Summations Only

Show us the numbers.

I am participating on this thread because of blatant exaggerations that I saw on the first page, that were going largely unchallenged. I have since questioned other sweeping claims made. That's the terms of reference. I admit I haven't got evidence for birds in the paleozoic, I anticipate they will be found in a high latitude high altitude biome. (the Siberian plateau).Regarding insects, I meant that insects dominated the environmental niche currently filled by birds. They were the large flying creatures of the main regions of the paleozoic. It certainly helps my case that there is supporting evidence for angiosperms (eg flowers and fruit trees) in the paleozoic. I agree it proves nothing. Its possible to find cities by digging a mine, but its not a likely scenario. Looking at the bible's indication of the pre-flood period (~2000 years) and pre-flood population growth rate the world's population wasn't that great at the time of the flood. To find a deeply buried city or even a skeleton in the vastness of Siberia is not an easy task solved by digging a number of mines. I admit that from a scientific perspective, my speculation that there is an ancient civilization locked away under the Siberian basalt does not contribute much, but is consistent with my stance that a pre-flood civilization is not currently disproven. You may apply skepticism however I freely admit my view is faith-based, and cannot at this stage be scientifically proved (or disproved). I never said they were hiding under the Traps I believe the volcanic activity caused their destruction and buried them under kilometers of lava. This northern latitude ancient civilization is consistent with ancient Indian stories on the origin of man. Its your strawman that requires all life be destroyed. The actual wording of the bible merely requires terrestrial life be completely destroyed, and does not restrict its recovery to the ark. Its possible some life recovered from coastal marine bottom feeders that survived the flooding by swimming (lystrosaurus) , and its possible that plants survived from surviving seeds. The rest survived from the Middle Eastern ark.

No idea of the numbers.Maybe you can use numbers to disprove the ark. Care to try?

So you lied when you claimed: And you admit that you are making shit up without a clue of whether or not it's possible:

Then I have to accuse you of a paucity of ambition. The Flood, if true, should be easy to prove, There should be solid, positive evidence. If the best you can do is say "I can make up a story and you can't prove me wrong", then you have no business posting to a science thread.In science any new theory has to explain all of the available evidence and do a better job of explaining it than the existing theory. You can't do that. All you have is make believe.Anyway, as it happens, the Flood has been disproved. At no point has there ever been a 100% marine incursion. Case closed. Why? There is no reason to suggest that any species was confined to the Siberian Plateu.You claim that rising temperatures forced living things northwards, as they could not survive at lower latitudes. This is wrong for several reasons;

• There was a vast amount of land at the same latitude as the Siberian Traps. This land would have had a similar temperature and would have been equally hospitable to life. Just look at the map;
  ​
  ​
  Plenty of land is available West of the traps. Why not suggest that the humans, birds and other missing groups lived there?
  ​
• At the Southern pole, there is an enormous stretch of land at at comparable latitude, the whole of Southern Gondwana in fact. This would have had a similar temperature to the Siberian Plateau. Why not suggest that humans and birds lived there?
  ​
• Only the late Permian had the high temperatures. The Early Permian had an Ice Age! Humans could'nt have been pushed North by rising temperatures in the Early Permian, because there were no rising temperatures. This is also true of the preceding eras. Your temperature excuse is only good for the Late Permian, and not even much good for that. Where were the humans and birds during the Early Permian? During the Carboniferous? The Devonian?
  ​
• Tetrapods did exist at the equator, even during the high temperatures of the Late Permian. The idea that it was too hot is false. We know this because there are many fossils of tetrapods from equatorial regions, such as those found in what is now Niger. Your claim that life was pushed from the equator is simply false.

I could go on. The fact is that the only reason that you chose to fantasise about humans and birds living under the Siberian Traps is because you think that's a good way to explain away your lack of evidence. You're attracted to this idea not because there is evidence in favour of it, but because you (wrongly) imagine that the lava presents a way of burying the evidence.It's not a hypothesis, it's an excuse and a poor one at that. That's because there were no birds to compete with them.Want to disagree? Then show me the fossils. Correct, it proves nothing.It is not enough for you to come up with an internally consistent story. As it goes, your story is certainly not consistent, but even if it were, this would amount to precisely nothing. A story is not enough. To be taken seriously in a scientific context, your story needs corroborating evidence. Without that, it's just a story, of no consequence and no value. Again, you're making excuses. You're dreaming up ways to excuse your total lack of supporting evidence. It's just not enough. You need positive evidence to be taken seriously. It certainly has been disproved. But even if I were to agree with you that the Flood had not been disproved, that would still amount to nothing. In the scientific arena, it's positive evidence or GTFO. Your faith-based musings are worth less than nothing. That is the essence of your position.Where are the ancient humans? Hidden under lava. The ancient birds? Hidden. Ancient cattle? Hidden. Ancient whales? Hidden again. Ancient angiosperms? Also hidden. It's as though the evidence were playing some game of hide and seek. This is the hallmark of ad hoc excuse making. It is the hallmark of a bad theory.I have a simpler explanation, one that explains all your problems at a stroke; you're wrong, there was no PTB Flood. Simple. Not really.

quote:

---

And Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.

---

Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Both of which were unavailable. That makes your theory incompatible with the Biblical account. YES! The authors used Ararat because it was familiar to them and their audience. However, if that is the case, you are saying that the bible is wrong and that you are right.Which is it? Should I believe you or the Bible? It can't be both. I'm sorry, but you were cherry-picking. You were looking for a translation that could be made to fit your pet theory. You were not engaged in an honest pursuit of the truth, only looking for what was expedient. that is textbook cherry-picking.When you thought that Ararat was the landing site, you were keen to talk about the Arabian Plate and the Levant. As soon as you realised that wasn't going to fly, you switched to pushing the "Armenia" translation. Each time, you were more interested in how the text could serve your argument, not in an unbiased reading of the text itself. This is cherry-picking. It's the same thing you've been doing with the studies you've cited. All of which was under the sea at the PTB. That map has no dates on it so I can't really see what I'm looking at.The fact remains that the Arabian Plate contains a great quantity of marine limestone. It cannot possibly have been occupied during that time.Mutate and Survive

Which assumptions were used?You are just confirming my point that you are assigning dates ad hoc and not based on dating scheme X being off by factor y.Do you consider simple denial to be holding up your end of the discussion?

Don't forget obfuscation, misdirection, misrepresentation, cherry-picking, and flat out making things up!

It's a colored version of Figure 2.1C on the page numbered 16 in Tectonic and Metamorphic Evolution of the Central Himalayan Domain in Southeast Zanskar (Kashmir, India) showing the Earth 100Ma; about halfway through the Cretaceous.

You are showing your ignorance again. Yes, that sort of range is beyond the reach of ¹⁴C dating. No, it is well within the reach of several radiometric and non-radiometric methods. K-Ar dating is good for 20,000 Ya and up (Potassium-Argon Dating or "K-Ar" dating). Ar-Ar dating can do anythiing K-Ar can and has been successfully applied to material less than 2,000 Ya (40Ar/39Ar Dating into the Historical Realm: Calibration Against Pliny the Younger). Thermoluminescense covers 50 Ya to 1,000,000 Ya (Luminescence Dating). Optically Stimulated Luminescence covers about 300 Ya to 100,000 Ya (Wikipedia). Electron Spin resonance covers from a few thousand Ya to 300,000 Ya (Electron spin resonance dating in paleoanthropology). Fission Track Dating covers from about 20,000 Ya to acouple of billion Ya (New Fangled Methods). Amino Acid Racemization does between 5,000 and 100,000 Ya (ibid). U-Th disequilibrium dating is good for near-zero to about 1,000,000 Ya (Uranium Thorium dating) and has been applied to the Siloam tunnel in Jerusalem (Radio-dating backs up biblical text).That's not an exhaustive list.Edited by JonF, : Remove extra quote

I doubt you can do what you claim.Do you really believe that the a current fast rate of deposition makes a past slower rate of deposition under different conditions impossible? Which is more likely to be constant over time, a rate of deposition of sediment anywhere in the world in various conditions of water flow and geography, or the decay rate of potassium 40?[1][1] RhetoricalEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Thanks Jon!That date explains the difference between the two maps then; mine is set a little while later, at 94mya. I know that the mid-Cretaceous had very high sea levels. The rise must have taken place between those dates.Mutate and Survive

Okay, back to the Xuanwei discussion. Gee thanks. I'll save you the bother. Here is the only thing you've found to back up that particular mistaken belief;

quote:

---

"The two cycles accord with the sequence in the Meishan area, i.e., the Changxingian transgression after Longtanian uplift, followed successively by a late Changxingian regression, the end-Permian-earliest Triassic transgression, and the late Early Triassic regression[29]. Comparison with similar sequences over the whole Yangtze Platform[30] shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"

---

This quote simply does not say that any transgression covered the whole of South China. It mentions a transgression in the late Permian (Changxiangian), followed by a a regression (Changxiangian again), then another transgression at the PTB, then another regression in the Triassic. In none of these examples does it mention the extent of any of these events.You have no basis upon which to suppose that any of these events represents a total flood, any more than you can suppose that the regressions mentioned left all the land exposed.The thing you seem to have picked up on is the word "correlated". You seem to think that this word means that the authors are saying that Chahe had a marine incursion. That's not right. They're just saying that all of their observations of the geology in this area can be correlated into an overall picture of events. They're not saying that all those events were marine incursions.You have simply misunderstood this extract, taking it out of context. Your stubbornness about this is unfortunate. The Flood can't include much in the way of Permian layers if you're going to insist upon calling the Siberian Traps event the "fountains of the deep". That has to happen at the beginning of the flood to remain in accord with the Bible story.Further, the Kayitou formation does have marine layers, but at the earliest Triassic it is non-marine, so that is just as bad for your argument as the Xuanwei. I would love to hear your detailed analysis of the mechanism behind this. How does a magnetic reversal affect the dating exactly?Besides, your timing is out. If the Flood is 4500 years ago, with an apparent age of 252 000 000 years ago, then we get a measure of about 56 000 apparent geological years per mindspawn year. The longest your Flood can cover in the geological record is about 56 000 years. Bivalves, brachiopods, conodonts, forams; you know, marine life, such as is found at other marine incursion sites.If you want to fantasise that this marine incursion would have had no marine life, you need to explain why it differs from every other marine incursion. This is another example of you making sad little excuses for missing evidence. Not all of them though. There are still plenty of PTB sequences with marine fossils. There's no reason to imagine that any PTB marine section would be devoid of life.Vimesy also makes an excellent point; if you think that these events killed off a lot of the existing life, then we should see their fossils. We don't. You just keep digging don't you.It doesn't matter whether the lakes in question were freshwater or saline, they were still lakes. Lakes are not found under the sea. A lake under the sea would not be a lake. It would just be more sea.Similarly, we do find rivers at the bottom of the sea. A river at the bottom of the sea would just be more sea.As it happens, we know that the lakes in question (those in the Xuanwei formation) were freshwater because they are full of freshwater plants. Ferns don't grow in salt water.Rivers and lakes are terrestrial features. Your repeated refusal to face this reality is making look like a fool. Well, I know that "lacustrine" is not a synonym for "marine". And I know that simply saying "Look! A transgression!" does nothing to tell us the extent of the transgression. Since when is "pillock" a swear word? Frankly, "pillock" is the most flattering term I could find for someone who repeatedly insists that a lacustrine environment represents a marine incursion. To be any more complimentary about such incredible foolishness would seem perverse.For the record, any time you see a PTB sequence described as lacustrine or fluvial, that means that it was not under the sea. That leaves your Flood theory high and dry.Mutate and Survive

Sedimentation should not change by a factor of thousands. Sedimentation would have to be about 50 000 times slower during the Mesozoic to explain fossilisation along the Mississippi. The Mississippi deposits about 200 billion kgs of sediment annually. I hope the links do work:
A model of the effects of sedimentation rate on the stability of Mississippi Delta sediments | SpringerLink
A model of the effects of sedimentation rate on the stability of Mississippi Delta sediments | SpringerLinkThis amounts to more than 15cm per year over the entire Mississippi marine delta region. (200 000 km2?) This is enough sedimentation to produce the entire Mesozoic and Cenozoic fossil record along the Mississippi river in 4500 years.I have a Muon theory. Muons produce many neutrons, neutrons slow down decay. Muons are vulnerable to the magnetic field and during periods of a strong magnetic field radiometric decay would have been faster. I believe there could be more chance of major fluctuations in the decay rate of Potassium than in the rate of sedimentation.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Well you theory is wrong. Muons decay in to neutrinos not neutrons specificity 2 neutrinos and one electron. About 65 billion neutrinos pass trough every square centimetre of the earth every SECOND. Damm its a wonder we even get our nuclear reactors running if they slow down the decay rate. O yes, they don't.Oh and we use NEUTRONS to start nuclear decay in reactors we fire them at uranium -235 that causes that particular atom to decay and release more neutrons that hit other atoms cause them to decay and release more neutrons ......