amphibious habits. (able to swim through the flood, and able to adapt to a harsh dry landscape as well)This would explain the dominance of reptiles during the Triassic and Jurassic as tiny populations of humans/mammals spread out from the Arabian plate. This would explain Triassic /Jurassic fauna.

There were no fish - they all died when the salinity changed, their habitat was destroyed and their food supply disappeared. Those, that is, that weren't simply killed by the turbulence caused by a catastrophically violent global flood that rose to 15 cubits higher than the highest mountain in just 40 days.If, by some miracle, any fish survived, they did so by finding the rivers lakes, seas and oceans as the floods retreated (to where?). They did not just flap about on open ground miraculously close to where the ark was perched and stay there, miraculously un-rotten, until a carnivore that miraculously can eat it arrives. There was no growing vegetation. all soft seeds of the type that grow into the grass that cows eat, were drowned and rotted in a couple of weeks of the flood starting. Any miraculous survivors would not germinate in the salt laden mud that replaced the topsoil which was blasted away in the flood. No it doesn't. This is the time line described by the bible which I posted before and you ignored: and you can see the relevant verses and the calculations here:http://home.earthlink.net/~arktracker/ark/Timeline.htmlNoah left the ark 57 days after he looked out and saw that the land was drying. Not dry, drying. He actually only left when it was dry. Sodden ground does not grow seeds, it rots them.Edited by Tangle, : spelling

You spelled mountains wrong. Twice.

I tried to find evidence of long-term contamination due to a mere 5 month inundation from salt water. Providing there was drainage and not evaporation of the salt water, it seems that this soil can recover rapidly given some rainfall to wash out the salt. If you add compost, of which post-flood conditions would have had in huge abundance, there is every reason for the soil to make some form of recovery in 5 months. The claim was made that these saline soils cannot recover in 5 months. I'm not wasting thread time at all, I have good reason to doubt a quick dose of seawater would damage soil over many months. Sure it seems like a simple fact, but obviusly there are levels of contamination and someone must prove a 5 month flood reaches that level. Otherwise just not post such comments. I disagree. If anyone wishes to claim that it is geologically impossible for a worldwide flood then they must have the science must back it up. There is certainly enough water for a flood in a flatter terrain which existed before the P-T boundary. If no evidence, they should just decline to say such unnecessary sweeping statements. The first to make the comment must be the first to back it up. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Reference required. Material rotted for a year in salt water is not compost. From wikipedia:

quote:

---

At the simplest level, the process of composting simply requires making a heap of wetted organic matter (leaves, "green" food waste) and waiting for the materials to break down into humus after a period of weeks or months. Modern, methodical composting is a multi-step, closely monitored process with measured inputs of water, air, and carbon- and nitrogen-rich materials. The decomposition process is aided by shredding the plant matter, adding water and ensuring proper aeration by regularly turning the mixture. Worms and fungi further break up the material. Aerobic bacteria manage the chemical process by converting the inputs into heat, carbon dioxide and ammonium. The ammonium is further converted by bacteria into plant-nourishing nitrites and nitrates through the process of nitrification

---

{emphasis added} No, the claim was made that these saline soils could not recover in a few days. Of course they couldn't recover in five months either. but that's irrelevant, since Tangle has conclusively established that nowhere near five months was available.

That's a little hard to believe. The negative impact on vegetation of high salt content in soil is well known. Here's an excerpt from Salt Water Inundation From Hurricane Sandy, which happened just last year: Focus especially on that last sentence. "Ponded for long periods of time" would be a localized example of your global 5-month flood.An apocryphal tale has it that when the Romans defeated Carthage in 146 BC that they sowed the land with salt so that nothing could ever grow there again, but the story is based upon the true and lasting negative effect of salt on soil. Some plants are more tolerant of salinity than others, obviously since some plants even grow in the sea, but many terrestrial plants would suffer greatly in the highly saline soil resulting after 5 months submerged in salt water. Check out the Wikipedia article on Soil Salinity. No one has made that claim. The claim that people have made is that no evidence for a worldwide flood exists in all of Earth's history. If you have evidence for such an event then you should describe it.But not in this thread. This thread is about fauna radiation from a single geographical location after a global extinction event caused by a global flood.

And fair regarding the post-Flood period as well. You would have us believe that Noah and his family landed in what is now Turkey - as per the biblical account of the Ark landing on Ararat. That should leave us plenty of human fossils in that region that are not hidden underneath your precious lava. The Book of Genesis describes the descendants of Noah founding cities and even nations within two generations. We should see evidence of that. Instead we see evidence of these very cities some hundreds of millions of years later. Even if we accept your accelerated chronology (an assumption that you have given us little reason to believe) that leaves us expecting to see human activity soon after the Flood. Instead we see no Flood and no humans. It's not. It's a ridiculous excuse that you have concocted out of nothing.Take a look at that basalt layer; It's not quite the neat impassible layer that you portray it as; it's actually far more patchy than that. Plus, you can clearly see that there is plenty of land around the traps that would have been equally habitable.You have no reason to suppose that only the covered areas were inhabited and you have no reason to claim that fossils from this area would be missing.I'm sorry Mindspawn, I know that you have invested a lot of time and energy into this idea, but the facts are just not backing you up. This is another excuse that you have made up off the top of your head.There exists a perfectly satisfactory fossil record of land animals throughout the End Permian and Early Triassic. The events you describe never happened. That's just silly. Lystrosaurus was terrestrial. It's also one of the many terrestrial fossils that disprove a flood at the PT Boundary. We know that's not true, because what is now Turkey was underneath the sea at the beginning of the Triassic. Take a look; Further, there are terrestrial fossils from the Early Triassic that lived far away from what is now Turkey. Not even close. Just take birds for example. This is a group that is mentioned in the Bible as having existed since Eden. In reality, they don't show up in the fossil record until the Late Jurassic. And this is only one of the hundreds of facts that contradict your bizarre theory.Without a specific Flood layer to point to in the geological record and without any suitably ancient human fossils you have nothing. Your entire case is just hot air.Mutate and Survive