Summations Only

Haha no I was not saying that their bodies would have survived,k I didn't intend to imply that. Maybe my wording is ambiguous so I don't blame you for reading that into the wording, but certainly was not what I meant.I don't believe much marine life would have made it onto the land at all, I believe the melting was happening on the landmass of Pangea, and water was flowing outwards from the landmass. Thus the water wasn't very saline, and there was more chance of terrestrial carcasses flowing outward, than marine carcasses flowing inward. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

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

Rohl's chronology is long dead, the most recent of many nails in its coffin is Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. You'd better be very familiar with that if you are going to try to defend Rohl.

Really ? I was going on your previous statement: How are you reconciling "MARINE INCURSION" with "water flowing outwards from the landmass" ?

Oh dear, I think you're forgetting that the carnivores need to eat the stranded fish......

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

None of which has anything to do with dates of 65k-130k. My point is that without even getting into anything regarding the mechanics of dating we can see that you just made that stuff up. Nothing you've mentioned regarding dating is the least bit helpful in that regard. Are you seriously claiming to have done this kind of study already? Can you honestly do any kind of dating beyond historical references without making some assumption about the rate of some process. Unless it gets the pyramids built sometime after the flood, revising those dates may help with other parts of genesis, but as far as proving a flood date, Rohl's dates (which don't constitute a dating system) are just rearranging deck chairs on the titanic. They don't help you correct C-14 dating in any significant way.

Right.I've been dealing with C14 dating for forty years now, and this thread is about the first time I've heard anything about Rohl and his dating schemes. That stuff is simply not important to radiocarbon dating.If anything, radiocarbon dating is being used to correct the Egyptian chronologies, certainly it is not the other way around.I hope when we finally get to the dating thread it is not cluttered with such irrelevant nonsense.

I've had a bit of fun thinking of something else for you to tackle as well.Your contention is that the lack of any marine fossils, as pointed out by Granny Magda, is due to the flooding being largely accounted for by fresh water glacial flow. Your words as follows: I did a bit of twiddling around on google, and it is reckoned that if all of the ice in Antarctica melted, it would raise sea levels by 61 metres, which as I recall is consistent with your odd view that mountains were actually only baby hills, back in the day. So let's run with a melting of ice from Southern Pangea of an amount roughly equal to the amount of ice in Antarctica.It's estimated that there are 27 million billion tons of ice in Antarctica, with an average temperature of -35 degrees Celsius. I think it's reasonable to assume a reasonably similar quantity and temperature of ice, to allow reasonably sufficient flows for your scenario.Now, bearing in mind that you can't use marine water to melt the ice (marine water does a fair job of melting ice, but it would ruin your "no marine water" scenario), would you like to hazard a guess as to how much the air temperature would have to rise on earth, in order to melt 27 million billion tons of ice, with a temperature of -35 degrees, in a period of 40 days ?I don't know the answer myself - I suspect the maths might be complicated - but my guess is that Noah and co would have needed air con.

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

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

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

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

Show us the numbers.

As we can see above, you were referring to Rohl's revised chronology, not dating methods of any kind.