Summations Only

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.

Your time frames and what you "feel" are not relevant because you have not done the work necessary to make them relevant. Other than the fact that you want the flood to be 4500 years ago, there is absolutely no reason to even suspect time compression.Further, we can eliminate the P-T boundary just by using relative dating. Humans did not exist at that time.Apparently you believe that the argument is not over until your nose is so rubbed into it that even you can cannot admit you do not smell the odor. For me at least that is not true. For me the argument ends favorably when you don't even try anymore to use evidence based argument; when you misread scientific articles in a deliberate fashion; when you avoid the arguments counter to your proposition; and when you cherry pick the questions you deign to answer. We're way past that point.Cheetahs are bottlenecked so extremely that we don't need a microscope or DNA sequencing to see the genetic problems. Their genetic issues are bout what we ought to expect for most mammals their size and larger if their populations were reduced to a few 1000 about 10,000 years ago. The Thomson's gazelles that cheetah's like to snack on do not show those issues.

Many? Really? Which ones?

Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth (with poor accuracy) in about 230 BC. At that time, at least, it was known that earth was a planet. I don't believe you can time compress that history into the last couple hundred years, but who knows what you'll try. But let's not confuse a belief in a geocentric universe with not knowing that earth is a planet.The fact is that none of the translations of the Bible we're likely to use in this thread date to a time when the earth was not known to be a planet. The translation issue is that there is no information in the text to work with. To change the text so that the author of Genesis knew what he apparently did not would be to lie.Yes, I agree with your point about how the word earth was used in the Bible. But that error does bring into question exactly what the author knew about the Flood, because clearly the author was not present at the time the event is supposed to have happened.

What you're observing is the common frustration that emerges in response to someone who ignores pretty much everything that is said while persisting in silliness and nonsense. It takes persistence, but each suspension is longer than the one before. You might want to check with Bolder-dash who now receives month-long suspensions for Forum Guidelines violations. You haven't paid any attention to my requests, either. Stop making ridiculous interpretations of technical articles, start understanding the false logic surrounding your view that, "If you can't prove there wasn't a flood, therefore there was," and just in general start making sense and responding constructively to what people say, and I in turn will make sure participants respond constructively to you. Which most of them are doing anyway.I'm sorry about Jar. Moderators find him problematic because he engages in brinkmanship regarding the Forum Guidelines, often walking up to not over the line. Perhaps you can just ignore him. Or you could try actually posting to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread next time and see if that works better for you.

So the God character you market is just an incompetent Klutz. Got it. He's just a fool who even not too btight rats and birds outwit. Got it.And you either really haven't read the Bible or even those parts of the Bible I quoted for you or you don't believe the Bible in the first place.The God character in the story is very specific about His instructions about what to save and what to kill (even though the two stories are mutually exclusive, if one is true then the other is false).

quote:

---

Genesis 6:

​

7 So the Lord said, I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have createdand with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the groundfor I regret that I have made them.

​

13 So God said to Noah, I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. 14 So make yourself an ark of cypress[c] wood; make rooms in it and coat it with pitch inside and out. 15 This is how you are to build it: The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high.[d] 16 Make a roof for it, leaving below the roof an opening one cubit[e] high all around.[f] Put a door in the side of the ark and make lower, middle and upper decks. 17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the arkyou and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.

---

Note in this myth the God is again very specific, He is going to commit total genocide. Also only two of every critter not seven of the clean critters as in the other myth.There is no loop hole for the God character, no "Oh and I won't kill any that just sneak in."And here is the other myth:

quote:

---

Genesis 7:

​

7 The Lord then said to Noah, Go into the ark, you and your whole family, because I have found you righteous in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven pairs of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth. 4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made.

---

Now again that the God character is talking about pretty serious genocide and there is no wiggle room. Of course an incompetent klutz might overlook the critters that hid or sneak on the boat but there is nothing in the story found in the Bible you claim to believe to suggest that.So there is no support for there being founding populations larger than the set described in Genesis 7.Oh one more thing. Genesis 6 & 7 are also yet another example of contradictions in the Bible. According to Genesis 6 the Noah found in Gen 7 would have been dead for 477 years by the time the orders from God were given.

Then your beliefs are unevidenced, false, ridiculous and occasionally meaningless ("out by exponential factors" does not in fact mean anything). Or to put it another way, you're a creationist.

By the same token, you make less sense than a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier, something which is obviously proved by the fact that they really do upset people, whereas your brand of self-satisfied ignorance is merely mildly irritating.

No, it isn't, because there is no sign of humans in either the Permian nor the Triassic layers. But there was a large population of people around before The Flood too. We should find their remains in the layers below the flood layer. But those don't even contain any mammals at all, let alone humans and goats and cities and all that stuff that would be there if the story was true.

And here was I thinking the Bible story implied that humans got drowned in the Flood. But no, apparently when Genesis 6 says "men" it means "pelycosaurs". That would explain why there are no men found before or at the PT boundary. It wouldn't explain why there are no other mammals, but I'm sure if you put your mind to it you could think of some equally half-baked excuse. As these "dinosaurs" have curly tails like dogs, they were clearly not drawn by anyone who knew what a dinosaur looked like.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

You're missing a bigger point. If the Bible story, as mindspawn interprets it, is true the Triassic layers shouldn't exist. How can we get so much geology in mere thousands of years?

Well, clearly nature is playing a game of Grandmother's Footsteps with us. As soon as we started to look and find out how fast physical processes occurred, they slowed down to a crawl. And I bet you thought it was just radioactive decay that did that. No, it was all geological processes, which raced away like mad until we turned round and started keeping records.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.