Summations Only

It depends on the location. Generally water was coming from the glaciation in the south of Pangea. Some of the water would have been a pure marine incursion just due to rising sea levels, but large amounts of this water would be cold glacial water mixed with marine water flowing north across the continent directly from southern Pangea.

Initially the strongest flows are outward in Southern Pangea. But according to the bible the water settles for 150 days after the mountaintops are covered. Its during this 150 day period when the entire earth is covered, that the earth its now an ocean. You cannot refer to a worldwide unbroken sequence of water as a lake, it is by definition the ocean. Marine. Even if the top layer is a bit colder and fresher and less saline than the rest of the ocean, this is still marine.In some northern areas there could very well have been water rushing in from the oceans, but after months of flows outwards, its not an essential part of the process that marine bodies would still be floating and be washed into these areas. The general flows would have been from Pangea outward into the vastness of the Panthalassic Ocean.

I get those dates from the list of sites for early humans that I quoted earlier in this thread from Wikipedia. These sites have been dated to 130 000 ya and younger, and show the first signs of humans around the Arabia/Levant/Egypt/Ethiopia area. This is earlier than reliable carbon dating, and not early enough for radiometric dating and so these sites are dated according to evolutionary assumption. (the assumed advancement of mankind over time). These dates can be vastly out, because its entirely possible that explorers and hunter gatherers left a fledgling Sumerian civilization and entered into a less advanced lifestyle across the planet. I have looked into it. You compare the amount of sedimentation currently going into the gulf of Mexico with the amount of sediment that exists along the entire valley and you can come up with some interesting figures which make the slow process of evolutionary assumptions impossible. I was referring to various dating methods, not just carbon dating.

And the ice-caps of Pangea were far more vast than Antartica which contributes towards your point. Good thinking there. I would assume that the warm marine water would contribute towards the melting of the ice caps, but its possible that the hot air and warm volcanic rainfalls did most of the job. Most terrestrial and marine sedimentation across the planet show a clay layer with signs of volcanic dust, and so the Siberian Traps had a vast effect on the planet at that time. I agree the scenario isn't simple. Nevertheless I don't see a mechanism that would deposit significant marine fossils into the inner regions of Pangea when generally the flow is outward towards the Panthalassic Ocean.

True. The bible mentions the hills/mountains of Ararat or the hills of Armenia. True Ararat did not exist at the time the ark landed, however it did exist when the bible was written, and this is why they could use that huge mountain as an easy reference point for where the ark had landed. Haha hope you had a good laugh. Thanks for the definition of cherry picking. By the act of admitting to it I was ironically not cherry picking. My point was to illustrate how open the bible is to interpretation. Ancient Armenia was more vast than modern Armenia, and its centre point was south west of Ararat, much of Armenia overlapped the Arabian plate at that time. I am not accusing you of deliberate cherry picking, but if you research this further you will see that many maps show most of the Arabian Plate above water during the cretaceous.File:100 global.png - WikipediaThe eastern portions were sometimes submerged judging by the source of cretaceous oil. I think we need further discussion on the source for your information and map. History does show widespread flooding across Sumerian cities which could reveal a transgression in the area, although the flooding is currently attributed to rivers.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

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?

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.

If everywhere you look in the region, you see the same cycle of transgressions and regressions, this means that they exist everywhere you look.
"shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"Sure, there could have been one spot or an entire region that does not contain that transgression in South China. That is what I have asked you to show, but you have not shown it. In the meantime "the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China."This means the same sequence of transgressions were found across the area. I do believe radiometric dating is a loose reflection on relative dates but my timeframes are extremely compressed during the PT boundary. This is due to the magnetic field reversing during that time, slowing down radiometric decay to slower levels even than today. Thus I would associate the 255/260 million ya volcanism (Emeishan Traps) with the beginnings of the volcanic induced rainfall of the flood. Obviously stratigraphy is an accurate reflection of relative dates. Late Permian layers that reflect disarticulated fossils, and reducing numbers of Permian markers along with increased clastic rocks showing increased fluvial flows would in my view reflect the initial volcanic induced rainfalls, escalating toward the Permian Traps in which they peaked. The volcanic ash would be most detectable during the volcanic peaks. (Emeishan then Siberian).

Some people do want to associate neutrinos with changes to decay rates, but I agree with you they have no effect. I never mentioned neutrinos, I'm referring specifically to neutrons.With specifically heavy isotopes, neutrons can maintain their instability through neutron capture. ie the unstable parent isotope through the capture of neutrons cannot decay into the daughter isotope until the neutron bombardment stops.Muons give us energetic neutrons through fusion. They also generate neutrons in other ways as well.
http://www.starscientific.com.au/muon-catalysed-fusion/
"Because the orbit of the heavier muon is much closer, it causes the atoms in the molecule to draw closer until the natural repelling force is overcome and a strong nuclear force brings the atoms together — causing them to fuse. This process kicks the muon out to do its job all over again some 300 times. This fusion gives us energetic neutrons"Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

My "Mindspawn years" are not on an even scale with mainstream years. They fluctuate according to the strength of the magnetic field. There was a magnetic reversal during the PT boundary and so I believe there has been extreme extension of that particular period (my timeframe is extremely compressed during the PT boundary). For 3 reasons there would be less marine life during a rapid worldwide flood at the PT boundary:
1) It was a sudden and rapid flood followed by a rapid regression. (not enough time for new ecosystems to develop)
2) There were general outflows away from continents until the water settled (glaciation melting)
3) During the initial stages of the flood, the sea close to the submerged continents would have consisted of very cold freshwater from the melt, a unique environment unsuited to the slightly warmer saline lifeforms of the ocean. Yes some marine life survived. However most marine life became extinct during the PT boundary.And we do see their fossils. Permian fossils both marine and terrestrial that never survived the PT boundary and numerous. The geologists themselves relate the lacustrine environment to the transgression. And please post your evidence that the "lakes in question" are full of freshwater plants.http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf
"In the P-T transitional beds (Beds 56―80), the change from meandering fluvial at the top of Xuanwei Fm. to lacustrine in the lowest Kayitou Fm. reflects a deepening and transgressive process "The change from meandering fluvial to lacustrine reflects a deepening and transgressive process.Please read those words carefully. Its the "lake-like" lacustrine conditions that reflect the sea coming into the land (transgression).The very thing you say points away from a transgression, points to a transgression. But I already posted this, so it seems I'm wasting my time with you and your commitment to reading and understanding the links that I post. I never claimed I could prove a worldwide transgression. I asked you to find somewhere where there isn't one. I'm still waiting. You seem to be distracted by semantics , focussing on words like "terrestrial" and "lacustrine" instead of really getting into what those geologists actually mean. I never said pillock was a swearword. You were saying that I was "inviting" swearing, I was just saying I'm also tempted to swear but I refrain, and hoping you also refrain.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I do not know enough about the process to state the extent of the effect. Or the maths behind it. All I have at this stage is a likely mechanism that would logically effect the rate of decay.This process would affect all those processes in which heavy isotopes decay into daughter isotopes. And it would affect all processes that are calibrated against those original processes.Regarding Rubidium, I'm not a YEC, and have no problem with an old earth. Its more the 0- 600 million ya period that I dispute, I believe it represents a 0-6500 ya period.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Under compressed dating scales, you actually do see that bottleneck signature in some mammals. I am still waiting for you to show me some mammals that do not have the bottleneck signature. You keep making the claim, and keep failing to support your sweeping statements.

Only the latest studies are moving towards this general acknowledgment of a major transgression at the PT boundary. Before that a lowstand was always assumed at the PT boundary. I already posted links that show this transition of thought from a lowstand to a major transgression at the boundary. When you actually look at each location, you do see the flooding. Either there are definite signs of a transgression, or a regression causing uncomformities (many layers missing), or we see geological features that can easily be interpreted as flooding, even if an alternative geological explanation does exist.To support your maps, could you please present me with a location that shows no possible signs of flooding around the PT boundary. Granny Magda has attempted to do so, and has focussed on the Xuanwei Formation, yet above this formation in the Xuanwei region a transgression is acknowledged by geologists. ie the terrestrial sequence is broken by a brief transgression.

Thanks for your input into the discussion. Could you kindly read the following link, and the context of this quoted comment:
http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf
"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"The definition of the word correlate, seems to have a very similar meaning in geology, as you quoted: "To show correspondence in character and stratigraphic position between such geologic phenomena as formations or fossil faunas of two or more separated areas".Other than that particular quote, the following links also indicate a transgression over the Yangtze platform:
http://palaios.sepmonline.org/content/23/6/356.short
http://work.geobiology.cn/...IASSIC%20IN%20SOUTH%20CHINA.pdf
"by the terminal Permian, another transgression began in South China, in other words the global Triassic transgressive sequence began below the Permo-Triassic boundary in South China"Regarding a general transgression, the original article which I quoted argues for a transgression at the PT boundary as opposed to the previous view of a lowstand. Its possible your maps are based on the earlier view of a lowstand, not the later view of a strong transgression.
http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/...inctionsealevel.pdfhttp://www.largeigneousprovinces.org/...t/files/Emeishan.pdf
"The uplift probably ended in the beginning of the Late Permian (∼258 Ma) because a new transgression and depositional onlap started at that time"http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S1367912013002101
"the denudation product from the weathering of the parent rock was migrated to the sea-continental margin at the continent side carrying huge quantities of REE with it and was preserved by the QUICK MARINE TRANSGRESSION"Regarding the word "lacustrine", the writers of the following article associate "lacustrine" in the lowest Kayitou (early Triassic) with a transgressive process. Maybe you can enlighten me why they would associate lacustrine conditions with a transgressive process:
http://www.geobiology.net.cn/...-28/20120928090186978697.pdf
"In the P-T transitional beds (Beds 56―80), the change from meandering fluvial at the top of Xuanwei Fm. to lacustrine in the lowest Kayitou Fm. reflects a deepening and transgressive process "Regarding specifically China, the important questions are:
1) Was there a widespread transgression in South China at the PT boundary. I believe I have shown enough evidence of this.
2) Around the PT boundary, is there any spot in South China where flooding is unlikely when considering the geologic phenomena? Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : correcting linksEdited by mindspawn, : No reason given.