Summations Only

I'm left in the middle of a number of interesting debates here, so to summarise some of my final answers:
Now I'm quoting from the bible, the bible and the flood story claim no human bottleneck after the flood, the sons of God were interacting with humans in those pre-flood days, and also after that. The bible does not claim a bottleneck of humans:Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in THOSE DAYS; AND ALSO AFTER THAT, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.There is also undue focus on the HLA set of genes, this is known as a "super locus", more than one gene in those HLA positions. Please just look this up to see that the "ten allele" argument does not apply to the HLA region.The link regarding the cow does not show numerous alleles, this is showing numerous nucleotides at a single locus. Each gene averages over 100 000 nucleotides so of course you will get many in each position.True I did move the goalpost regarding the mountains, the terrain is known as largely flat during the carboniferous, but geologists do acknowledge some mountains. You guys pointed this out, which is a good response to my claim of flat terrain. I am now asking why they would assume such high mountains when the fossils on those mountains are lowlands fossils. I feel this is a valid question.Generally science shows that the PT boundary has a major transgression (oceans flooding land), worldwide sedimentary infilling, massive loss of vegetation, worldwide erosion and a major regression (oceans receding). The atmosphere changed from a fluctuating humid atmosphere to dry. Only water can move all that sediment. Large movements of water moving sediments is known as......... a flood!Thanks everyone for the chat. Special thanks to Percy for his sharp wit , Dr A for his good logic, and Jonf for numerous good points, and all you others too.

I bumped summation up to 500 messages.

For starters, there is the fact that floods leave evidence. Geologists are adept at recognising flood layers, yet no global flood layer has ever been found. That alone rules out a massive global flood.As for your personal theory about a P-T Boundary Flood, it is refuted by the fact that human fossils (which must pre-date the flood) do not emerge for another 250 million years. This is further backed up by the fact that numerous other species, including those specifically mentioned in the Bible as pre-dating the Flood, do not appear before the P-T event, but only emerge millions of years later.this is just the tip of the iceberg. The lack of sufficient water, the genetic evidence, the shear fairy-tale absurdity of the Ark story; all these lines of evidence and more rule out a global flood. This has been known for well over a century.Take a look at this wiki extract;

quote:

---

In 1823 the Reverend William Buckland, the first professor of geology at Oxford University, interpreted geological phenomena as Reliquiae Diluvianae; relics of the flood Attesting the Action of a Universal Deluge. His views were supported by other English clergymen naturalists at the time...

​

{snip}

​

The idea that all geological strata were produced by a single flood was rejected in 1837 by theologian Buckland who wrote:

​

Some have attempted to ascribe the formation of all the stratified rocks to the effects of the Mosaic Deluge; an opinion which is irreconcilable with the enormous thickness and almost infinite subdivisions of these strata, and with the numerous and regular successions which they contain of the remains of animals and vegetables, differing more and more widely from existing species, as the strata in which we find them are placed at greater depths. The fact that a large proportion of these remains belong to extinct genera, and almost all of them to extinct species, that lived and multiplied and died on or near the spots where they are now found, shows that the strata in which they occur were deposited slowly and gradually, during long periods of time, and at widely distant intervals.

​

For a while, Buckland had continued to insist that some geological layers were related to the Great Flood, but grew to accept the idea that they represented multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. He was convinced by Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz that much of the evidence on which he relied was in fact the product of ancient ice ages, and became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations.[23] Mainstream science abandoned the idea of flood geology that required major deviations from present physical processes.

---

SourceNote that Buckland was a Christian theologian. He could not have wanted to dismiss the notion of a literal and real deluge. He must have been horrified at the idea that the Flood was not real. One can get some idea of his reluctance from the quote above. But - here's the point - he was too honest to ignore where the evidence led. The geological record did not show a deluge, only a gradual record of much smaller events and formations.I understand your desire to see one of the foundational myths of your religion vindicated as historical record. Unfortunately for you, this is not the case. It's pretty doubtful that the stories were ever intended to be read that way anyway. So - please correct me if I'm wrong here - your contention is that the reason we do not find familiar species before the P-T boundary is that they might have dwelt in areas that did not lend themselves to fossil preservation. Is this an accurate summation of your position? Specifically which fossils are troubling you? Are you sure they aren't older marine fossils that were uplifted during the Carboniferous? Does this fit the bill for what you're after? It describes a semi-arid climate in the Carboniferous.

quote:

---

Equatorial aridity and climatic oscillations during the early Carboniferous, southern Britain

​

V. P. WRIGHT

​

Abstract

​

Evidence from palaeosols, palaeokarsts and styles of meteoric diagenesis shows that the early Carboniferous climate of southern Britain was dominantly seasonally semi-arid. This semi-aridity occurred while the region was in an equatorial palaeolatitudinal position. The cause of the seasonal aridity was possibly the deflection of easterly winds into a major low pressure zone set up over Gondwana during the southern hemisphere summer.

---

Only the abstract I'm afraid. (Source)Or this paper compares conditions in modern arid Central Australia to those in the Carboniferous Clifton Formation of New Brunswick, Canada. For reference, the Clifton Formation is from the Upper Carboniferous.

quote:

---

Modern Anastomosing-Fluvial Deposits in Arid Central Australia, and a Carboniferous Analogue in New Brunswick, Canada

​

J. D. Collinson,
J. Lewin

​

Brian R. Rust,
Andrew S. Legun

​

Summary

​

Cooper's Creek is an extensive, mud-dominated fluvial system in arid Central Australia, which overlies a relict braided sand sheet. The active channels have a low-density anastomosing pattern, covering up to 3% of the system and accumulating medium sand in alternating side bars. Overbank sedimentation from the anastomosing channels deposits sandy mud, commonly without primary structure due to desiccation cracking and bioturbation. Compared with anastomosing-fluvial deposits of temperate climates, Cooper's Creek sediments have a higher ratio of floodplain mud to channel sand, lower carbonaceous content, and contain deep desiccation cracks, evaporites and duricrusts.

​

Member B of the Carboniferous Clifton Formation on the northern New Brunswick coast resembles Cooper's Creek sediments in many respects. The lower part of the succession is predominantly red mudstone, with carbonaceous layers, stratiform calcrete and calcreted vertical sheets interpreted as deep desiccation cracks. Isolated channel sandstones and associated levee, crevasse-splay or mouth-bar deposits are restricted in vertical and lateral extent. This suggests limited lateral and vertical accretion interrupted by avulsion, an interpretation similar to that deduced for the modern anastomosing channels of Cooper's Creek.

​

The upper part of the Clifton B succession is an extensive sheet sandstone with stacked channel units, dominated by trough cross-strata. It is attributed to braided-fluvial deposition, and is regarded as analogous to the relict braided sand sheet a few metres beneath the active alluvial plain of Cooper's Creek.

---

(Source)The paper talks about river systems running through arid areas. That would actually be a reasonable place to look for fossils of any organisms that dwelt in that area. No Carboniferous dinosaurs, birds or humans though. You're missing the point; when we look at the areas where we do have really good fossil records, we don't see the fauna and flora that ought to be there. You sat that we have plenty of wetland fossils from the Carboniferous; well I agree, we do. But when we look at these areas, certain groups are notable by their absence. There are no birds. That's odd, both because the bible specifically mentions "fowls" as having existed before the Flood and because birds love wetlands. If your P-T idea is correct, we should have lots of Carboniferous bird fossils. Instead we have none. Similarly, snakes are very successful in wetlands. Genesis famously mentions a"serpent", so we should expect to see snakes before the Flood. Yet in the wetland of the Carboniferous, there are no snakes. They don't appear until the Cretaceous. And what about grass? Genesis does mention grass as being amongst the first plants created. Yet in the wetlands of the Carboniferous... What kind of wetlands are these with no grasses?Wetlands are incredibly rich habitats. They positively teem with life of every sort. If organisms like birds and snakes existed before the Flood, and if the Flood is located at the P-T Boundary, then we should be able to find their fossils in the wetlands of the Carboniferous. But we don't. Instead we find mostly extinct organisms that bear little resemblance to the bible's rather naive descriptions. That leaves your P-T Flood idea dead in the water. There's no point in your obsessing over the areas of poor fossilisation when what we know from the good fossil areas completely refutes your claims.Mutate and Survive

Got any evidence that "after that" refers to post-fludde? How did they survive the fludde? If they were on the Ark, they would be a maximum of one pair or four more alleles; far from enough. How many do you think made it through the fludde? I have not been speaking of the HLA region, I've been speaking of specific genes within that region. My sources indicate that HLA-1A and HLA-1B are individual genes. Can you produce any evidence against that specific claim? WTF? What do you think an allele is? Any change in any nucleotide in a gene produces a new allele. A list of how the nucleotides differ is a list of alleles. For example, a quick Google search indicates that BOLA-DRB3 is a gen e with many alleles, e.g. Sequence and PCR-RFLP analysis of 14 novel BoLA-DRB3 alleles and Characterization of 18 new BoLA-DRB3 alleles. Every line of each block on that list is a different allele.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

But what does any of his utter nonsensical rabbit holes have to do with flood geology?When is mindspawn ever going to address anything about how flood geology works?

Well, think about this. Let's take the Appalachians as an example.In the first place, they have obviously been worn down by erosion. Anything that was on the top of them when they were uplifted won't be there any more.In the second place, the standard geological explanation of them is that they were low-lying prior to their uplift. That's what uplift means. The constituent sedimentary rocks of the Appalachians used to be at the bottom of the sea or something, then they were uplifted. They became high ground.In the third place, fossils aren't deposited on high ground. How would that even work? The fossils we have are 99.9% stuff that was deposited in the sea, in a lake, in a subsiding sedimentary basin --- in a place where sediment is deposited. Sediment isn't deposited on the tops of mountains. The tops of mountains are where erosion takes place. You can't do this, it really doesn't work. If "flood geologists" are right, then real geologists are a bunch of fools motivated by ideology and prejudice --- you can't rely on them to tell you anything. They tell you that there were marine transgressions in the Carboniferous? Yeah, but they also tell you that these transgressions never covered the whole of the Earth, that there has never been a global flood, that the Earth is about a million times older than YECs think it is, and that "flood geology" is the most ridiculous bunch of lies they've ever heard. If "flood geology" is right, then you need to remake the whole of geology from the bottom up, you can't rely on real geologists to tell you when and where there were marine transgressions, because they are wrong and wouldn't know a marine transgression if it punched them in the face while shouting: "I'M A MARINE TRANSGRESSION, BITCHES!" Your whole case has to be that you can't rely on geologists to tell you anything, we have to go right back to the rocks and start again. I'm sure someone else is going to turn up and explain to you why this is nonsense, so I'm not going to lecture you on it.What I will point out is that you're talking about things you've never studied. You are talking about these things fluently and authoritatively, only when I read you saying: "The link does not show numerous alleles, this is showing numerous nucleotides at a single locus" then I know that you have no idea what you're talking about. You couldn't have written that sentence if you'd read the first couple of chapters of any textbook on genetics.And you must know that you haven't actually studied genetics. But you still presume to lecture us on this subject with the same calm assurance with which you patronized Percy by telling him that if only he studied the subject more carefully he'd know that the landscape of the Carboniferous Period had no mountains.Now, this issue goes beyond a mere debate about who's right and who's wrong. This is an ethical issue. You are standing up in what is, after all, a public forum, that anyone with internet access can read, and you are blandly assuring everyone that this and that is true about subjects that you know you have never studied. You lecture everyone on the geography of the Carboniferous, which you have never studied, and now you're telling us about genetics when you plainly have never studied it even so far as to know the meaning of the word "allele". And you know that you have never studied these topics with any seriousness. But in public, you behave as though you know all about them --- and you actually chastise Percy for not having studied enough to agree with the stuff that you've made up in your head!As I say, this is an ethical issue. We can all be wrong about stuff, that happens to the best of us. But you are setting yourself up in public as an authority on areas of science that you know perfectly well you've never really studied.I should add that I've only gone on about this at such length because I'm sure that at heart you're a nice guy who intends to do the right thing. But the fact is that in this case you haven't done the right thing. You're lecturing people, in public, on subjects that you haven't spared five minutes to understand. This is a bad thing to do.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Yes floods leave evidence. Layers of sediment. Could you give any evidence that those four studies I linked to, do NOT show flood related sedimentation at the PT boundary. Please read the below link regarding what signs a flood does show, this is pretty consistent with PT boundary layering, although the PT boundary was on a larger scale than Mozambique:
Emuparadise 2022The magnetic field was a lot stronger in those days (Early Earth's Magnetic Field Stronger Than Believed) , and even modern studies show that water vapour densities are higher within the lines of a magnetic field.this study shows a modern elevated water vapour layer:
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/...ons/jc.gettelman.2008.pdf You see that? At about 4-6 km up , in the 500-700 hPa region there is a stronger water vapor layer. If the atmosphere was thicker back then, with a thicker magnetic field , there is a chance that this thick water vapor layer would even be thicker.I havent seen your genetic evidence yet?As for humans and mammals, they do not live in Permian swamps, those swamps were not like todays swamps. A rat or mouse would be completely dominated by mere insects. A water buck wouldnt survive 5 minutes. These were in isolated pockets, much like Komodo dragons. They only dominated when the world suited them , and all their major competition died off.Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

You are getting confused again. It's up to you, as the claimant, to provide evidence for your claim. It's not our job to disprove your claim until after that.But I'll humor you. Fluvial response to foreland basin overfilling; the Late Permian Rangal Coal Measures in the Bowen Basin, Queensland, Australia is about fluvial deposition. Percy has already pointed out that geologists can tell the difference between fluvial and flood deposits.Your turn. Sigh. You've already been chastised about Googling up a few terms without any attempt at understanding. Your reference discusses the magnetic field in the mid-Cretaceous. Not the Permian. Not even close. Reference please, and try to make sure that it's relevant this time. Sigh again. You haven't taken any thermo, have you. Or maybe you just reject it. The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is essentially zero relative to the amount in the oceans. From Where is Earth's water located?: There's a reason for this. Much more water and we'd all be dead. More water in the atmosphere means more pressure and higher temperature at the surface. For this and otehr reasons all variations on a vapor canopy have been dead for many decades. For examp, YECs Vardiman and Bousselot produced Sensitivity Studies on Vapor Canopy Temperature Profiles in which they concluded that if everything were carefully optimized one just might be able to squeeze enough water into the atmosphere to cover a perfectly flat Earth with two meters of water. Certainly not enough to cover the Permian Appalachians! And there's always the significant heat produced by condensing that vapor, and in some scenarios significant heat produced by converting the potential energy of the vapor at altitude to heat when brining it down to the surface. As Homer would say: "Mmmmmmmm! Pressure-cooked people!".{ETA}: You've seen mine, and you've done an exceptionally poor job of responding. "the bible confirms further DNA injections after the flood"… do you really think that the phrase "and also after that" confirms DNA injections after the fludde? And the many more questions you've ducked.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Yes, the traditional interpretation of the church people comes down to us from the previous paradigms of earlier societies unprepared educationally for reading Genesis as an analogy for a flood of Modern man, Out-of-Africa.Recent science theories which actually coined this same term because the analogy is so striking miss ed theological importance of re-visiting Genesis in this age, when our information paradigm supports exactly what the Noah's Ark tale tells us:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Hi minspawn. You seem to be clutching at straws. As has already been noted, it's not my job to show that the Flood layer isn't there, it's your job to show that it is. You have not done this. Further, the P-T boundary has been studied in extreme detail. No worldwide flood has been found.Please bear in mind what we're talking about here; a protracted flood of the entire planet. That would be just about the biggest geological event in history. It ought to be huge. It ought to be obvious. It isn't obvious though. It just isn't there. So you're saying that what we see at the P-T is consistent with what that paper describes in Mozambique? A specific river system overflowing into a floodplain? Are you sure? Because if they are comparable, you've just proved that the P-T was not a global flood. Either "PT boundary layering" looks like a worldwide flood or it looks like a seasonally flooding river system. Which is it?JonF has already done a very good job of responding to this, but I will note one thing; the paper you cite shows that floods in Mozambique left sedimentary deposits full of reeds. Reeds, let us remind ourselves, are grasses. The bible quite clearly describes grasses as being amongst the oldest living things. If your pet theory is true, we should see grasses before the Flood. The wetlands of the Carboniferous would have provided them with ample habitat, but when we look, they're not there. Your theory is wrong. You've got to admit, that was a pretty bad citation.All this stuff about water vapour in the atmosphere is pretty silly as well. Take a good look at the image the JonF provided. Have a think about just how bad an argument this is. No, I've been content to let others school you on that subject. They know more about it than I do, so I'm content to defer to their expertise (see how that works?). How did you determine that exactly? In the Permain, there were plenty of reptiles, so why no snakes?Also, if you are arguing that, for instance, birds, could not have survived in Carboniferous or Permian wetlands, where exactly did they live? They must have lived somewhere, the bible tells us so. So where are they? In the arid areas? That can't be right; living things need water, so any living birds must have lived near water. But when we look at river systems in arid areas during the Carboniferous, the birds aren't there either. So where are they? What kind of birds are these that hate wetlands and only dwell in areas that refuse to leave fossils?Can you show me one of these pockets? Nope. You can't show me them because you only just made them up. Except that they didn't. The species we're talking about didn't simply proliferate after the beginning of the Triassic. The serpents waited until the middle Cretaceous about 140 million years later. the birds pop up in the late Jurassic. The cattle don't appear until the Paleogene and neither do the grasses. Humans don't appear until a meagre 200 thousand years ago. The giants are... rare nowadays. The fossil record doesn't reflect the naive fantasy you are peddling.Mutate and Survive

Lol. Wouldn't some of those birds have to have been ducks and other waterfowl? Hilarious.

Uh, Mindspawn, any floodplain will have evidence of "flood related sedimentation". That's because it's part of the definition of a floodplain.Floodplains exist in all geologic eras. What's notable about those at the P-T boundary is an increased amount of sedimentation thought due to increased erosion from upland regions denuded of vegetation. By the way, these are the same upland regions that wouldn't be there were the world flat at the time.I think you must be confused by the word "flood" that is part of the word "floodplain". Here's the definition of floodplain from Answers.com: While poking around the Internet for a clear explanation of a floodplain I found this one at Middle Fork Willamette Watershed Council: If there had really been a global flood then not only would there be increased sedimentation in floodplains, there would have to be increased sedimentation in all low lying regions. That they've only found increased sedimentation in low-lying regions already cut by rivers (i.e., floodplains) means these were the typical seasonal floods experienced by floodplains and were not global.--Percy

I believe you have shown that a flood of water did not happen,......especially 40,000 years ago.That would have been the moment when all other humanoids disappeared in a mass extinction.
Only the three racial stocks of the present seven genetically different types of humans now roam the earth.This would imply that the "flood" was really a major population explosion of modern man, an Out-of-Africa emmigration, which lasted 40,000 years of "days and nights" is factually what happened.
All other man-types disappeared, and modern man flooded the earth to the tops of the mopuntains.It would also imply that Genesis (out of necessity) had to tell the truth, couched in this metaphor-like flood talk.Because the Ark was really the skull of Modern man, capable of carrying all the names and visions of the animals into the next age of stone:

Absolute pseudoscience rubbish.There was no mass extinction of other hominids. Populations dwindled and competition and absorbtion slowly pushed the remaining several species into extinction in different durations.There are no raciial stocks, as A.W.f. Edwards pointed out.Edwards showed that using 63 physical traits you would classify Eskimos closer to Swedes and French populations than Eskimos are to North American Indians, with North American Indians closer to Swedes, French, and Eskimos than they are to South American Indians. Similar errors were observed with other populations, such as linking Australian aborigines with sub-Saharan Africans. In the same paper published in 1964, he and Cavalli-Sforza showed a tree based on 20 genes did not match the tree based on physical featutres."Race" is a superficial attribute not based on genetics. There are not, not have there ever been "three racial stocks" or "seven (your numerology popping into it again) genetically different types of humans." Very, very wrong.The "out of africa" theory (now doubted by its originator, Chris Stringer) desribes many migrations taking place from 150,000-200,000 years.40,000 years of "days and nights ago"(whatever that is supposed to mean) is not a factually accurate despription of the theory.Neither did modern man "flood to the tops of the mountains" (some reference to a global flood I presume?). Populations were quite dispersed which is why it took tens of thousands of years before other hominids went extinct even after the proposed out of Africa events.

In order for this scale to be correct, the human head would have to be significantly smaller than what it is.Those dimensions do not reflect human anatomy whatsoever.