Summations Only

No it does not.That is a misunderstanding on your part.Going straight to your "evidence";

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 isn't saying what you seem to think it's saying. All that says is that a transgression was taking place at the time and that the Chahe section backs up the geology observed in the rest of South China. It is not saying that the transgression amounted to a marine incursion at the Chahe section.This a result of you reading papers that are beyond your pay-grade and cherry-picking anything you think sounds like a flood. In point of fact, every single geologist you've cited describes this as being a terrestrial feature. No matter how much you squirm and obfuscate, that represents a falsification of your scenario, which demands a marine layer. Well there is no marine layer. No. that can't be true. The fossils in the clays are entirely terrestrial. They are all of ferns, seedferns and suchlike; terrestrial plants. There is no marine material present. It cannot possibly be marine, thus it cannot possibly be the Flood.This is game over for your PT Flood, whether you have the decency to admit it or not. Completely wrong. Your own source says so;

quote:

---

"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 "

---

This describes the top of the Xuanwei as "meandering fluvial". That means rivers. The reason they describe it as reflecting a transgression is because when water levels rise, they rise across the board; marine levels and terrestrial levels. That does not mean that the sea covered this area. In fact, they clearly describe the opposite; rivers.Can you describe to me what an undersea river looks like? Rubbish. You fail to understand what you cite.A transgression either covers a section of land or it does not. If a geological section is marine, it means that it was covered by the sea. If a geological section is terrestrial, it means that it was NOT covered by the sea. Very simple.The Xuanwei formation was not covered by the sea. the Chahe section was not covered by the sea. We can tell this from the fact that every single layer is terrestrial. You posted piffle, so yes, I do deny it.The transgression did not cover the entire Yangtze Platform. It did not cover the Chahe section. We know this because every single bit of the Chahe section is terrestrial. We are in agreement about one thing then; a layer of terrestrial plants, minus any marine material is a terrestrial layer.The only reason for this apparent contradiction is that you have misunderstood the papers you cite; the transgression never caused the sea to rise sufficiently high to flood the Xuanwei. That is a reading error on your part. Obviously. But you don't have any actual evidence that it was ever a vast layer. that is only a personal and unevideced piece of speculation on your aprt.Has this formation been eroded? Yes, of course it has, all exposed formations suffer erosion. Does that mean that it covered the whole Yangtze platform? No. This is what psychologists refer to as "projection". Yes.Whilst a do not deny that a transgression took place, I do deny your erroneous interpretation of that fact. I deny that the transgression covered as large an area as you think it did. I deny that it represents a worldwide flood. I specifically deny that it inundated the Xuanwei formation, as evidenced by the fact that the Xuanwei contains no marine material.I deny your version, but your version is not the one that the experts are describing. There is no marine incursion in the Xuanwei. The claystones you are basing your case on were not formed in marine conditions. Yes. It is hard to understand the level of idiotic doublethink necessary to come to the conclusion that a terrestrial deposit represents a marine incursion. But to be honest, I'm not sure I want to be crazy enough to understand that. I could not give a rat's ass about your opinions, only your evidence. The fact remains that every piece of evidence you cite disproves your case. If you must misrepresent my position, you might not want to make it so obvious. I have never claimed any "mega-lake", that is your concoction, based on your own lack of understanding regarding lacustrine deposition. These deposits span millions of years. A lake is not static over that time-scale, it is mobile. They drift due to uplift and other forces. The rivers meander (exactly as one of your quotes describes)There is no mega-lake, only a series of meandering freshwater deposits. No mega lake, no mega layer, only a succession of smaller discrete layers, exactly as we see in the Chahe section; if we took our sample from any other Xuanwei section it would not be identical to the Chahe sample. Why not? Because these are not the vast deposits that you want to portray them as. The Xuanwei falsifies your "flooding". It does not display a marine flood layer. That's why we are taking it as an example, because it is an example which falsifies your position. Try to keep up. No they don't. The facts say different.How else do you explain the lack of any marine material?A marine flood cannot leave a freshwater deposit. Your version is not that of geologists. Your case is not resting. It is dead. It's bleedin' deceased. Stop flogging a dead parrot.Mutate and Survive

Hi Admin, Oh no, he's waaaaay crazier that that. He thinks the Flood is at the Permian/Triassic Boundary, some 250 million years ago, when there were absolutely no mammals at all. By comparison, a KT Flood seems almost sane.Mutate and Survive

Hi Phat,I know this is off-topic, but I just want to briefly address this, because it's a problem that I have with many Christians, Old and Young Earth alike. That's really shoddy logic.The science can only tell us whether or not the Flood story is true; it can't tell us how the Bible authors intended the tale to be read.Your thinking seems to run something like this;1) The Bible is, in some way or other, true.2) The science tells us that it's not literally true, so;3) It is symbolically/spiritually true.This is a mistake, based as it is on the presupposition that the Bible is in some way true or valuable. You are arbitrarily ignoring the possibility that the Bible authors intended the story to be literally true, but were simply wrong.We should not interpret the Flood as myth because it never happened, we should interpret it as myth because it reads like myth. Only the text itself can tell us how the story should be interpreted. The science can only tell us if it's an accurate representation of reality. It can't tell us whether its authors intended for it to be literally true or not.Mutate and Survive

Not in this case. He said that his interpretation of the text followed from the science. Just look; If his belief in a symbolic Flood really does flow from that, he's making an error. The fact that the Flood did not happen cannot tell us whether or not the authors thought it happened. You can't draw that conclusion from the science alone because that information simply isn't there to be had.The possibility remains that the Bible authors really did believe in a true and literal Flood and that the record they made was primarily intended as a factual history, devoid of parable. I don't think that is the case, I think that the tale is intended as a mixture of true history and parable, both at once, in a way that is unfamiliar to a modern reader. But no matter what me or you or Phat thinks, we you can't rule these possibilities in or out by reference to the science alone. With all due respect, you completely miss the point. We are not discussing whether the story is fiction or not; we know it's fiction. A child could see that. What is in dispute is how the authors intended it to be read. Just because the story is fiction does not mean that it was not intended to be read as factual at some level.Mutate and Survive

Possibility 1 - The Flood never happened. The Text is a parable, primarily written for its allegorical value.Possibility 2 - The Flood never happened. The story is a failed attempt at factual history, any allegorical content is secondary.You can't distinguish between those two possibilities by looking at a population bottleneck or the geological record. The information simply isn't there to be had.Now you can choose to read the text as parable based only on the knowledge that the Flood never happened, but to really say "The Bible is parable" or not, you need to examine the intents of the authors.We don't know whether they believed these tales as fact or not, but we certainly can't tell from looking at gene sequences.Mutate and Survive

A general reply to all; From that, you can only suppose that the later source, P, took that attitude, and I'm not sure that even that is quite so certain as you portray it.J could easily have been doing history. I didn't mention the two sources before, as it complicated what I was trying to say, but you are quite right in noting the divided nature of the narrative . The two authors could easily have had very different intents. As I said before, the way we can tell that this is myth is by reading the text, not by looking to the science. No, but it still leaves the conclusion that the story is parable without justification and it still leaves the possibility that the Flood was intended as history unexamined. You can't base that conclusion upon the science alone, it simply doesn't follow. It's shoddy logic. Sure. But you can't get that from looking at a population bottleneck.This is a side issue though. If people want to pursue this, it needs to go to a new thread.Mutate and Survive

Yeah, pretty much. I would say that your premise two is at the root of a great many aspects of theistic belief, especially when it comes to interpreting texts.It seems though that we have more or less reached agreement. How often does that happen here? Mutate and Survive

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

I'm going to respond to this post first, because this one's funnier. The only reason to even suppose that Noah's descendants lived in Turkey is because the Bible mentions Mt Ararat.If you're not referring to Mt Ararat, then any mention of Turkey is completely arbitrary. And it didn't exist at the the time. And the site was also underwater. Classic!

quote:

---

Cherry Picking (Fallacy)

​

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed intentionally or unintentionally. - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

---

That you freely admit to a fallacy is just too funny.But okay, let's take a look at your translations;

quote:

---

Wycliff bible:
4 And the ship rested in the seventh month, in the seven and twentieth day of the month, on the hills of Armenia.

​

NIV:
4 The ship rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on Ararat’s mountains.

​

Douay:
4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, the seven and twentieth day of the month, upon the mountains of Armenia.

---

Armenia wasn't even attached to Turkey during the Triassic. It's on the Eurasian Plate, which was on the other side of the Paleo-Tethys Ocean.I thought you said that region was completely inhospitable to human life? Well gee, I dunno... maybe because Noah's landing site was underwater at the time. Just a minor detail. But don't worry, it's only the Bible. I mean, what the heck gives God the right to question your version of events, amiright? I never said that "the entire plate, including the Levant" was flooded. Still, here you are; That's mid-Cretaceous. The Levant doesn't look very homey by my reckoning, but perhaps that's just me. I prefer to live above water. Maybe folks back then felt differently. Perhaps they had gills and frolicked around in undersea palaces! Frankly, that makes about as much sense as anything you've come up with. This is a flimsy excuse and a blatant device for you to demand evidence from others whilst not providing any evidence of your own. Evidence? No, of course not. It's hard to find evidence for things that you make up as you go along. Totally false. Most of which was underwater... Were they penguins? Well then, you managed to misrepresent it without trying.You cited a study that tentatively suggested that there might have been angiosperms in the late Permian. You went on to claim that this was evidence of "modern biomes". It is not.Even if these ancient angiosperms are real, it does nothing for your case. You still need to show completely modern flowering and fruiting trees going back to the earliest life. You cannot show that. And I showed you the multitude of mines and boreholes that penetrate that basalt. The idea that it presents some kind of impassible barrier is your fantasy. If you are having trouble distinguishing your fever dreams from reality, you may wish to consult this helpful diagram; At last, some honesty.If you can't show us where the pre-Flood humans are then you have no business suggesting that they existed. Scientific conclusions follow evidence. You have no evidence of humans before, during or after the PTB, not for 250 million years. The honest thing for you to do would be to either find that evidence or keep your fantasies to yourself. Utter rubbish. The Bible has humans around from day 6. Do you really believe that they were hiding under the Siberian traps for all that time? It's ludicrous. Can really you not see how tissue-thin an excuse this is? What a lot of waffle.Your theory demands that all life be wiped out at the PTB. This is not what the geological record shows. An honest enquirer would, at this point, shrug and say "Oh well, I guess I was wrong!". But not you. You continue to make up silly excuses for why you are right and reality is wrong. It really is a pathetic spectacle.Mutate and Survive

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

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

This whole post seems based upon your inability to understand the English language. No. That is incorrect. "Correlative" does not mean "identical".

quote:

---

correlative (k-rl-tv)
adj.
1. Related; corresponding.
2. Grammar Indicating a reciprocal or complementary relationship: a correlative conjunction.

---

All that libne means is that the Section at Chahe makes sense in relation to the rest of South China's geology. It does not mean that all of South China shows the same geology, that would be moronic. This is utter nonsense. The Chahe section contains no marine layer in the Xuanwei. There is no transgression there. Instead there are only terrestrial layers. Quite obviously, it does not. Here is a stratigraphic representation of several sections from South China. Do they look the same to you? And how would this work? You have absolutely no idea. All you know is that it must have worked in exactly the way that best supports your delusions.Also, you mean faster, not slower. Think about it...According to the bible, the Flood reached its peak after either forty or one hundred and fifty days. You have chosen to compress at least twelve million years into that. Madness, rank madness. 260 mya, the Xuanwei formation showed terrestrial deposits. No flood.When exactly is this ever-shifting Flood supposed to have ended?Onto your next offering, ,message 873; please stop splitting the messages up, it makes it harder to follow. By how much? Please show me the maths.Then show me how you arrived at this conclusion.Please note that "I reckon..." is not evidence. None of this explains why the flooded areas would resemble fluvial or lacustrine deposits.A marine layer carries marine fossils. You have no marine fossils. Once again, you make flimsy excuses for your lack of evidence; the evidence is hiding again. You don't see their fossils in the Xuanwei. Squirm all you like, the fact remains that the Xuanwei was above sea level when you claim that it should be submerged. I've already posted it. Check out the key; the entire thing is stuffed with fossil plants. The4 very papers that you have cited have spoken at length about the ferns that grew in these areas. Do I really need to go over this again? Your link leads only to a 404 error. But the fact that there are lakes clearly means that the sea did not cover the land. A moronic child could see that a lake cannot exist under the sea. You, apparently, need to have it explained to you. Repeatedly. There was no transgression at Chahe. We can see this because there were lakes. Lakes don't exist under the sea. I am "distracted" by the fact that every geologist that either one of us has cited has described this area as terrestrial. For the benefit of the hard-of-thinking, "terrestrial" means "not under the sea".You are insistent on regrading terrestrial formations as marine, despite the fact that every single expert to study this region disagrees with you. All you are doing here is making yourself look more and more insane. Oh cut the sanctimonious horseshit.Can you point to a single geologist who describes the Chahe section as being under the sea at the PTB? No. Instead, they say that it was terrestrial, bearing rivers and lakes. Your ridiculous PTB Flood is trashed and everyone can see it except you.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.