Summations Only

I couldn't quite make out too many of the letters or I might have tried entering them manually into a translator, though that would probably have been very tedious.--Percy

Hmm... Would say simply, translate into English inscriptions and signatures please. I thought you ask about this picture that I think about it.I have translated the inscription (see my post with columns). There's 12 columns, inscriptions in order: Western Europe, Moscow, Ulyanovsk (Russia), the Donets Basin, the North Caucasus, Northern Urals, Magnitogorsk (Russia), the Kuznetsk basin (Russia), Texas, Australia (New England), Algeria , Libya. Signature from the first four columns (it applies to the other): Summary stratigraphic section. Symbols see Fig. 8.1 (if necessary, I bring a picture with symbols).

Donets depression depth of about 20 km. It was formed as a result of the subsidence of the basement in the Carboniferous period. In the Permian a subsidence over, began uplift. But amid the general subsidence in the Carboniferous sedimentary rocks are reconstructed by many small uplifts, leading to a change in environments and accumulation of peat instead of limestone. Here's an illustration.
About these often uplifts a small amplitude I say in this thread.
Instead of high-amplitude uplifts, which began in the Permian.

You could maybe give me references, preferably references that aren't written in a language I can't speak?

Argon is an inert gas in the rock it is formed by the radioactive decay of K-40. How did he get into the lava? The article suggests that this relic of Gondwana, but how did they get into the modern Mid-Atlantic Ridge?
Do not know how in the U.S., Russia Client for absolute age determination in the application must indicate the presumptive relative age. This makes it possible to choose from a series of analyzes of the analyzes, which gave the expected result. Concordia probably composed in the same way - unwanted results discarded.

But this is not a reference, this is the picture seemed to me everything is clear.
Written at the top the level of the sea and the time, on the left the thickness of the rocks.

Yes, that would kind of be what I was complaining about. Possibly ... in Russian.How many times do we have to explain this to you? Instead of debating people who speak Russian, you have chosen to debate people who speak English. That's fair enough. But in order to do so, you need to present evidence in English rather than in Russian. If this is too difficult for you, go and find a Russian forum on the same topic, and talk to them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

If you don't understand excess argon, you can't understand that paper. Excess argon is a somewhat rare but well-known phenomenon of magma retaining argon that was in the rock that melted to form the magma. It works because of the great pressure at which magma forms. There usually isn't excess argon in lava that solidified slowly in air, because the argon escapes from the liquid fairly quickly. But in "pillow lava" and the like, which solidify quickly, "freeze" the excess argon in place before it can escape. This causes K-Ar dating to read too high, sometimes way too high. The same thing applies to rock that solidifies way underground. The Ar-Ar method can often produce a valid date and is always usable where K-Ar dating is, but the paper claimed that rocks of this type often produce poor plateaus, which I'm not going to explain now, and I didn't bother to check their reference so I'll buy that.{ABE}Of course, the argon got into the lava by the decay of potasssium-40 in the lave{/ABE}If you are interested in understanding radiometric dating, I can provide some good resources.But this thread isn't a class in how radiometric dating works. You can question radiometric dating but, as has now been pointed out three times, pointing to a few individual anomalous results that you obviously don't understand isn't an effective or even relevant argument. OK so far That's what we call an "unsupported assertion". Got any evidence for your claims of faking results and fraud on the part of all geochronlogists? That's quite a serious allegation.Edited by JonF, : Add afterthought

Sorry, it was my unfortunate attempt to participate in the English-speaking forum.But that paper is about holocrystalline plagioclase, amphibole, pyroxene, not about a pillow lava (chapter 5).

I'm sorry to see that you do not have any support for your claims that "This makes it possible to choose from a series of analyzes of the analyzes, which gave the expected result. Concordia probably composed in the same way - unwanted results discarded." Do you intend to retract those claims?Yes, I knew the paper was not about pillow lava. I just mentioned pillow lava as an example of a rock that often has excess argon.But I also pointed out that excess argon was a distinct possibility in the sampled rocks, and their arguments why it was not there are not very convincing.Even if it is an unexplained wrong result (I don't think it is, but there's room for disagreement), for the fourth time it's not significant evidence against the validity of radiometric dating. There is a vast number of radiometric dates that form a coherent and concordant (meaning "in agreement") whole. There will always be some outliers, dates that don't agree with the vast majority and may or may not be explainable. But there's no question that the Earth is old and the vast majority of radiometric dates are correct within error limits.If you want to seriously question radiometric dating on this board, Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 is the place to do it. This thread should be reserved for flood geology, which you have discussed and is still worth discussing.

I have not accuse of fraud, I said that the unwanted results are discarded. If, for example, you say that "fixists" (and there are many among modern scholars) discards their unwanted evidence, it's not mean that you are accusing them of fraud.
As proof of my words I can bring a post of respected geologist, Ph.D., co-leader of the project of UNESCO IGCP-514 during 2009-2010 Alexander Lalomov.
original post in Russian
machine translation

The word "fixist" is an obsolete term for a geologist who opposes continental drift --- obsolete because such people don't exist any more. Hence there are not "many" fixists "among modern scholars".As has been pointed out to you, this is not the right thread for you to be wrong about radiometric dating. Could we hear a little something about flood geology, please?

Discarding results without objective reasons is fraud. Not very convincing. especially the one numbered 2. Hearsay evidence from someone who identifies himself as a creationist (that is, you didn't mention an important fact, that he has a hidden agenda; did you know that?). I see from the RUSSIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR IGCP: ANNUAL REPORT ON IGCP-RELATED ACTIVITIES 2010 that he was inded co-leader of the named project; so what? Doesn't look like a particularly relevant qualification. He is certainly not an unbiased source, and I don't see any reason to label him particularly "respected". Respected by whom?

Dr Adequate, I see the standard creationist flood model has been discussed in this thread, I don't agree with the standard model. Being a bible fundamentalist I believe there was a period of fossilization before the flood, and after the flood, and therefore do not ascribe the entire fossil record to the flood.I believe the flood incorporated most of the Permian up until the Permian-Triassic boundary, Triassic and afterwards is post-flood. I do believe fossils are layered according to proliferation, during periods that life was suitable to arthropods they proliferated. Next came amphibians. Then reptiles. Then mammals. Just because a certain type proliferated doesn't mean the others weren't there, they just were not common. a good example is Komodo dragons of today they are there, but if the whole earth was covered in sediment in a few thousand years, would we even find their fossils?

Am I correct in concluding from this that you believe the last layers of the Permian represent the flood? What is it about these layers that say "global flood" to you?--Percy