Summations Only

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.

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.

the problem lies not with me, mr unbiased

I understand you guys back eachother up, but really the geological arguments haven't been that great despite the rudeness in which they have been presented.And only bluegenes has presented a decent genetics argument that is still ongoing in the biological forum.So I am not lying. (dramatic wording towards someone who disagrees with you Haha I keep saying I am not trying to prove a flood here.If you would attempt to disprove the flood, you have to show that all of those cattle and sheep and hippos undoubtedly did NOT descend from 14 critters.But not the birds, some more could have flown onto the boat and avoided drowning. I doubt Noah would have killed them all but maybe he did, who knows, the bible does not actually say.

The repetitiveness and rudeness and lack of moderation carries on unabated. I would complain about numerous accusations of lying, but this forum only bans people for 24 hours which is another biased way of allowing evolutionists to rudely stamp all over the opposition. This keeps your numbers up on the forum, because most people will not put up with this nonsense.I am not sure if I will participate any longer in this unbiased forum. If the posts contained more scientific evidence I would be tempted to do so, but there's not enough science here.(ie if you can find a spot on earth that definitely did not have flooding in the PT boundary please just post your evidence, otherwise refrain from needless nonsense)

It was a typo . Not a "blatant disregard for the truth". How about giving a bloke a bit of benefit of the doubt instead of rudely jumping to conclusions.You could have approached this by saying..."you seem to have a made a mistake there, where did you get that 8000 years from?But no .... absolute rudeness.

What dating methods are the studies relying on? Carbon dating? This thread is not about carbon dating. Or what mutation rates are being used? Have they factored in that increased radiation can effect mutation rates? I need to see these co-called studies that show no bottlenecks? Have you got any? Please post it.How do you measure the depth in the reduction of a population? These are the kind of facts you guys need to be presenting to make a case for no recent genetic bottlenecks.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I already explained that the word "earth" in Hebrew means "land". They did not have a word for planet earth back then because thy did not know the earth was a planet.So I fail to understand where I am "lying". My views are exactly consistent with the bible verse you have quoted and i appreciate that you have quoted them, because its easier to eliminate strawman arguments if we all know my point of view.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Haha, I enjoyed your comments. Remember even in the English language we did not have a word for the planet earth a few hundred years ago, the word "earth" meant soil or land, much like the Hebrew and Greek words for the same concept. Unfortunately more recent translations have not adjusted the English bible wording to reflect the changed use of the word "earth" in the English language over the last 100 years or so.We get the concept of a worldwide flood from other wording in Genesis 8, from the complete destruction of humans and land animals (requires widespread flooding over highlands because humans and animals rush to the highlands when there is a flood)
The waters rose and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the water. They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits(the word "heavens" basically means "sky", all the mountains/hills under the sky were covered)

You are completely misunderstanding the context in which I said those words. You should rather try journalism than science - haha just joking with you I have always agreed that all the birds on the land were killed off by the flood, I am just saying that its possible some extras sneaked into the ark, other than those planned. This is not only possible, but quite likely with birds and rats and mice. Birds fly in, before and at the beginning of the flood, mice and rate creep in before the flood. This is what happens on ships. And I don't see why the ark would be excluded from this normal activity.The bible says all the land animals and birds were killed and only those in the ark were left. This is what I am saying too."Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark."

If I was really speaking nonsense, you guys would not be getting so upset. And no-one is scared of a 24 hour suspension, not even me You should know that judging by the way everyone ignored your earlier warning not to accuse me of lying when I am merely expressing my point of view.

Regarding the Triassic containing humans what we see in fossils is consistent with the bible story. Obviously if there is a worldwide flood followed by hot desert anoxic conditions (Triassic) the main survivors would be amphibuous reptiles. These would dominate until the tiny populations of humans and mammals expand out of the Levant/Egypt/Ethiopia/Arabia area. The earliest large varieties of mammals are found in the Egypt/Ethiopia region along with the earliest humans, as expected by the flood model. The very first temple on earth Gobekli Tepe shows carvings of what looks like the early Triassic cynogathus. Early Egyptian tablets show dinosaurs:Redirect NoticeSo I am not saying that the fossil record proves a biblical flood, but it is certainly consistent with one.

Thanks for accepting the explanation. I would never deliberately post incorrect information. I was looking at when two cheetah populations split, neither showing much variation since the split showing that recent bottleneck. But you are right that this lack of diversity was caused by the earlier bottleneck.I don't feel that the earlier date makes my point moot, if you understand my timeframes related to genetics and carbon dating of "recent" events, I see the 130 000 - 10000 period as exponentially "stretched", and truly representing approximately the 4500-4000 ya biblical (actual) period. Then 10000-2000 ya represents the 4000-2000 biblical (actual) period. The last 2000 years are basically correct.The mainstream error is mainly due to evolutionary assumptions and carbon dating calibration, and is affected by an uneven exponential factor beyond 2000 years ago. So any scientific dates in the 5000-15000 year period I see as irrelevant to ark times, the ark would be from the (mainstream dates) 130 000 to 65 000 period, that entire period being very compressed into a few years. The cheetah being from the mainstream 10000 yeEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Thank you very much for posting some evidence on the subject.I have the compressed timeframes view. ie I believe through errors in carbon dating calibration and evolutionary assumptions concerning how evolution needs time, the mainstream dating is out by exponential factors. I believe a vague approximation of (mainstream dates) 130000 years ago until about 65000 years ago represents animals close to the ark timeframe of 4500 years ago.Can you show me any large mammals that HAVE NOT had a bottleneck during that approximate timeframe.
Many large mammals that have been studied do show such a bottleneck, I need you to post evidence for a lack of a bottleneck in any large mammal during those timeframes.