Summations Only

Dear Granny Magda, the Xuanwei Formation covers mainly the Late Permian, the Xuanwei region covers the PT boundary. I am looking for a flood at the PT boundary in the Xuanwei area , this is all I need to show, that at the PT boundary, in the very region you mentioning, the entire area shows a trasgressive layer.. This flood relates to the clay deposits in the Chahe section. Late Permian would only represent the first stages of the flood (first weeks of rainfall - fluvial conditions). I already posted evidence that there was a later marine transgression over the entire Yangtze Platform during the PT boundary, which includes the entire Xuanwei region.ie the sea flooded the whole region. Simple as that.........................but I posted my evidence already and you are still asking me for evidence. Hmmm? Manners manners. Well now we are into semantics aren't we. Signs of a marine transgression in a terrestrial layer is all I need. You can't use the word "terrestrial" to weasel out of the recorded transgression. That is just playing with words, and not very cleverly, because a transgression is a transgression. That word too is undeniable.Do you deny a transgression across the entire Yangzte Platform during the PT boundary? I posted my proof thereof. I felt this was a reasonable point, but geologists recorded a transgression in the geology of the area. (transgression means marine flooding) I hope the moderators attend to this, I'm certainly not going to go lodging complaints, that process is laborious, impractical, and only results in 24 hour suspension. that is obviously why you feel free be rude. This is just a discussion, try control yourself please , what's wrong with manners? Again you are being naive, like you say, its about exposure. If the Xuanwei can be exposed by erosion, then so could the older layers. If the Triassic can be washed off the Xuanwei layer, this means the Xuanwei could be washed off early Permian rock. Your map is meaningless to make your point, but you wont admit it will you? You seem to be full of pride, this shows in your inability to have a decent fact-based discussion which is the purpose of this website.(understanding through discussion) Yes, that is the nature of transgressions, they cover over terrestrial regions. Do you deny the paper's claim that there was a marine transgression in that entire area during the PT boundary? Or do you prefer your head-in-the-sand approach to evidence of marine flooding across that entire area in the exact timing of my claims (the P-T boundary) Watch your manners. If within a terrestrial series of layers, geologists find a transgression, that is your flood layer. It lies within the terrestrial layer. Is this hard to understand? Maybe for you.............. (I find your lack of logic and your lack of manners amusing - I'm certainly not getting upset here) Are you fixated on the Xuanwei Formation, when I already proved the flooding across the Xuanwei region during the PT boundary? LOLMy concern is the geology at the PT boundary over the Xuanwei region. The clay represents the flooding (unless there's a mega lake that suddenly covered the region - oh wait - that would be a flood too - hahahaha) Oh your mega - lake , nice one Granny Magda, unfortunately for your argument geologists say there was transgression at the PT boundary, so I think your freshwater mega lake (that isn't a flood- haha) was washed over by the trangression.I prefer a simpler version as per the geologists, a marine transgression covered the entire Yangtze platform. Hmm, your mega-lake? geologists seem to think there was a transgression covered the region. Do you know better? You say my link does not show the flooding covering the entire Yangtze Platform.I even quoted the relevant section to make it easy for you to find:
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"Did you even read the part that I quoted? I will explain what it says, in Chahe they found a transgression at the PT boundary. Similar sequences found elsewhere indicate that this transgression found in Chahe covered the entire Yangtze Platform and the whole of South China. How clearer can it be?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 "I rest my case.

The science is sufficient. They have done this with mtDNA Eve, and found an early single female. They have done this with Y-DNA Adam and found a later single male ancestor. So far its all looking good for the bible stories. I have not yet come across studies that have applied the same principles to find out the exact number of female common ancestors concurrent to Y-DNA Adam. Were there only four or not?

Im not a YEC. Reading Genesis 1 it doesn't appear to support a young earth, just young biology. But most discussions revolve around the 600 million bp and later dates (fauna/flora fossils) so whether I'm YEC or not doesn't affect most discussions.

Still trying?The plant's didn't survive, their seeds can survive. They can get caught up in crevasses, but I agree most of the vegetation and seeds would have ended up lower down from the hills, but its not impossible for many to be growing out from crevasses.Many many plants grow in high salinity soils, I provided my evidence, so that just isn't a problem. Neither is the survival of seeds, seeds do survive flooding over many months, I posted my evidence.Please give your estimates of how many seeds there were on earth, (20 trillion?) how many would have rotted away without germinating, the proportion of seeds that do not grow on saline soils to make your case for the death of all grazing animals. I would be very interested in your calculations. Please take into account the average number of seeds that exist in every square meter of earth and multiply this by the land area of earth, just as an estimate of the number of seeds to start with. Then you could give me your proof of the rotting rate by soaking, is it 83 %.... 99% rotted? Please provide your evidence for your rates of rotting.Then you have to reduce that by the percentage of plants that do not germinate in saline soils. Is this 99%, 93%, please give me your estimates with your evidence to back up your rates of rot through saline soils.etc etc etc . I would be interested in an actual number of plants around a small portion of the Middle East, which the herbivores can feed on. A vague estimate will do for discussion purposes.While you are working that all out, kindly provide me with the number of herbivores on the ark, compared to the number that have speciated since the ark. I am really interested in such calculations.Looking forward to seeing how you refute the ark story with more than speculation.

This depends on how you interpret the bible. Some people like to add stuff to the bible. I prefer not to.When the bible says that that all the animals were gathered, it does not say that Noah pre-cleansed the Ark. ie there could have been the types of insects and small rodents that currently are found as pests on ships, that added to their core numbers.All terrestrial animals were killed off, not marine. This leaves open the chance that amphibuous animals adapted rapidly to terrestrial life after the flood given the ecological gaps on the land. For example if everything was wiped off land today, there could be a population explosion of marine turtles rapidly adapting to land conditions. And marine crocodiles feeding off them, and becoming the dominant land predators. And adapting accordingly.That is why I like to restrict arguments of this kind to only large terrestrial mammals. Sure, show me how DNA analysis refutes 4500 years of mutations since 14 common ancestors in any ONE large mammal. Please.

Everywhere we look at the PT boundary we find either definite signs of flooding, or geological formations that could easily be flooding. Widespread clastic rocks and fluvial formations followed by marine transgressions is exactly what we would expect from global warming through volcanism and subsequent rainfalls and melting icecaps. And also exactly what we would expect from a bible story describing the deep bursting forth (Siberian traps) followed by 40 days of terrestrial flooding, and sea levels rising.this is completely different to other geological times when there are no such extremes. Lol, its extremely frustrating to debate with the other floodist models. I enjoyed this question, the difference is that geological evidence is increasingly defining a major transgression at the PT boundary. Everywhere you look, points to flooding. There are alternative explanations, yet still each place on earth can be argued strongly, not weakly, for flood geology.In addition :
1) Scientific consensus this is the major die off event in history, so we have a good match between the great die off of the bible, and the one recorded in geology.
2) The post-flood conditions matching the Triassic has some strength to it as well. (silted landscape dominated by arguably amphibuous reptiles)
3) the fountains of the great deep bursting forth is a good match with the Siberian Traps, the greatest volcanic event in history.
4) the melting ice caps/ glaciation provides a logical source of water for the flooding
5) Geology shows the Permian to have a flat landscape, mountain building events mainly occurred later.
6) Volcanic activity can be a major source of torrential rainfalls (planet-wide seeding of the air, large hot air uplifts)
7) there was a magnetic reversal at the PT boundary, which is a huge source of carbon seeding for rainfall (lack of magnetic field creates carbon)
8) Nearly every continent shows a change in sedimentation from underfill to overfill during the boundary (a sudden change in sedimentation patterns). This is something I haven't touched on in this thread.
9) Scientists are still debating what caused the great die-off. They all agree it was initiated by the Siberian Traps, but various theories abound. Only now is the transgression being mentioned in that context. (Not yet a proposed theory, but it is mentioned). I believe a flood is a good explanation for this die-off.As opposed to the k-t boundary, which is clearly an impact event, the iridium layer confirms it. There are some signs of flooding, but not nearly as universal as the PT boundary. This was followed by an ice age (receding sea levels - glaciation).So my choice of a flood at the PT boundary is not arbitrary at all.

Just land-based creatures were destroyed. Reptiles that are mainly marine, like turtles and Australian sea crocodiles, could adapt to land if there was no ecological competetion. The same applied to amphibuous reptiles from the Permian. they could become terrestrial reptiles of the Triassic. also mice and rats are known to infest ships in large numbers. That is why i prefer to restrict the debate to large mammals.bluegenes and I are having a debate just how old humans are from a genetic perspective. Because of this thread, and that one, I haven't got time to discuss how old humans are from a carbon dating perspective.But so far all objections to the human bottleneck relate specifically to mutation rates and carbon dating. I am still under discussion with those two points. To me the recent mtDNA Eve, followed by a recent Y-DNA Adam points to the bible story.

I believe decay rates fluctuate, I will introduce a thread on this when this flood geology debate dies down.I haven't looked into this in detail, but I would place this event during the fall of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, which I place around the end of Holocene Climate optimum, occurring at the same time as the sudden ice age of Siberia.http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
Even the burial in ice of the prehistoric mummified corpse of the famous 'Iceman' (e.g., Bahn and Everett, 1993) at the upper edge of an alpine glacier coincided with the initiation of a cold period ('Neoglaciation') after the Holocene climate optimum (Baroni and Orombelli, 1996).Extraterrestrial Impact Likely Source of Sudden Ice Age Extinctions | News from Brown
"What killed the wooly mammoths? An international team of scientists, including Peter Schultz of Brown University, suggests that a comet or meteorite exploded over the planet roughly 12,900 years ago, causing the abrupt climate changes that led to the extinction of the wooly mammoth and other giant prehistoric beasts."You will notice the fascination of many of the earliest cultures with the Pleiades Star formation. The swastika is an ancient representation of extraterrestrial impact. Such fascination of early culture with extraterrestrial impact events can arguably be found across the world.
sumeria:
Decoded: 'The clay tablet that tells how an asteroid destroyed Sodom 5,000 years ago' | Daily Mail OnlineInca:
http://istina.rin.ru/cgi-bin/eng/print.pl?sait=1&id=328

Then define what the signature looks like. I say its easy to see over a few hundred years. And its difficult to see a bottleneck signature over a few thousand years. Without defining your so-called missing signature, you have no point.Logically if you have about 14 animals, with close to 28 alleles in each position, and then they breed and populations expand into the millions over 4500 years, each location on the DNA would show massive numbers of mutations due to large populations. This is what we see in DNA analysis. Only recent bottlenecks a few hundred years ago are easy to demonstrate, old bottlenecks are difficult to demonstrate.I am not trying to prove the flood on this thread, if you think the flood can be disproved by genetics, and genetics disproves bottlenecks, stop repeating yourself and show how DNA disproves bottlenecks. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

No. I take the wording literally. If the bible says after all the animals were gathered, NOT one extra animal slipped onto the ship even though rodent infestation is a common ship problem then I would believe it.If the bible is silent about something, to conclude either ways is just wrong. The bible story is emphasizing the survival of terrestrial animals, and is not trying to eliminate all possibilities. Do you think that Noah would have killed any other birds that landed on the ark? Or let them live? Who knows , we cannot conclude either way because the story is not detailed. If you would like to add detail that is not there (ie Noah cleansed the ship of all rodents before they entered the ark) that would be a strawman argument, and I will not entertain such because its illogical, he had bigger problems to worry about than a ship cleansing process. A few extra mice for a year would not have added a huge feeding problem.

In a scientific forum, posting sweeping statements without evidence could be seen as trolling.

From a scientific perspective, and a debate perspective the use of the word "impossible" has very definite connotations and should be used very carefully.And besides, its only unlikely because of their propensity not to believe in literal bible stories, and with the false assumptions of radiometric dating. Remove those two objections and it becomes highly likely. Yes in the low lying regions, you would expect clastic rocks and disarticulated fossils in a rapid alluvial environment, followed by a marine transgression. You would expect a transformation in the widespread river valleys and flood plains from an underfill situation to a rapid overfill situation. In other areas the regression would be so violent as to cause an unconformity removing many flood layers and even lower layers. In higher areas, you would expect less dramatic events, but a clay layer in highlands regions should still be evident even if there are less disarticulated fossils there. These higher clay layers should also show signs of the volcanic dust from the Siberian Traps. These events of widespread transgressions and dramatic regressions are found everywhere you look at the PT boundary. I'm still waiting to see any spot on earth that cannot be strongly argued for flooding at the PT boundary from a strict scientific geological perspective.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

I appreciate your attempt to understand my perspective, but you need to understand my compressed timeframes view. The continents did not look like today, you must Google late Permian Pangea to get a good idea of where the ice was, and the extent of the ice-caps/glaciation. Large portions of Pangea including Antartica, parts of Australia, Southern Africa, and portions of South America, India and Madagascar were covered by ice. The Hebrew word for mountains means highpoints. It means mountains or hills. Trees start off as shoots coming out the ground. In two weeks most plants have significant shoots to be able to be eaten by grazing animals. But the bible story gives 2.5 months since the first shoot of the olive tree appeared, to the time of the exit from the ark. This is more than enough time for plants, shrubs and bushes to grow. Many types of seeds grow in saline conditions as I listed, over and above those specific marine beans. The scientists have not said anything about a lack of bottlenecks 4500 years ago. These are difficult to detect because over huge populations many mutations develop over 4500 years. So your assumption that science has disproved bottlenecks is just an assumption. No-one has bothered to post any supporting evidence for this in this thread. Just sweeping and unscientific statements.(recent bottlenecks can be detected in small populations ie bison and cheetahs) Exactly! That is why I use science to make my points. Please post you evidence of a definite lack of a bottleneck 4500 years ago in large mammal species. ...... Pleeeeeease.I am begging for the science to back this up, and just get nothing.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Humans have shown recent common ancestors. Which proves my point. What is under discussion is just how recent, 8000 years or 4500 years. But either way , the only mammal extensively analyzed has shown reduced number of common ancestors. Just a moment...The cheetah bottleneck occurred a few hundred years ago. It would be completely illogical to expect the lack of genetic variation found in the cheetah to also be found in 4500 year old bottlenecks of animals with huge populations. Population size has a direct effect on diversity as well as number of generations.

No it does not. Haha , a transgression IS A MARINE INCURSION, even if temporary. That's the meaning of the word. That is what covered the whole of South China.And your insults kinda point back to you, if you are unable to understand what you are reading. Exactly. Floods wash away terrestrial plants. We would not expect a whole marine ecosystem to develop over a few months of flooding. So what we see is consistent with what the scientists describe, a transgression is how they interpret the geology of the entire region. I would prefer their interpretation than your unnecessary ranting. You are looking at the wrong place in the layers. You are still trying to look WITHIN the Xuanwei formation for the PT boundary, but the PT boundary occurs at the end of the Xuanwei Formation and the beginning of the Kayitou. I think that is why you are getting so very confused. It's ok... maybe now you will understand that AFTER the Xuanwei formation, but covering the entire Xuanwei region were lacustrine (lake-like) conditions that point to marine flooding (transgressive processes)
(lacustrine = lake-like) At least others can read.
At least others understand that a transgression means the region was covered by rising sea levels at the very PT boundary we are discussing. You are just being silly and stubborn in the face of overwhelming evidence you are wrong. I posted the evidence for all to see. There's about 1000 people a day reading this stuff, so I don't care if you all back eachother up, the readers of this thread read my links that the marine transgression did in fact cover the entire region. You are incorrect from a scientifically accepted geological perspective. Haha I was teasing you about the mega-lake. I know you wont admit to it. I posted evidence that the transgression covered the entire South china region, I don't need to keep posting and keep seeing you misinterpret it. Its clear for all the readers of this forum to see, I have done my job in this discussion.