Summations Only

Observation tells us that floods are not at all unusual particularly at the time the stories likely originated, that such floods would have been both very destructive and traumatic, and that flood stories are found in almost every culture.While it's possible that the original stories were based on some flood it is unlikely that even the very earliest stories were taken literally.As I said back in Message 714:

quote:

---

From the stories themselves it is pretty easy to see that at least by the time the flood parts of Genesis were codified the redactors did not consider the stories to be factual but rather myth. The support for that position is that they included two (or more) mutually exclusive versions and made no attempt to hide, smooth, consolidate those separate stories into one single coherent account.

​

The evidence is found in Genesis 6 and Genesis 7 where two different traditions are found.

​

There can be lots of discussion of why the editors and redactors didn't try to fix the narrative; maybe political considerations, a Judaic and Israeli tradition, maybe historical, maybe regional versions; but the fact remains that they did just mush the two different versions together without trying to hide their mutual exclusivity.

​

That's not how one reports history or fact but it is how myths, fables, teaching tales are often done.

---

Remember that there were no schools at the time the stories originated, no radio, no TV, no internet. Teaching was done mostly through two methods, story telling and apprenticeships; OJT.But by the time the material that became Genesis 6 & 7 was codified much had changed. By 600 BC or so there were schools, great schools and a movement to collect and codify stories and writing from all over the known world. The organization commonly referred to as Canonization is an reflection of the general trend towards formal learning and schools as opposed to the story teller.

Then define what the signature looks like. I say its easy to see over a few hundred years. And its difficult to see a bottleneck signature over a few thousand years. Without defining your so-called missing signature, you have no point.Logically if you have about 14 animals, with close to 28 alleles in each position, and then they breed and populations expand into the millions over 4500 years, each location on the DNA would show massive numbers of mutations due to large populations. This is what we see in DNA analysis. Only recent bottlenecks a few hundred years ago are easy to demonstrate, old bottlenecks are difficult to demonstrate.I am not trying to prove the flood on this thread, if you think the flood can be disproved by genetics, and genetics disproves bottlenecks, stop repeating yourself and show how DNA disproves bottlenecks. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

No. I take the wording literally. If the bible says after all the animals were gathered, NOT one extra animal slipped onto the ship even though rodent infestation is a common ship problem then I would believe it.If the bible is silent about something, to conclude either ways is just wrong. The bible story is emphasizing the survival of terrestrial animals, and is not trying to eliminate all possibilities. Do you think that Noah would have killed any other birds that landed on the ark? Or let them live? Who knows , we cannot conclude either way because the story is not detailed. If you would like to add detail that is not there (ie Noah cleansed the ship of all rodents before they entered the ark) that would be a strawman argument, and I will not entertain such because its illogical, he had bigger problems to worry about than a ship cleansing process. A few extra mice for a year would not have added a huge feeding problem.

In a scientific forum, posting sweeping statements without evidence could be seen as trolling.

From a scientific perspective, and a debate perspective the use of the word "impossible" has very definite connotations and should be used very carefully.And besides, its only unlikely because of their propensity not to believe in literal bible stories, and with the false assumptions of radiometric dating. Remove those two objections and it becomes highly likely. Yes in the low lying regions, you would expect clastic rocks and disarticulated fossils in a rapid alluvial environment, followed by a marine transgression. You would expect a transformation in the widespread river valleys and flood plains from an underfill situation to a rapid overfill situation. In other areas the regression would be so violent as to cause an unconformity removing many flood layers and even lower layers. In higher areas, you would expect less dramatic events, but a clay layer in highlands regions should still be evident even if there are less disarticulated fossils there. These higher clay layers should also show signs of the volcanic dust from the Siberian Traps. These events of widespread transgressions and dramatic regressions are found everywhere you look at the PT boundary. I'm still waiting to see any spot on earth that cannot be strongly argued for flooding at the PT boundary from a strict scientific geological perspective.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You are just making up stuff here. You know full well what such a bottleneck would look like because you are discussing exactly that issue on another thread. "I say it is easy over a few hundred years" is totally without any merit", and enough evidence to the contrary has been presented such that you are on the hook to support your statement.The genetic bottleneck observed in cheetahs is estimated to be only an order of magnitude or two of older than what you claim is the time when the flood happened and that bottleneck is clearly visible. Do you want to claim that bottleneck to be only a couple hundred years old? Or that there cheetahs were the only animals that did not manage to sneak extras onto the ark?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I appreciate your attempt to understand my perspective, but you need to understand my compressed timeframes view. The continents did not look like today, you must Google late Permian Pangea to get a good idea of where the ice was, and the extent of the ice-caps/glaciation. Large portions of Pangea including Antartica, parts of Australia, Southern Africa, and portions of South America, India and Madagascar were covered by ice. The Hebrew word for mountains means highpoints. It means mountains or hills. Trees start off as shoots coming out the ground. In two weeks most plants have significant shoots to be able to be eaten by grazing animals. But the bible story gives 2.5 months since the first shoot of the olive tree appeared, to the time of the exit from the ark. This is more than enough time for plants, shrubs and bushes to grow. Many types of seeds grow in saline conditions as I listed, over and above those specific marine beans. The scientists have not said anything about a lack of bottlenecks 4500 years ago. These are difficult to detect because over huge populations many mutations develop over 4500 years. So your assumption that science has disproved bottlenecks is just an assumption. No-one has bothered to post any supporting evidence for this in this thread. Just sweeping and unscientific statements.(recent bottlenecks can be detected in small populations ie bison and cheetahs) Exactly! That is why I use science to make my points. Please post you evidence of a definite lack of a bottleneck 4500 years ago in large mammal species. ...... Pleeeeeease.I am begging for the science to back this up, and just get nothing.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Humans have shown recent common ancestors. Which proves my point. What is under discussion is just how recent, 8000 years or 4500 years. But either way , the only mammal extensively analyzed has shown reduced number of common ancestors. Just a moment...The cheetah bottleneck occurred a few hundred years ago. It would be completely illogical to expect the lack of genetic variation found in the cheetah to also be found in 4500 year old bottlenecks of animals with huge populations. Population size has a direct effect on diversity as well as number of generations.

No it does not. Haha , a transgression IS A MARINE INCURSION, even if temporary. That's the meaning of the word. That is what covered the whole of South China.And your insults kinda point back to you, if you are unable to understand what you are reading. Exactly. Floods wash away terrestrial plants. We would not expect a whole marine ecosystem to develop over a few months of flooding. So what we see is consistent with what the scientists describe, a transgression is how they interpret the geology of the entire region. I would prefer their interpretation than your unnecessary ranting. You are looking at the wrong place in the layers. You are still trying to look WITHIN the Xuanwei formation for the PT boundary, but the PT boundary occurs at the end of the Xuanwei Formation and the beginning of the Kayitou. I think that is why you are getting so very confused. It's ok... maybe now you will understand that AFTER the Xuanwei formation, but covering the entire Xuanwei region were lacustrine (lake-like) conditions that point to marine flooding (transgressive processes)
(lacustrine = lake-like) At least others can read.
At least others understand that a transgression means the region was covered by rising sea levels at the very PT boundary we are discussing. You are just being silly and stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence you are wrong. I posted the evidence for all to see. There's about 1000 people a day reading this stuff, so I don't care if you all back eachother up, the readers of this thread read my links that the marine transgression did in fact cover the entire region. You are incorrect from a scientifically accepted geological perspective. Haha I was teasing you about the mega-lake. I know you wont admit to it. I posted evidence that the transgression covered the entire South china region, I don't need to keep posting and keep seeing you misinterpret it. Its clear for all the readers of this forum to see, I have done my job in this discussion.

From your own quoted paper:

That is simply more made up bullshit as usual from you. Yet another assertion without any support followed by the carny con of palming the pea.You make silly claims refuted by all the evidence but that's about it.The point of the flood event bottle neck signature test is that it would have to be present in every single critter descended from one of the critters that would have been on the Ark and all pointing to 4500 years ago.What we don't see is such a bottleneck signature.To refute my position YOU need to provide evidence of a universal bottleneck in every species that would have been on the Ark.It fine to say you are not trying to prove the flood, after all the Biblical Flood has been refuted for several hundred years but that is just a cop out, a way you might be able to feel good about your beliefs.If you want to come here and say "I believe the Biblical Flood happened" folk would say "Okay, but out of curiosity why do you belief such a foolish thing?"Bottleneck signatures from events that left far larger founder populations have been found in many species not just hundreds of years in the past but tens of thousands and hundreds of thousands of years in the past, but those signatures are no common to all species.Again, it's fine if you want to continue to say "I won't believe that!" but it will not change reality.

Yourself and Moose keep quoting old graphs. The end Permian extinction used to be associated with a lowstand, but more recent evidence has shown a major transgression:
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdf
The end Permian mass extinction has long been related to a severe, first order lowstand of sea level Newell, N.D., 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geol. w Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 89, 63—91. based primarily on the widespread absence of latest Permian ammonoid markers, but field evidence reveals that the interval coincides with a MAJOR TRANSGRESSION.The Stratigraphic Framework of the Triassic in Western Europe, by V. De Zanche, G. Piero, and M. Paolo; #90986 (1994).
On the whole, the Triassic forms a major first-order transgression-regression cycle whose limits correspond to the Permian-Triassic and Norian-Rhaetian boundaries.http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/...8-003022/UUindex.html
A major marine transgression flooded the area during the youngest part of the Triassichttp://dml.cmnh.org/2013Jun/msg00100.html
Between the time of the Xingyi and Guanling biotas, there was a major transgression It just means people don't like change. My list of reasons for favoring the PT boundary is quite extensive as I showed you. Haha I'm not going to refute the KT boundary flood on this thread. If you feel there is a stronger argument for a KT boundary flood than a PT boundary flood, please post it. I would be interested in that Haha I'm not ignoring geologists, I'm embracing geology. All their studies point to widespread flooding. They are claiming the transgressions, the overfills, the clay layer, the widespread lacustrine environments right at the PT boundary. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

read on sir.

I did.Nowhere does that paper support your claim that the cheetah's bottleneck happened 200 years ago.

And dear sir, what exactly would that bottleneck signature look like?
And dear sir, why do you say we do not see a bottleneck signature?You guys have been repeating this nonsense for pages, on every other point you come up with numerous links to attempt to support your points, but on this point I get...... nothing, zero, zilch, just hot air.No. I don't need to. You see I am not saying I can prove the ark from genetics. You however are saying that you can disprove it. Then show me how current genetics shows a LACK OF A BOTTLENECK. What is your bottleneck signature???You have no point. If you have, show me the genetic studies that indicate what bottlenecks look like genetically and how mammals have no such bottleneck 4500 years ago. LOL!!! If it has been refuted for several hundred years, why then are you guys doing such a bad job on this thread? Not a good reflection on this website, maybe I should find these elusive facts somewhere else because they are lacking here. Kindly post your evidence about those bottlenecks, and how they reached their dates, and how those bottlenecks were found in some species and not others. Sweeping statements have been a theme in this thread, unfortunately they do not impress the many readers of these forums.I believe the flood story because I believe the bible. I cannot prove the flood story from science, but science surely does not contradict the flood story.For that to be true you would have to find a reason, and neither genetics which has unknown mutation rates, nor geology (that actually points to a flood), refutes the literal biblical flood.