Summations Only

Why do you say life is "NOT the life we must see if the Biblical flood is true"?No its not up to me Its up to you to explain why you think that life is NOT the life we must see.

What part of "there are no holes in the target" don't you understand?

It is not necessarily true, but this was when the bible says that Noah died, the oldest man. He died 300 years after the flood. There could have been other deaths too, but they had long life-spans at that stage so if you take the bible story literally, there most likely would have been 300 years with very little old age death. At a possible population growth rate of about fivefold every 30-40 years if you look at generation times in Genesis, there could have been over a million population with very few burials by the time Noah died.Of course I have no proof of any of this, I'm just pointing out that if the flood does represent the PT boundary, and if we ignore extended evolutionary timeframes, the population would have by necessity spilled into Africa leaving behind very few human fossils in the Middle East compared to the larger continent of Africa. So the out of Africa concept does not contradict a flood at the PT boundary.

evolutionary timeframes.

That's a nice glib answer but it doesn't address the question.You are claiming humans, cows, and grasses at the P-T boundary 250 million years ago.Grasses didn't develop until about 190 million years later, while humans and domestic cattle are close to 250 million years later.But since you dispute the dating, this is quite clear in the layers without any necessary reference to absolute dates. The relative dates are sufficient to blow your whole imaginary scenario out of the water.You can come up with all the "what-ifs" you like, but until you have some evidence you have nothing but belief, and that, along with about $2.50, might barely get you a cup of coffee.

What "evidence of absence". This is your claim, not my claim. My claim is that DNA analysis has not been analysed enough to determine evidence of either view.

Ok, I'll play your game.Do you have any evidence to support your claim that "DNA analysis has not been analysed enough"?

but it doesn't. The PT boundary is millions of years before humans appeared on the scene. why would we do that? Except it does because the PT boundary is millions of years before humans appeared.Edited by DrJones*, : No reason given.

Which you know it doesn't. You know what contradicts a flood at the PT Boundary? The fact that there is no flood at the PT Boundary.You know this of course, but why let a little thing like the truth intrude upon your sad little fantasy?Mutate and Survive

Thanks for answering the questions. I didn't feel the need to rush an answer to you, because your answers partly confirm the flooding, and also didn't address the manner in which clay forms.
1) regarding the clastic layer, how do you think the clastic layer exists across the Xuanwei Formation at that time? Surely if there are rivers and lakes covering the entire region, this means the entire region was covered by water? Or can you find areas that did not have this water-borne layer of rock. A general layer of water borne rock points to a general layer of water.The following is absolutely typical of flood deposition, the sandstones, siltstones, interbedded coal beds: http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...5-22/2013052221190291291.pdf
"The Xuanwei Formation is composed of terrestrial clastics (sandstones and siltstones), interbedded with coal beds and/or seams"2) Volcanic dust forms a major part of the content of that particular clay, but as I stated before clay forms in lakes and oceans. the clay was not created by volcanic dust alone, but also water:
Wikipedia: Clay deposits are typically associated with very low energy depositional environments such as large lakes and marine basins.
So- what was a large lake doing across a massive terrestrial region of China? How did it get there? And additionally the Chahe section (part of the Xuanwei) shows a SALINE increase across the region:
http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-22/20130522201012631263.pdf
"However, within terrestrial deposits an increase of salinity means an increase of aridity. At the Chahe Section, both ratios increase at GAL, reaching a maximum in Beds 65 and 68, however from Bed 69 upwards the ratios decrease and stabilize."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S1367912013002101
"the denudation product from the weathering of the parent rock was migrated to the sea-continental margin at the continent side carrying huge quantities of REE with it and was preserved by the QUICK MARINE TRANSGRESSION"The South China region was covered by a transgression during the P-T boundary:
http://work.geobiology.cn/...IASSIC%20IN%20SOUTH%20CHINA.pdf3) Yes there are many alternative reasons given for the massive die -off, none of them conclusive, although the origination in the Siberian Traps is generally accepted and I wholeheartedly agree with that. while the various parties debate the real reason for the die off, studies are showing the extent of the major marine transgression.4) Where's your evidence for the ash covering the plants in situ? Have you got a link?Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

"Evolutionary" is not merely a synonym for "correct" or "scientifically proven" or "indisputable unless you're mad in the head", although sometimes it may seem that way. It actually means "having to do with evolution". It is, therefore, the wrong choice of adjective in this context.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Evidence of absence is when examination reveals the object in question is not there. The DNA evidence for humans says there was no bottleneck 4500 years ago. You keep complaining about treatment and bias. Nothing would help your cause more than to stop making claims that are fundamentally opposed by facts. Human DNA has been minutely analyzed over and over again, including the Human Genome Project, Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. There's more than enough data, far more, and so you should examine that data and follow it where it leads. You need to deal with the data, not deny it.

Thanks for weaseling out of mine; WHERE IS THE FLOOD LAYER?This is where you say the Flood should be, so where's the Flood layer? Which specific bed is it? Is it that you think gwc 66-68 represent the Flood layer? C'mon mindspawn, no flood layer means no Flood. Only if you're barking mad could a terrestrial deposit represent a Flood. What? No! What kind of naive idea of sedimentary deposition do you have? The way you speak makes it sound as though you have this absurd notion of the Xuanwei as a homogeneous layer covering a vast area. It's not like that. Fluvial systems aren't anything like that. In reality the Xuanwei is scattered and patchy. It doesn't cover the entire area. There are older rocks surrounding it and many of those would have been exposed at the time of the PTB.The area covered by the formation would have been covered in freshwater because that is how sedimentary rocks typically form.That does not equate to a global flood, or any kind of flood. Look at this geo-map. The Xuanwei is in grey. Look at how it is surrounded by older rocks; those are the rocks that the Permian river systems would have overlain. Can you show me one? Because this is not a "general layer of water", it is a very discrete area of water and thus nothing to do with a flood of any kind. What the hell is wrong with you? You cite a paper, the first line of which is "X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XFS) studies were undertaken for claystones and/or mudstones from the Chahe sectiona terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary (TPTB) section." - did you get that? TERRESTRIAL. As in not marine. Why would you cite a paper that refutes your argument in the first damn sentence?Take a look at this, from that paper;

quote:

---

The claystones in Beds 66 and 68 originated from volcanic processes

---

The paper you cite refutes your version of events and reinforces mine. Or how about this?

quote:

---

The trace elements in Beds 66 and 68 at the Chahe section suggest that the dust was highly acidic and therefore also supporting a volcanic origin... both terrigenous and acid volcanic ashes contributed to the claystone sediments. Increases in SiO2 and K2O content in Bed 66 and Bed 68 are also evidence of acid volcanic eruptions. Thus, we hold that the claystones of Beds 66 and 68 between the PTB interval are products of acid volcanic ash accompanying normal sedimentary clays.

---

FYI, "terrigenous" means ""formed on land".It is beyond me how anyone can misunderstand a scientific paper so badly. God God you say some stupid things. I mean, you've said some dumbass shit in this thread, but that has to be the goddamn stupidest thing I've ever heard, a highly competitive category.A lake is a TERRESTRIAL feature.A river is a TERRESTRIAL feature.Are... are you truly so ignorant of geology to suppose that "terrestrial" means "devoid of water"? Really? This is your argument? Bloody hell...When you see a paper talking about a lake, that means they're talking about a terrestrial environment, by definition! What else could it mean?
How the bloody hell could there be a lake under the sea? So what? Even the bit you quote describes it as terrestrial. They're not talking about a transgression at the PTB, they're talking about a later transgression. I'm already well aware that younger deposits overlay the Xuanwei, but they're not relevant, as they're not from the PTB. Also, please don't cite articles that only contain an abstract. You realise that the area that paper studies is well over a thousand miles from the Xuanwei, right?A terrestrial formation could not have been covered by a marine transgression. Know how I know that? Because it's a terrestrial formation!But again, if you feel that there was a Flood at the PTB, show me where it appears in the stratigraphy. Otherwise, stop wasting time with sily rubbish. Yes, and they show that it was not universal, so no Flood. Look, the plants were fossilised because they were caught up in a mixture of freshwater and volcanic ash. That's just how fossils form. What is your problem?The fact remains that this formation has an extensive record of terrestrial life. It's a terrestrial formation. Your continued efforts to deny this simple fact are moronic.So, just one more time; WHERE IS THE FLOOD LAYER? No flood layer, mindspawn, no Flood. Put up or shut up; show me the Flood layer.Mutate and Survive

According to your own link, the biggest range of mitochondrial DNA is in southwestern China. The second biggest range is in Mongolia.

I see what you mean, but those little pies are misleading, as I've explained to mindspawn before. Outside Africa, they are showing more recent subdivisions just to illustrate our spread around the world. But inside Africa, they don't show the equivalent sub-haplogroups.The chart below gives a good idea of the true story. Take a chunk of the mitochondria, and you can find pairs of Africans who will differ more on it than any two out of Africa people will from each other, although you'll find the same quantity of difference between us outsiders and people on the L0 branch as you will between non-L0 Africans and L0 Africans.It's similar with the Y-chromosome (and that shows on the chart I'm using on the "genetic falsification" thread).Sub-Saharan Africans have the most genetic diversity all over the genome, simply because most of the population, until recently, was there, and the rest of us show evidence of a "founder effect" bottleneck (often more than one, like native Americans and Australians). We outsiders are all L3 Africans.