Summations Only

Take a look at the discussion here: Heat release from tectonic frictionHBD

The point is that we do NOT see what we MUST see if either of the Biblical Flood stories were correct.You were the person that tried the old misdirection con-game by saying some birds might have flown on board or mice hidden in the ark when no one was looking.That is adding to the Bible, the Bible you claim to believe.But in reality it is just another of your attempts to deny reality to try to preserve your fantasy.Too bad that if either of the Bible stories were true we would have to see that Biblical Flood bottleneck signature and despite your attempts at wiggling away from truth, the signature just ain't there.The Biblical Floods have been refuted and anyone claiming they happened is simply untruthful.

Just below the information banner at the top of each page of the thread on the right-hand side is a link called "Thread Details". Click on this link and it will display details about the thread. In the middle you'll see a table of all the thread's participants along with information about their participation. Your name is at the top of this table, and it shows that you've replied to only 218 of the 332 replies that have been directed to you.If you click on your own name anywhere at the site (e.g., mindspawn) you'll get a list of all the threads you've participated in. Under the new replies column for this thread you'll see that it says "Yes", meaning that you have replies you haven't responded to yet. If you click on the up-arrow beneath the "Yes" you'll be taken to the oldest message you haven't replied to. And if you click on the down-arrow you'll be taken to the newest message you haven't replied to.

You're the one complaining. In the wrong thread. I'm just trying to provide you some helpful feedback.Few are paying attention to moderation in this thread. Including you. If I started singling people out, then *that* would be biased. If, as I told you before, you'd like to begin listening to my requests then I might be able to help you.This is a science thread at a science website, and my moderation is informed by the standards and criteria of science. I'm glad your entertained and having a good time, but if you'd like moderator help then you have to stop saying ridiculous things and making ridiculous claims, such as that you're embracing geology when in reality you're rejecting almost all of it. When people respond with ridicule or antagonism I really can't blame them. If you want my help then you have to begin by helping yourself.But the first step would be to post any complaints to the proper thread: Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0

So all this time you have insisted you were right when you knew you were completely ignorant of one of the major mechanisms involved choosing instead to call the experts in the field incompetent, foolish and liars all without cause.This kind of intellectual dishonesty is not acceptable. Unfortunately it is also expected of creationists.

The dating forum I set up will not be dealing with the P-T boundary. If you read the opening post, I asked for discussion to be limited to the era of modern humans, the past 200,000 years and specifically excluded the P-T boundary etc.I would prefer to concentrate on radiocarbon dating, as that's the field I know best. That would be the last 50-60,000 years or so.

Or anything else that interferes with your fantasies. Yeah, you think that geologists are wrong about pretty much everything except whether rocks are heavy, while pretending that geology offers support for your position.

Well, that and the unequivocal geological and paleontological evidence that there was no global flood at the PT boundary.

Well, I was being a little hyperbolic... but its utterly ridiculous to think that you can compress all that crustal displacement into a very short amount of time. That idea is deserving of nothing more than sweeping statements. You're the one who thinks that the "mountains" back then were just "hills" because that's what the hebrew word really meant.But anyways, your Flood model stands refuted in the absence of any possibility of humans near the PT boundary.

I'm surprised nobody's challenged his claim that only mountain building has high friction. His plate analogy is obviously not analogous.

It just doesn't seem worth it to me.

And of course the con-game is beyond mere misdirection. Regardless of what happened to birds or mice, we can make the observation that pigs cannot fly or climb ropes to board a ship. Explaining away the issue for a few species, when ALL species must show a bottleneck is beyond 'making a typo' or the other things that mindspawn uses to excuse himself. Such things are evidence that the man will say practically anything.I'm quite done with him on this issue, and I doubt I'll be able to give him the benefit of the doubt on honesty in future dealings.

Even funnier is him asking me to show the evidence that the bottleneck event signature is not seen. It's like "There's no hole in the target" and someone saying "Where is the evidence that there is no hole in the target."There is no fucking hole in the target dumbass. Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

You'll have to excuse my tardy reply, I've had tech problems... I poured mocha into my keyboard. This is generally not recommended. Nope. See those brown things in the centre-right? They're land. That's where the Xuanwei was. Your transgression clearly did not cover all the available land. First sensible thing you've said in this thread. But, oh, wait... So your position is that a marine layer would leave no marine material? That is imbecilic. If you are going to act as though history's largest marine event would leave no marine evidence, then I think that desperation speaks for itself.Marine life would have been physically washed into the flooded areas instantly. A fossiliferous ;layer with terrestrial fossils by the ton, but no marine fossils whatsoever is a terrestrial layer, end of story. No it isn't, that's why I chose this formation as an example. Check it out; Even you, with your intense allergy to reality, ought to be able to see that the Xuanwei extends beyond the PTB. NOt by a great span of time, but still, it straddles the PTB. That's why it's marked PTBS, or Permian Triassic boundary sequence. Do try to keep up. Uh huh. You don't even know where the events we've been discussing for the last fifty messages appear in the sequence and you think that a lake is an undersea feature, yet I am the one who is confused.Care to describe an undersea lake to me? Or are you going to dodge that question yet again?A lake is a terrestrial feature. You can't have a lake under the goddamn sea. Obviously. This is so plain that I ouhgt not need to explain it to you. A lacustrine environment completely refutes your hypothesis. For you to pretend that it supports you is asinine at best, mendacious at worst. I am content for any readers to draw their own conclusions. Ah yes, "haha", that most scientific of arguments.Look, if you want to act like a pillock, be my guest, but don't take the piss and then complain that I am rude. Your whole attitude invites rudeness, this being a perfect example. My dear boy, you posted nothing of the kind.Mutate and Survive

Hi Moose,I appreciate your input, what with you actually having studied geology IIRC. I would like to refer you to the map I posted in my last message though. None of these land-masses was extensive. None of it was far from the sea.Of course, I may still have misinterpreted the quote. Mindspawn has a bad habit of taking a quote out of context, and then providing only a broken link (to a 404 message or attack site warning), so it's hard to tell what the original authors were getting at.Mutate and Survive