Summations Only

As usual this Xuanwei late Permian formation shows the following sequence:
1) clastic rocks containing Permian fossils (mixed jumble of rocks which can be consistent with flooding)
http://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/...t/files/Emeishan.pdf
"However, the late Permian sedimentary rocks that capped the Emeishan basalts, especially in eastern Yunnan and western Guizhou, are somewhat lithologically different from the Wujiaping Formation. These late Permian clastic sequences are called the Xuanwei Formation"2) clay layer
http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090418121812.pdf
"Of particular interest is the regular vertical (stratigraphical) succession of three clayrock beds, usually characterised by the vertical stacking of a clay or/and mudstone, followed by a muddy siltstone, which in turn is followed by a second clay or/and mudstone bed. This regular succession of clayrock beds, which is common to all the PTB sections we have examined in the study area, is also similar in succession to the PTB beds at the Meishan section"What are "marine" clayrocks doing in terrestrial sections of the PT Boundary?
"The results of X-ray diffraction indicate that the main mineral compositions of those clayrocks are illite—montmorillonite interlayers, which are almost the same as the compositions of the Marine PTB clayrocks"Fungal spike within the clay layer(consistent with rotting vegetation)
http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-31/20121031195516211621.pdf
"Assemblage 2. This is confined to the PTBST in the upper Xuanwei Formation. It is marked by an abrupt drop in the abundance of palynomorphs and the appearance of fungal/ algal (?) spores. The terrestrial palynofloral is still dominated by ferns and pteridosperms, with a few gymnosperms (Tables 3—5). Most palynomorphs are still typical Late Permian taxa that are also found in Assemblage 1, but some palynomorphs of Early Triassic aspect (e.g. Lundbladispora and Taeniaesporites) appear in low abundances (2.4—5.6% of assemblage) (Table 5). Thus, this assemblage contains a mixed flora featuring both Late Permian and Early Triassic elements"Conclusion: there was a layer of clastic rocks, covered by clays (similar to marine clays) that were found across terrestrial areas at the PTB boundary. Fungal spores are found within this clay layer.This neither disproves nor proves a flood, but clastic sediments, followed by marine type clays, with fungal spikes is consistent with flooding. Can you give a better reason for this sequence? Not to disprove a flood, just to explain where those clays came from , or where the large clastic layer came from?

The word "paleosol" in no manner debunks a flood. Accelerated sedimentation points to a flood in the Karoo Sequence. There may be other explanations, but the Karoo sequence does not preclude a flood. You will have to be more specific if you think a flood is impossible in that sequence.

I find the logic a little immature. Obviously I'm referring to plants that have germinated from floating beans and grown for a few months, becoming food for these animals. These plants exist. You didn't prove that the bible was referring to a full grown tree. You didn't prove that highlands remain muddy (meters thick?) for months after drainage. I think you are making up stuff. This is what happens to the dandelion:Search | Garden Organic
Persistence and Spread: Individual plants may survive for 10 to 13 years in undisturbed sites. Dandelion seeds can form a relatively persistent seedbank. Seed in soil has a half-life of 3 months. If buried, a few seeds may still remain viable at the end of 5 years. Seeds are killed by storage at 27 C with 80% humidity.
Seeds have been recovered from irrigation water and can survive submergence for 9 months. Viable seeds have been found in cattle and horse droppings. Seedlings have been raised from the droppings of various birds. Floating beans that germinate in the salty soil. And many other ways for vegetation to survive. surviving root systems, waterlogged seeds, seeds and roots buried in soil etc. There are many ways for vegetation to gain a foothold. Roots that are buried in rotting vegetation is one way for vegetation to grow, amongst others mentioned in this thread. The sea was less salty then, it would not have taken a year to cleanse the soil either.

Regarding your Laos link, I couldn't see any evidence there of caves earlier than 45000 bp.The Gobleki site is the oldest dated building on the earth. I believe dating methods are a loose reflection of relative dating, and so generally I agree that carbon dating and radiometric dating are a loosely accurate reflection of relative dates.Your wooden building, its dated younger than the Gobleki site.
"The world-renowned Star Carr site, which dates back to 9,000BC, was first discovered by local man John Moore in 1947 after he came across a flint blade in a field and began digging for artefacts."You may be correct about the caves, however I haven't seen your evidence yet.

Cows, sheep, camels, deer eat GRASS.Not sea beans, not roots, not olive trees.They need about a acre of this stuff per cow: Cattle do not live in mountains, they live on the plains.It would take many years of uninterrupted growth to repopulate a field of grass from individual seed - even in ideal conditions - with a truck load of fresh grass seed in well drained, un-salted, top solid.I'm done here.

Laos link

quote:

---

Radiocarbon and luminescence dating of the surrounding sediments provide a minimum age of 51—46 ka, and direct U-dating of the bone indicates a maximum age of ∼63 ka.

---

46 to 63 thousand. Try this one: A dozen small ~14,000 year old huts in South AmericaOld, old cave.I'm correct about caves and buildings. However, buildings aren't really relevant, because it just depends on where we happen to have found them. Humans were certainly in Africa, the Middle -east, Asia, Europe and Australia before they were in South America.If you are accepting dating as relative, then Ethiopia or South Africa might be the places with the earliest modern human relics (not necessarily in caves).More buildings here, if you want them: Stone Age Habitats. First known stone buildings may be the stone and fired clay huts in Czechoslovakia at ~23,000yrsEdited by bluegenes, : Added stone age habitats link

The evidence is that no scientist, no geneticist, no biologist has found a 4500 year ago bottleneck signature in any genome yet examined.The important point is that all it takes is ONE single sample from ONE single human to totally refute the Biblical Flood myths.Or ONE goat.Or one Lamb.Or one Gorilla or Chimp.If there had been a bottleneck just 4500 years ago the transplants between humans would not be so failure prone. But they are.The proof that a shooter was wrong about hitting the target is looking at the target.The human genome has been fully examined as have many other species and no 4500 year bottleneck signature is there.

As usual, you think that you understand the work of expert geologists better than they do themselves. What incredible arrogance! Allow me to finish that sentence for you;

quote:

---

Xuanwei Formation (terrestrial clastic rocks) and the Longtan Formation (marine clastic rocks)

---

Your point is obscure. This link describes the Xuanwei as being terrestrial. Once again, here is the bit you unaccountably felt the need to leave out;

quote:

---

A study of the terrestrial PTB sections in western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan has revealed a set of clayrock beds associated with the PTB sections persistently developed in the study area. Of particular interest is the regular vertical (stratigraphical) succession of three clayrock beds,...

---

The damn thing is full of plant fossils mindspawn. Where does it say that the clay has to be marine? As far as I can see it says no such thing. Claystones can form in terrestrial conditions. They're not referring to the Xuanwei as being marine, they are comparing terrestrial with marine.And again, we can see that you are omitting the bits that disprove your nonsense;

quote:

---

In order to reveal the difference between the clayrocks and/or mudstones underlying and overlying the PTBST and the clayrocks in the PTBST at terrestrial PTB sections, we collected and studied different clayrocks and/or mudstones in, above, and below the PTBST. We found that there were indeed different clay mineral compositions among those clayrocks and/or mudstones

---

The geologists who wrote these papers still regard the Xuanwei as a terrestrial formation. Of course there was a fungal spike, there had just been a massive die-off. ou will note that even the piece you quote repeatedly refers to terrestrial plants being present in the formation.So once again, the geologists you cite regard these layers as being terrestrial. What in the name of God made you think that you were going to be able to use their own work to prove them wrong? Just look at their conclusions;

quote:

---

In the light of eventostratigraphic (i.e., the boundary clay beds) and biostratigraphic (macro plants and palynomorphs) evidence, the terrestrial PTB sections in western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan can be divided into a succession of beds representing episodes of events across the PTB. Using this succession of beds and applying the PTBST concept and the organic carbon isotopic excursion across the PTBST, we can provide a high- resolution definition for the terrestrial PTB within the PTBST in western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan, southwestern China.

---

Terrestrial! That means not underwater. No flood. Would you care to point out exactly where the Flood layer appears in the lithostratigraphic tables provided in the studies you cite? Because I don't see it.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Well, take this paper for example. They are, as they say, trying to estimate eustacy by measuring onlap (that is, how far the sea came inland): After all, you're a bright lad, how else do you suppose it could be done? If we want to know how far the sea rose, what other indications exist in the geological record except sedimentary indications of how far inland the sea came? (The "maximum flooding surfaces" of which Haq and Qahtani speak.) If geologists weren't looking at that to find the answer, what else could they possibly be looking at? How else could the answer be preserved?Answer: it couldn't, and that is what they're looking at.

I never doubted that it was terrestrial. The word terrestrial does not preclude flooding. You may not be aware of it, but most sedimentary rocks are the result of water-borne sedimentation, whether terrestrial or marine. I propose a flood caused that clastic (mixed) sediment in this Xuanwei Formation, what is your alternative proposal?And I find your personal insult as unnecessary and unscientific. I am only interested in civil and scientific discussion. I hope the moderators deal with this without requiring me to go through the laborious process of starting a thread in the complaints forum. Also a 24 hour suspension is such a weak enforcement, it encourages such insults which causes complete bias in favor of the more insulting side of the debate. ie this forum is completely biased because the evolutionist brigade is very insulting and weakly moderated. I agree that the Xuanwei Formation is terrestrial and not marine. I agree that the clay is full of plant fossils, this supports my flooding hypothesis, and I am glad you posted that . Please look up how clay is formed:
Clay - Wikipedia
"Clay deposits may be formed in place as residual deposits in soil, but thick deposits usually are formed as the result of a secondary sedimentary deposition process after they have been eroded and transported from their original location of formation. Clay deposits are typically associated with very low energy depositional environments such as large lakes and marine basins."Clay is normally formed when sediment settles "in large lakes and marine basins". I propose a flood caused that widespread clay in the terrestrial Xuanwei Formation, what is your proposal? Once again I agree with you. These layers are terrestrial, not marine, and they are comparing them. This does not preclude terrestrial flooding.My questions to you are:
1) Other than flooding, where do you think the terrestrial clastic layer comes from?
2) Other than flooding, where do you think the terrestrial layers of clay come from?
3) Other than flooding, what do you think caused the massive die-off?
4) Why is this fossil vegetation found within the clay layer?

I'm begging you.... please give me your scientific support for this comment. Anything. A link, a study, a quote, anything.This is after all a scientific debate, and the debate will not be won by repeating yourself. Oh really? Post your evidence.

Where's your evidence that cows can only eat grass?Plants grow from beans, roots, and olive seeds. Many years? Grass just takes a few weeks to grow. They had vast landscapes with few animals, and so they would have had to travel a bit to find vegetation, but they certainly were not limited to a field. During the second year, the soil would have been fine, the inundation was only for a few months, and salted soil does recover, and the seawater was not fully salty but brackish.Please post your evidence that cattle cannot live in highlands.

This makes sense, those slower Permian wetlands amphibians would have battled to survive. They had a specialized wetlands habitat and diet, and so they were unsuitable for the dry hot desert landscapes of post-flood conditions. They would be the most likely to become extinct through habitat and vulnerability to predators. Mammals, marsupials and reptiles would have the best adaptability to the dryer post-flood conditions, especially reptiles and marsupials.

Your spectacles are rather rose tinted when it comes to the recovery of a land-based ecosystem after a flood.This is a study of the recovery of the region affected by the 2004 tsunami. Object not found!The results are patchy, because clearly the tsunami had varying degrees and periods of coverage, but you will see that in the worst affected areas, there was zero vegetation recovery one year after the event.And that was being underwater a few days. The biblical flood was 40 days, before the waters even started to recede.The tsunami was a raindrop compared to what a 40 day long global flood would have been. And this study paints a picture of severe long-term damage from such a raindrop.Your idea of grasses growing back within a few weeks, sufficiently to enable sustainable agricultural feeding, is one which sits exceptionally badly with the reality of the devastation which a global flood would have caused.

Oh, good. Because I remember a poster on these forums, "mindspawn" I believe his name was, who asked for "evidence of a site on the planet showing an unbroken continuation of terrestrial geology across the P-T boundary that shows no sign of flooding.". Now he has one. Do give over. You are poorly placed to patronise others on this subject. That they formed normally, as deposits of clay and mud, mostly in association with inland water sources, exactly as we would expect from clastic mudstones and claystones.And a bit of googling tells me I'm right; they were formed in lakes and rivers ("continental fluvial and lacustrine sandstones and siltstones", from An Accurately Delineated Permian-Triassic Boundary in Continental Successions by Yin et al).Your suggestion of a flood is absurd. The Flood you propose is at the PTB. These rocks are much earlier. They cannot possibly be from the Flood. You can't even keep your own story straight apparently. In suggesting that you have understood what has remained hidden to thousands of expert geologists, you are guilty of appalling arrogance. That's just a fact.I mean, do you think that geologists are stupid? Did you really think that you were going to use their own work to overthrow the entire discipline from your armchair? As I say, this is arrogance. I am not merely trying to insult you, I am trying to get you to understand the reality of your situation. You are out of your depth here. Don't be absurd. The deposit has only terrestrial fossils in it. No marine fossils. That precludes a Flood of the kind you describe. The literature proposes a vulcagenic origin for the clay. That's volcanic ash, forming a sediment and then forming clayrocks. This can be shown by the presence of zircons and other markers of volcanism.You could have found this out for yourself you know. It's right there in the paper I cited.You've got floods on the brain mate. It seems that you will happily label any rock as being flood related. No it doesn't. It deosn't preclude normal flooding, you know, the kind that happens in the real world. The kind of Flood you're talking about though, that it does preclude.Mindspawn, if there was a Flood, a worldwide flood, then where is it? Why can't I see it? Because I look at the stratigraphy in Fig 5 of the Peng et al paper and I just don't see it. You'd think that a giant flood of the entire world might stand out a bit, so where is it?Time to stop being a child. If there is a Flood layer here, point to it or admit defeat.I'm answering your questions; Rivers and lakes. Volcanoes. What caused the PT Extinction? It's a mystery innit? If you want information on the proposed mechanisms behind the PT extinction, it's widely available; a mixture of volcanism, meteors, marine anoxia... take your pick. Because the ash fell on plants growing in situ. It then formed a sediment around them.So I've answered your questions, satisfactorily I think. Now you answer mine;
where, precisely, is the Flood layer. Please point out exactly where in Fig 5 of the Peng et al paper, we can see a massive marine incursion (hint; we can't, because there wasn't one).Time to stop making those signature mindspawn excuses there fella. Time to put aside childish things and embrace reality. You asked for evidence of an unbroken terrestrial sequence from the PTB. I have provided you with one. There are others. Your PTB Flood theory stands falsified and whilst I understand that this must be a disappointment to you, it does at least have the virtue of being true.Mutate and Survive