Summations Only

Stop trying to weasel out of your mistake by putting words in my mouth.You claimed that Ararat was on the Arabian Plate. You got that wrong, along with much else. Grow a spine and admit your errors. Doesn't say that it's on the Arabian Plate though does it? The uplift was caused by the plates colliding, but Ararat is still part of the Anatolian block.You know, when you get something wrong, the correct course of action is to muster some goddamn dignity and admit that you were wrong. I have been wrong on these forums many, many times and when that has happened, I have simply admitted it. You're not doing that. What you are doing is making excuses to explain away your errors. Grow up. When you're wrong, just admit that you are wrong. Honestly, you'll feel better for it. No, it absolutely does not mean that. It simply means that your theory is wrong.The Bible is talking about Mt Ararat, the same Mt Ararat that we see today. The reason that your PT Flood fantasy doesn't align with the Bible is because your theory is wrong. But instead of admitting this, you blame the Bible.The truth is that your notion of human settlement on the Arabian Plate is nonsensical. That plate has been flooded many times over. It was flooded in the Triassic, it was underwater during the Jurassic, it was underwater during the Cretaceous. The very notion of human habitation there starting in the Triassic is ludicrous! The reason why your theory doesn't fit the tectonic evidence, doesn't fit the fossil evidence, doesn't fit the Biblical narrative, etc, is because your theory is wrong. It's really that simple. No you haven't.The Biblical narrative has birds as one of the Earliest creatures. The reality is that there are no bird fossils before the Jurassic. To prove your theory, you need to show evidence that birds existed before the PT boundary; not just immediately prior to it, but going back hundreds of millions of years before it. You have provided no rationale for this, not even one of your trademark excuses. No you haven't. that is a misrepresentation of the studies cited, which only deal with plants. You need to do better than that. Are you having memory problems? I have already showed you that this is a fantasy. Sorry squire, but scientific enquiry doesn't work like that.It's not "Prove me wrong or I'm right by default!". You have to prove your own theories right by providing solid positive evidence. If you can't do that, then you have nothing but hot air. The problem for you is that your theory demands a total wipe-out of life, followed by a radiation from a single point. That is directly contradicted by the existence of terrestrial life, all over the world, going right through the PT boundary. No wipe-out. No radiation. Even in the very earliest Triassic, there are terrestrial organisms - and not just amphibians or reptiles, but plants, invertebrates, and more - spread out, all across the world. That is the direct opposite of what your theory predicts. Time to grow up and admit that the evidence does not match your silly Flood theory.Mutate and Survive

But you are making a positive claim, i.e. you are making the claim that the Flood was a real event and that it took place at the PT boundary.To which we naturally respond "Oh yeah? Prove it!".Now I realise that you are not claiming that you can absolutely prove that the Flood happened. I understand that you are not stating your case that strongly. The problem is that in order to make such a case at all, you need to have some decent evidence. It's not up to others to prove you wrong, it's up to you to prove yourself right.Where I do agree with you is in the notion that anyone who claims to have evidence that falsifies your claim ought to produce that evidence. That's only fair. But the fact remains that if you want to claim that the Flood really happened, you need to start with soem compelling evidence in favour. That still applies no matter how tentatively you make your claim.Just to show you that I'm not singling you out here, take a look at this wiki article on the Burden of Proof;

quote:

---

Philosophic burden of proof

​

The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.

​

Holder of the burden

​

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed". This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.

---

In a science thread that means you need to show empirical evidence for any claim, no matter how tentatively held. That burden of proof is on you. To shift that burden to your critics is unreasonable.Having said all that... Jeez, is that all? Here ya go;

quote:

---

High-Resolution Terrestrial Permian—Triassic Eventostratigraphic Boundary in Western Guizhou and Eastern Yunnan, Southwestern China

​

Abstract
The adjoining area of western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan Provinces in southwest China is an ideal place to investigate the feasibility of correlating marine and nonmarine Permian—Triassic boundary (PTB) sequences, as it contains outcrop sections of shallow marine, marginal marine (or paralic), and terrestrial PTB sections, all in close geographic proximity. This paper documents for the first time multiple stratigraphic data from several well-preserved terrestrial PTB sections in the area and attempts to use these data to define, locate, and correlate the PTB in the area. A study of the spores and pollen and vegetation types across the terrestrial PTB sections in the study area suggests three distinct evolutionary stages across the boundary: Stage 1 (Xuanwei Formation) is characterised by Late Permian or Paleozoic-type ferns and pteridosperms (85.0%), with a few gymnosperms (15.0%); stage 2 is marked by an abrupt drop of sporopollen elements of Late Permian aspects, coupled with the appearance of fungal spores and limited Early Triassic palynomorphs; stage 3 (top Xuanwei Formation and Kayitou Formation) is dominated by gymnosperm pollen (58.8%) of clearly Early Triassic aspect, although still retaining limited ferns and pteridosperms. The three biotic stages seem to well correspond with the changing trend of the δ13C_org curves from the same sections, which is characterized by a sharp drop just before the PTB, followed by a short term partial recovery across the boundary, and then succeeded by a gradual decline after the PTB in the Early Triassic. Combining evidence from eventostratigraphic (i.e., the succession of boundary clay beds), biostratigraphic (using both macroplants and palynomorphs), and chemostratigraphic (i.e., organic carbon isotope excursion signals), we propose that a high-resolution PTB succession, closely correlatable to its marine counterpart at the Meishan section in eastern China, is recognisable at the terrestrial PTB sections in the western Guizhou—eastern Yunnan area in Southwest China.

---

Full TextSo there you go; the Xuanwei Formation is a terrestrial layer that spans the PTB. No big flood. A sharp drop off in plant life, yes, but no corresponding flood layer. Took about a minute find and that only because I type slow. So case closed right?Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

The fact remains that he is making a claim about the Flood. He's claiming that it's at the PTB. Now of course, Minspawn is free to believe as he likes, but in a science thread debate, if he wants any response other than "Well that's jolly nice for you", then he needs to make a positive case for it; a case that at some point has to go beyond mere plausibility and into actual positive evidence.It might be different if there were some reason why the evidence might reasonably be expected to be scarce, but that's not the case here. Despite Mindspawn's excuse-making, evidence for a worldwide flood ought to be very, very easy to locate.If all Mindspawn has is a plausible scenario where he ought to have abundant evidence, then when it comes to a science thread, he really has nothing.Mutate and Survive

Well you are right about that I suppose. Truth is, this thread has been pretty far from the topic most of the time. Instead it's seen far more useful discussion. After all, it seems like a waste of time discussing a hypothetical ark when mindspawn has been kind enough to provide us with a testable date for the Flood. When mindspawn repeatedly insists upon a PTB Flood he just provides too tempting a target. Further, all of his reasoning for the ark gets tied back to the PTB. Seems like a waste to ignore it. If his idea of what would happen after the Flood involves Triassic fauna, you shouldn't be surprised when opeople demand evidence for a Triassic Flood.Besides, I gave the man the proof he asked for, whether the burden was on me or not, so I don't see much basis for complaint.Mutate and Survive

As usual, you think that you understand the work of expert geologists better than they do themselves. What incredible arrogance! Allow me to finish that sentence for you;

quote:

---

Xuanwei Formation (terrestrial clastic rocks) and the Longtan Formation (marine clastic rocks)

---

Your point is obscure. This link describes the Xuanwei as being terrestrial. Once again, here is the bit you unaccountably felt the need to leave out;

quote:

---

A study of the terrestrial PTB sections in western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan has revealed a set of clayrock beds associated with the PTB sections persistently developed in the study area. Of particular interest is the regular vertical (stratigraphical) succession of three clayrock beds,...

---

The damn thing is full of plant fossils mindspawn. Where does it say that the clay has to be marine? As far as I can see it says no such thing. Claystones can form in terrestrial conditions. They're not referring to the Xuanwei as being marine, they are comparing terrestrial with marine.And again, we can see that you are omitting the bits that disprove your nonsense;

quote:

---

In order to reveal the difference between the clayrocks and/or mudstones underlying and overlying the PTBST and the clayrocks in the PTBST at terrestrial PTB sections, we collected and studied different clayrocks and/or mudstones in, above, and below the PTBST. We found that there were indeed different clay mineral compositions among those clayrocks and/or mudstones

---

The geologists who wrote these papers still regard the Xuanwei as a terrestrial formation. Of course there was a fungal spike, there had just been a massive die-off. ou will note that even the piece you quote repeatedly refers to terrestrial plants being present in the formation.So once again, the geologists you cite regard these layers as being terrestrial. What in the name of God made you think that you were going to be able to use their own work to prove them wrong? Just look at their conclusions;

quote:

---

In the light of eventostratigraphic (i.e., the boundary clay beds) and biostratigraphic (macro plants and palynomorphs) evidence, the terrestrial PTB sections in western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan can be divided into a succession of beds representing episodes of events across the PTB. Using this succession of beds and applying the PTBST concept and the organic carbon isotopic excursion across the PTBST, we can provide a high- resolution definition for the terrestrial PTB within the PTBST in western Guizhou and eastern Yunnan, southwestern China.

---

Terrestrial! That means not underwater. No flood. Would you care to point out exactly where the Flood layer appears in the lithostratigraphic tables provided in the studies you cite? Because I don't see it.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

Oh, good. Because I remember a poster on these forums, "mindspawn" I believe his name was, who asked for "evidence of a site on the planet showing an unbroken continuation of terrestrial geology across the P-T boundary that shows no sign of flooding.". Now he has one. Do give over. You are poorly placed to patronise others on this subject. That they formed normally, as deposits of clay and mud, mostly in association with inland water sources, exactly as we would expect from clastic mudstones and claystones.And a bit of googling tells me I'm right; they were formed in lakes and rivers ("continental fluvial and lacustrine sandstones and siltstones", from An Accurately Delineated Permian-Triassic Boundary in Continental Successions by Yin et al).Your suggestion of a flood is absurd. The Flood you propose is at the PTB. These rocks are much earlier. They cannot possibly be from the Flood. You can't even keep your own story straight apparently. In suggesting that you have understood what has remained hidden to thousands of expert geologists, you are guilty of appalling arrogance. That's just a fact.I mean, do you think that geologists are stupid? Did you really think that you were going to use their own work to overthrow the entire discipline from your armchair? As I say, this is arrogance. I am not merely trying to insult you, I am trying to get you to understand the reality of your situation. You are out of your depth here. Don't be absurd. The deposit has only terrestrial fossils in it. No marine fossils. That precludes a Flood of the kind you describe. The literature proposes a vulcagenic origin for the clay. That's volcanic ash, forming a sediment and then forming clayrocks. This can be shown by the presence of zircons and other markers of volcanism.You could have found this out for yourself you know. It's right there in the paper I cited.You've got floods on the brain mate. It seems that you will happily label any rock as being flood related. No it doesn't. It deosn't preclude normal flooding, you know, the kind that happens in the real world. The kind of Flood you're talking about though, that it does preclude.Mindspawn, if there was a Flood, a worldwide flood, then where is it? Why can't I see it? Because I look at the stratigraphy in Fig 5 of the Peng et al paper and I just don't see it. You'd think that a giant flood of the entire world might stand out a bit, so where is it?Time to stop being a child. If there is a Flood layer here, point to it or admit defeat.I'm answering your questions; Rivers and lakes. Volcanoes. What caused the PT Extinction? It's a mystery innit? If you want information on the proposed mechanisms behind the PT extinction, it's widely available; a mixture of volcanism, meteors, marine anoxia... take your pick. Because the ash fell on plants growing in situ. It then formed a sediment around them.So I've answered your questions, satisfactorily I think. Now you answer mine;
where, precisely, is the Flood layer. Please point out exactly where in Fig 5 of the Peng et al paper, we can see a massive marine incursion (hint; we can't, because there wasn't one).Time to stop making those signature mindspawn excuses there fella. Time to put aside childish things and embrace reality. You asked for evidence of an unbroken terrestrial sequence from the PTB. I have provided you with one. There are others. Your PTB Flood theory stands falsified and whilst I understand that this must be a disappointment to you, it does at least have the virtue of being true.Mutate and Survive

What, so you can ignore that as well?I've already shown you evidence that falsifies your scenario.You challenged us to show you an unbroken terrestrial sequence that straddles the PTB.I showed you an unbroken terrestrial sequence that straddles the PTB.Your scenario is falsified.The thing for you to do now is to admit defeat or be exposed as dishonest.Your move.Mutate and Survive

So you can ignore it yet again?C'mon mindspawn, we've been over this. You already have your evidence of an unbroken terrestrial sequence that straddles the PTB. Pretending that you haven't isn't going to work. Everyone can see what you're doing.Grow a spine and admit your error.Mutate and Survive

You have been given evidence that rules out your PTB Flood scenario.You have chosen to ignore that evidence.If you insist upon demanding to see evidence that you've already been given, people are going to notice.This is not a reasonable way to engage in debate. I suggest that you quit squabbling with Admin (discussion problems should go to the Report Discussion Problems Here 4.0 thread) and respond to the fact that your theory has been falsified.I mean, why even bother to talk about a hypothesis that's already in the garbage can?Mutate and Survive

And it is falsified by the very evidence that you asked to see.You asked to see an unbroken terrestrial PTB section.I showed you the Xuanwei.Doc A mentioned the Hopeman Sandstone.The Karoo Supergroup is another, and it's truly humongous as well, but it hardly matters; only one contradictory example is needed to falsify a hypothesis.If you don't respond, people are going to assume that you have no response and are just carrying on regardless, a grossly dishonest approach.So, what's it going to be then eh?Mutate and Survive

Except that you now know perfectly well that the Flood didn't take place at the PTB, so waffling on about Permian flora seems rather pointless. You already have proof that your scenario is impossible. You have so far chosen to ignore it and carry on regardless.Is that what an honest enquirer would do?Is that what Jesus would do?Either take another (doomed) attempt at refuting the evidence or admit defeat.Mutate and Survive

A category that clearly does not include you, as when I gave you the falsification that you asked for, you threw a little tantrum and put me on your ignore list. But you're not on my ignore list.Every time you come in here, pushing your already falsified theory of a PTB Flood, I'll be here, to remind everyone of just how mendacious your behaviour has been.To recap;You asked for an unbroken terrestrial PTB sequence with no sign of a flood.You have since been provided with multiple examples of exactly that.You took a single poorly argued attempt at knocking that evidence down, but failed.Now you are simply ignoring the falsification and continuing to push your PTB Flood fantasy as though nothing had ever happened.Everyone can see what you're doing. You are pushing a hypothesis that you know to be false. You are bleating about lack of evidence, but when shown evidence, you play dumb.You took umbrage when I accused you of lying, but frankly, your current his behaviour is worse than lying. Case in point; You know that the Flood cannot have taken place at the PTB. You continue to push that silly nonsense anyway.It's dishonest. It is sad that you seemingly can't see how badly your actions disgrace you.Mutate and Survive

Which you know it doesn't. You know what contradicts a flood at the PT Boundary? The fact that there is no flood at the PT Boundary.You know this of course, but why let a little thing like the truth intrude upon your sad little fantasy?Mutate and Survive

Thanks for weaseling out of mine; WHERE IS THE FLOOD LAYER?This is where you say the Flood should be, so where's the Flood layer? Which specific bed is it? Is it that you think gwc 66-68 represent the Flood layer? C'mon mindspawn, no flood layer means no Flood. Only if you're barking mad could a terrestrial deposit represent a Flood. What? No! What kind of naive idea of sedimentary deposition do you have? The way you speak makes it sound as though you have this absurd notion of the Xuanwei as a homogeneous layer covering a vast area. It's not like that. Fluvial systems aren't anything like that. In reality the Xuanwei is scattered and patchy. It doesn't cover the entire area. There are older rocks surrounding it and many of those would have been exposed at the time of the PTB.The area covered by the formation would have been covered in freshwater because that is how sedimentary rocks typically form.That does not equate to a global flood, or any kind of flood. Look at this geo-map. The Xuanwei is in grey. Look at how it is surrounded by older rocks; those are the rocks that the Permian river systems would have overlain. Can you show me one? Because this is not a "general layer of water", it is a very discrete area of water and thus nothing to do with a flood of any kind. What the hell is wrong with you? You cite a paper, the first line of which is "X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) and X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XFS) studies were undertaken for claystones and/or mudstones from the Chahe sectiona terrestrial Permian-Triassic boundary (TPTB) section." - did you get that? TERRESTRIAL. As in not marine. Why would you cite a paper that refutes your argument in the first damn sentence?Take a look at this, from that paper;

quote:

---

The claystones in Beds 66 and 68 originated from volcanic processes

---

The paper you cite refutes your version of events and reinforces mine. Or how about this?

quote:

---

The trace elements in Beds 66 and 68 at the Chahe section suggest that the dust was highly acidic and therefore also supporting a volcanic origin... both terrigenous and acid volcanic ashes contributed to the claystone sediments. Increases in SiO2 and K2O content in Bed 66 and Bed 68 are also evidence of acid volcanic eruptions. Thus, we hold that the claystones of Beds 66 and 68 between the PTB interval are products of acid volcanic ash accompanying normal sedimentary clays.

---

FYI, "terrigenous" means ""formed on land".It is beyond me how anyone can misunderstand a scientific paper so badly. God God you say some stupid things. I mean, you've said some dumbass shit in this thread, but that has to be the goddamn stupidest thing I've ever heard, a highly competitive category.A lake is a TERRESTRIAL feature.A river is a TERRESTRIAL feature.Are... are you truly so ignorant of geology to suppose that "terrestrial" means "devoid of water"? Really? This is your argument? Bloody hell...When you see a paper talking about a lake, that means they're talking about a terrestrial environment, by definition! What else could it mean?
How the bloody hell could there be a lake under the sea? So what? Even the bit you quote describes it as terrestrial. They're not talking about a transgression at the PTB, they're talking about a later transgression. I'm already well aware that younger deposits overlay the Xuanwei, but they're not relevant, as they're not from the PTB. Also, please don't cite articles that only contain an abstract. You realise that the area that paper studies is well over a thousand miles from the Xuanwei, right?A terrestrial formation could not have been covered by a marine transgression. Know how I know that? Because it's a terrestrial formation!But again, if you feel that there was a Flood at the PTB, show me where it appears in the stratigraphy. Otherwise, stop wasting time with sily rubbish. Yes, and they show that it was not universal, so no Flood. Look, the plants were fossilised because they were caught up in a mixture of freshwater and volcanic ash. That's just how fossils form. What is your problem?The fact remains that this formation has an extensive record of terrestrial life. It's a terrestrial formation. Your continued efforts to deny this simple fact are moronic.So, just one more time; WHERE IS THE FLOOD LAYER? No flood layer, mindspawn, no Flood. Put up or shut up; show me the Flood layer.Mutate and Survive

In my experience, when someone continuously weasels out of answering a question, it's because he knows he doesn't have an answer. So again; where is the Flood layer?Your repeated failure to answer is telling.The Flood should be easy to spot, so where is it?The Xuanwei covers the time whne you said the flood occurred, so where is it? That is because "terrestrial" means "Not marine". You're looking for a marine incursion. There is no marine incursion here to see.Disagree? Then tell me where the Flood layer is. I have made my point, you're just too dense to understand it. I'll explain again.You need to show a marine layer to prove your Flood. None of the layers in the Xuanwei are marine, they're all terretsrial. So none of them can possibly be from a worldwide flood.Further, if any one of the strata from the Xuanwei were the Flood layer, it would be repeated all around the world. None of these layers are repeated all around the world, thus none of them is the Flood Layer. Of course it can't be a marine Flood, there are no marine fossils present. This entire formation is fossiliferous. None of the fossils are marine. thus it cannot be a marine incursion. This is so blindingly obvious that I shouldn't need to explain it. For fucks sake...This is a map of exposures. Do you understand what that means? They don't have anything above them except the sky.The Xuanwei doubtless extends under much of the younger rock, but it cannot possibly extend under the older rock - unless you'd like to add the Principle of Superposition to the list of things you're wrong about. The Xuanwei is surrounded by older rock. It can't extend beneath that. that is a crude, over-simplified map. It shows the overall extent of the formation. It's not saying that the entire area was covered by water at any single point in time, because that's not how fluvial deposition works.Flood layers on the other hand, they cover huge areas. Like the deposit form a worldwide flood. Where is the Flood layer mindspawn? Note the fact that this paper, like all the others considers the Xuanwei to be terrestrial.Oviously it didn't cover the area of the Xuanweui, since those formations are terrestrial. If there had been a marine transgression in that area it would have left marine fossils. it didn't.If you think otherwise, show me where the Flood layer is. Are you seriously claiming that a worldwide marine incursion would leave a terrestrial layer?You are mad.A marine incursion would leave a marine layer, because it''s a fucking marine incursion. It would certainly include terrestrial remains, but it would also include marine remains.If you can find such a layer, present it. Show me the Flood layer.Unless you think that a global flood could somehow be invisible. Once again, you cite a paper that disproves your case. This paper, as I've mentioned before, describes the Xuanwei as fluvial/lacustrine. It says this because the layers are chock full of terrestrial plants with no marine material. That means that whatever transgression you care to name could not have reached this far. I know how clays are formed. I described how they're formed in the last message. Of course they need water, no-one is denying that. The water in this case is freshwater, not marine. *AHEM* I know that clays require water. I collect extensively from fossiliferous clay beds. I know that clays require water.You seem to think that just by pointing to some water, you have evidence for a flood. that's just silly. this is freshwater, deposited by lakes and rivers, not a marine incursion. When are you going to get it through your head that a freshwater environment at the point where you claim a flood disproves your case? But these weren't deposited in a marine environment, as attested by the lack of marine material and the abundance of terrestrial material. These are fluvial and lacustrine deposits. Rivers and lakes are, pretty much by definition, terrestrial features. Good God. Not all the region was deposited at the same time. There was no single lake, nor is this a single deposit. The deposition would only have taken place where the waters moved. No waters, no deposition.Can you describe to me what an undersea lake would look like? Because if you can't, you have to accept that this area wasn't under the sea. Nonsense. You have not shown that a marine transgression covered this area. Your link shows nothing of the kind. Plants and plant fragments were surrounded by sediment and fossilised. I wouldn't have thought that this needed explaining.Wheat at you driving at exactly? Where else could the plants have come form? What does it matter? Can we? WHERE?WHERE IS THE FLOOD LAYER?A flood leaves a trace, so where is it? If you can't point it out, your argument is refuted. So where is it? No it isn't. You made that up.Mutate and Survive