Summations Only

I feel this is a fair comment.1,4, 6, 7 are the same point, evolutionary timeframes. I will deal with that soon in the dating forum, if I am not banned sooner.2. The Carboniferous and Permian are known for flatter landscapes. In the link, kindly see how the world was dominated by lowlands. If you have any evidence for the height of the highlands, please post this.
http://www.killerinourmidst.com/permian%20world.html
The Appalachians are assumed to have been high, but also very susceptible to erosion which made them low again. I cannot find evidence for the exact timing of the high point and the timing of the erosion of these highlands.
Wayback Machine7/http://www.nps.gov/mana/pphtml/subenvironmentalfactors13.html
"Closer to the point of impact, the immense pressure turned igneous and sedimentary rock into metamorphic rock and broke it in numerous places, creating faults which were very susceptible to being worn away by wind and water. Over time these erosive forces wore the landscape down to nearly sea level. This is the Piedmont, where Manassas National Battlefield Park stands today."5. Accelerated evolution can occur even in 6000 "evolutionary" years:
Dwarfing of fossil mammals on Mediterranean islands | Natural History Museum8. Genetics is advanced enough, there just has not been enough DNA sequencing of non-humans to make definite conclusions about ancestry of all mammals.If we do this type of study on cows, horses, cats, buffalo, elephants etc etc etc , then we can have an answer. But for now, we don't even have a complete answer in the most analysed of mammals, humans.9) The evidence of widespread flooding is there. I would like to see one place that definitely DOES NOT have flooding at the P-T boundary. Until then we both cannot conclude the argument scientifically. But my evidence of flooding has been solely based in science, it does not contradict science.Less salty seas? I haven't got time for that today, but this also does not contradict science but is based on science itself. (supported by science).Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

What I honestly feel is that when someone says the evidence offered isn't convincing that it is incumbent upon them, especially when asked several times, to describe what evidence they would find convincing.You went on to describe what that evidence would be anyway, and its evidence that's already been offered and that you rejected, claiming that mutation rates could actually be an order of magnitude higher than what's been measured. Perhaps there should be more discussion about mutation rates.

You're not even close to being banned. I find your efforts and demeanor in this discussion laudable. But you shouldn't be surprised at scornful responses because you've mustered as much evidence for your position as geocentric people have for theirs.Those on the science side are a flighty, promiscuous group. Show them evidence and they'll follow it anywhere. Decades of belief in a decelerating universe can be overturned with just a few seconds examination of evidence of acceleration. The same is true of the disproven but once long-held belief in fixed continents. Ignoring evidence or turning it on its head or cherry picking evidence is anathema to a scientific attitude. The strengths of one's scientific opinions should be commensurate with the evidence supporting those opinions.I think what you're mostly experiencing here is the reaction to the disparity between the strength of your opinions and the paucity of your evidence.Edited by Admin, : Improve word choice.

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

No, it becomes appropriate for you to produce evidence. All you are doing with "what-ifs" is trying to shore up your beliefs by casting doubt on evidence-based conclusions.When you say, "What if you're wrong" you need to present evidence that we're wrong. The "what-if" by itself doesn't do that.

Well, the Hopeman Sandstone is Permo-Triassic and aeolian.

How does someone disprove the claim that a shot hit the target?It really is pretty simple. Folk look and see if there is a hole in the target.Geneticists have found bottleneck signatures. They know what that particular hole looks like.What has not been found is a genetic signature of a bottleneck event that happened 4500 years ago and shows up across species uniformly and universally.No hole has been seen in the target. That hole has not been seen in any target ever examined.In the case of the Biblical Flood, that hole must be seen not just in one target but in every target.If you believe otherwise then YOU need to show that the 4500 year ago bottleneck event signature does show up across species uniformly and universally, that the hole is in EVERY target.There is no need to show that the diversity we see is impossible; all that is needed is to show that there is even one target that does not show that hole.You do not want the Biblical Flood myths (and there are at least two and they are mutually exclusive; as with the creation stories if one is true then the other is false) to be simply teaching stories. You want very much for them to be real, for the earth to be young, for there have been an Adam and Eve, for the Exodus story and Conquest of Canaan to be true but unfortunately, none of them are.Sorry but them's the facts.The topic though is "Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?" and the answer is we MUST see a population where every critter descended from a critter on the ark shows a 4500 year ago genetic bottleneck event signature.Edited by jar, : event is spell with a "t"

You have been shown the evidence. You have been shown the positive evidence that your shots hit the wall beside the target. You have also been shown the negative evidence that there are no holes in the target.You can't just handwave the evidence away with more "scenarios". You can't just say cows woulda/coulda/shoulda eaten something else. You have to show that cows can live on something else and that that something else can survive a flood and propogate in a post-flood environment. You are the one who needs to show evidence that your scenario will work. That is the essence of science.You're in the minority position here. Nobody here gives a flying f*ck if you are convinced. You're trying to convince us.

Mindspawn is not doing science.He is doing apologetics.

You are right, he is not doing science. It is clear he doesn't know what science is.I'm not sure there is really a good word to describe what he is doing other than fantasizing.

It's just Creation Science. I know that the Noah story isn't a creation event, but mindspawn is certainly applying the Creation Science versions of geology, biology, radiometric dating, and methodology to the Flood.Coyote likes the term apologetics. I don't like the term because Apologetics actually refers to something completely different from making stuff up and calling it fact. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

While strictly off-topic this post deal with issues raised in the thread ad is at least tangentially related in that it deals with what happened following the Flood.Mindspawn claims that the earliest cave dwellings and the earliest cities were in Turkey and that this is in agreement with the flood model.What the Bible says:The Ark came aground in the mountains of Urartu (the Eastern edge of Turkey)Noah planted a vineyard, presumably somewhere in the vicinity of the ArkThat some time later all of the people went East and built a brick city in the Land of Shinar (believed to be Sumeria). Genesis 11 indicates that the people were scattered no more than 310 years after the flood.Now it is clear that living in caves isn't mentioned. Nor are any major permanent settlements prior to Babel - there isn't even a good reason to expect any. Nor is there a good reason for choosing Turkey as the region of interest - we should be primarily looking at Urartu, Shinar and the land immediately west of Shinar which would correspond in modern terms to the Eastern edge of Turkey and modern Syria and Iraq.Moreover, in the Bible the major dispersal of the people comes from Babel, in Sumeria, not from Turkey.It should also be noted that the major point is not the presence of settlements IN the region of interest, but the ABSENCE of settlements outside it. The Bible does not describe them building much in the way of settlements prior to Babel - but it does clearly indicated that there were no other humans around.Mindspawn's scenarioMindspawn places the Flood at the boundary between the Permian and the Triassic. He's said almost nothing about how his compressed timescale relates even to the Biblical chronology aside from that. But it's clear that the earliest post-Flood settlements should appear in the Triassic and we have to question whether even Babel should appear later than, say, the Cretaceous.Mindspawn's evidence (from Message 549):I will give the conventional dates on the understanding that Mindspawn accepts them only as indications of relative age.

quote:

---

Early Turkish caves:
Page not found | Campus Web Services

---

The occupation of this cave is dated to 45,000 years ago. However, humans were using the Blombos Cave in South Africa 100,000 years ago. And that's a Middle Stone Age site.(Another post pointed to a cave in Laos that was occupied at least 47,000 years ago).This cave is also outside the primary region of interest, being too far West.

quote:

---

Could you kindly back up your statements with evidence when you confidently state that the earliest buildings were not found in Turkey. The earliest building is the Gobekli Tepe temple in Turkey:
Gbekli Tepe - Wikipedia
Ancient surprises in Turkey

---

This may be the earliest stone structure known with construction of stone circles maybe starting as early as 9600 BC, but that is hardly enough to say that it is the earliest building. There was a settlement at Jericho at about the same time. Indeed, it would be better for Mindspawn's argument if Gobekli Tepe did not exist, because the mud-brick built, small, settlement at Jericho is more in line with what the Bible would lead us to expect of the period between the Flood and Babel.It must be noted that all these dates are surprisingly late, given Mindspawn's scenario. Gobekli Tepe was not abandoned until around 8000 BC. Can we really fit everything that is dated from the beginning of the Triassic to 8000 BC in a period of 300 years or less ?In summary, the Blompas cave in itself is enough to refute Mindspawn's claim. Biblically there should be no people in South Africa in the period between the Flood and Babel. Even using modern dates as indicators of relevant age Blompas cannot reasonably be moved to later than Gobekli Tepe as Mindspawn's argument requires.
It hardly seems necessary to go any further.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

I agree. I asked him several times but he has not yet offered evidence that DNA contradicts bottlenecks. As soon as he offers evidence then I will deal with it.I am not saying "DNA proves the ark", if I said that I would have to back it up with evidence.
He is saying DNA disproves the ark, he must then explain how. I find your defense of his lack of evidence, and your request that I be the one to provide the evidence, as biased, considering he is the one making claims. Blatantly biased. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

The first to make a statement must prove it, anyone can do a quick google search to check the diet possibilities of cows. The first to make a statement must prove it. If your argument is that cows only eat grass, prove it. Otherwise do not make unsupported comments, it just makes one look foolish to make sweeping statements with no attempt to back it up. And a continuous refusal to do so makes it seem like you are unable to scientifically back up your comment, can you do so? Am I the only one that has to back up every comment?I already showed that beans float, and grow in saline environments. So do olive seeds need soaking, and can also grow in saline soils:ABC.net.au: Page Not Found
"The range of vegetables and fruit that can be grown in salty conditions is quite large, but it is always best to choose the most salt tolerant species. Most of the onion family, garlic, onions, shallots and chives grow well, as do tomatoes, especially cultivars that come from southern California or southern Europe. Most of the cucurbit family - pumpkins, zucchini, squash and all the melons - are best grown on a raised mound. Capsicums, chillies and aubergines are very successful because they can be grown in the hottest part of the garden. Most root vegetables, especially red beet and carrots grow satisfactorily, as does silver beet. The brassicas, including broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kohlrabi grow extremely successfully, as well as broad beans and peas. Brussels sprouts, cucumbers and French beans can be more difficult.For those living in these areas of increased salinity, asparagus is one of the few vegetables that thrive under the influence of salt spray. It likes to grow in deep sandy soils, such as close to foreshores. Those living in coastal dune soils should be able to grow asparagus with little or no preparation, beyond the incorporation of plenty of rotted cow manure and regular heavy watering.There is a range of orchard plants that can be grown in salty soil to supply fruit for the garden. Several olive varieties are successful, as are many varieties of figs and several of grape varieties, although these may have to be grafted onto more salt tolerant stock. Almond and pistachio nuts, black mulberry, Chinese dates and the carob can also be grown. Most stone fruits perform poorly and should be avoided unless they can be mounded and mulched very heavily. However late yellow-fleshed cling peaches and the more modern peacherines can be grown quite well. Most citrus can be grown successfully"