Summations Only

This depends on how you interpret the bible. Some people like to add stuff to the bible. I prefer not to.When the bible says that that all the animals were gathered, it does not say that Noah pre-cleansed the Ark. ie there could have been the types of insects and small rodents that currently are found as pests on ships, that added to their core numbers.All terrestrial animals were killed off, not marine. This leaves open the chance that amphibuous animals adapted rapidly to terrestrial life after the flood given the ecological gaps on the land. For example if everything was wiped off land today, there could be a population explosion of marine turtles rapidly adapting to land conditions. And marine crocodiles feeding off them, and becoming the dominant land predators. And adapting accordingly.That is why I like to restrict arguments of this kind to only large terrestrial mammals. Sure, show me how DNA analysis refutes 4500 years of mutations since 14 common ancestors in any ONE large mammal. Please.

Everywhere we look at the PT boundary we find either definite signs of flooding, or geological formations that could easily be flooding. Widespread clastic rocks and fluvial formations followed by marine transgressions is exactly what we would expect from global warming through volcanism and subsequent rainfalls and melting icecaps. And also exactly what we would expect from a bible story describing the deep bursting forth (Siberian traps) followed by 40 days of terrestrial flooding, and sea levels rising.this is completely different to other geological times when there are no such extremes. Lol, its extremely frustrating to debate with the other floodist models. I enjoyed this question, the difference is that geological evidence is increasingly defining a major transgression at the PT boundary. Everywhere you look, points to flooding. There are alternative explanations, yet still each place on earth can be argued strongly, not weakly, for flood geology.In addition :
1) Scientific consensus this is the major die off event in history, so we have a good match between the great die off of the bible, and the one recorded in geology.
2) The post-flood conditions matching the Triassic has some strength to it as well. (silted landscape dominated by arguably amphibuous reptiles)
3) the fountains of the great deep bursting forth is a good match with the Siberian Traps, the greatest volcanic event in history.
4) the melting ice caps/ glaciation provides a logical source of water for the flooding
5) Geology shows the Permian to have a flat landscape, mountain building events mainly occurred later.
6) Volcanic activity can be a major source of torrential rainfalls (planet-wide seeding of the air, large hot air uplifts)
7) there was a magnetic reversal at the PT boundary, which is a huge source of carbon seeding for rainfall (lack of magnetic field creates carbon)
8) Nearly every continent shows a change in sedimentation from underfill to overfill during the boundary (a sudden change in sedimentation patterns). This is something I haven't touched on in this thread.
9) Scientists are still debating what caused the great die-off. They all agree it was initiated by the Siberian Traps, but various theories abound. Only now is the transgression being mentioned in that context. (Not yet a proposed theory, but it is mentioned). I believe a flood is a good explanation for this die-off.As opposed to the k-t boundary, which is clearly an impact event, the iridium layer confirms it. There are some signs of flooding, but not nearly as universal as the PT boundary. This was followed by an ice age (receding sea levels - glaciation).So my choice of a flood at the PT boundary is not arbitrary at all.

Just land-based creatures were destroyed. Reptiles that are mainly marine, like turtles and Australian sea crocodiles, could adapt to land if there was no ecological competetion. The same applied to amphibuous reptiles from the Permian. they could become terrestrial reptiles of the Triassic. also mice and rats are known to infest ships in large numbers. That is why i prefer to restrict the debate to large mammals.bluegenes and I are having a debate just how old humans are from a genetic perspective. Because of this thread, and that one, I haven't got time to discuss how old humans are from a carbon dating perspective.But so far all objections to the human bottleneck relate specifically to mutation rates and carbon dating. I am still under discussion with those two points. To me the recent mtDNA Eve, followed by a recent Y-DNA Adam points to the bible story.

So, in your compressed dating view, the PT boundary is 4,500 ya, and the KT event about 1,200 ya. Is that about right?If not, and presumably the answer's no, then when did the KT event happen? And, as they are telling the flood story, why didn't anyone notice it?

Translation: You are getting your butt kicked on something like a daily basis because you cannot keep your delusions separate from your reading of a few article pages. I'm not sure why you need to bother. After all, nobody is saying that there is no genetic bottleneck in humans; only that the last one of any significance happened on the order of 100,000 years ago. If bluegenes manages to convince you of that, aren't you simply going to 'regard' that to be pre-flood?What's my point? The goal of this thread is not to convince you, but simply to pin you down to silly positions so that we can post hilarious summaries at the end. Your current objections to cabon dating are excellent examples of that kind of success.Added by Edit:For a preview of what you are up against when you make ridiculous and arbitrary claims like modern science cannot detect bottlenecks further in the past than 200 years. I recommend looking at the wikipedia article on population bottlenecks. The article describes a number of animals for which DNA analysis can determine that the last significant bottleneck was > 40,000 years ago. Each of the references could be the basis of yet another thread like the one you and bluegenes are having.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You have been studiously ducking that thread for a month or more.Just because you are dragging your feet on presenting your "evidence" on that thread doesn't mean you can assume that your viewpoint is correct--as it goes against all of established science. Until you can present evidence that established dating science is wrong, your delusions will remain as just that--delusions.That's the nature of evidence, and science.

You have equivocated, dodged and weaved, and presented endless "what-ifs," along with numerous links to articles that contradict your claims.

This mischaracterizes what's been said. I said it isn't impossible that the Earth has been entirely covered by water at some point in its history. Catholic Scientist said it's impossible while human beings lived. Granny Magda said your whole scenario is impossible, which includes human beings and a global flood at the K-T boundary where no humans, indeed even few mammals, are found. I think people can be forgiven for using the term impossible to apply to incredibly unlikely scenarios. You have no evidence supporting your position, and much evidence against it. No, logically it doesn't mean that. If the highest terrestrial points had been flooded then obviously the lowest would have been flooded, too. The evidence we have says that rivers and lakes at the K-T boundary occasionally flooded just like rivers and lakes today.A global flood would be entirely different in character than local floods. Only the lowest regions near rivers and lakes would resemble local floods because they would be flooded first and would be characterized by sediment laden water cascading into them. The rest of the world would be flooded by water rising upward rather than cascading downward, and land covered by such a flood would have a completely different appearance.

While I have many issues with a lot of your conclusions, there is one in your response to Dr. Adequate that I have a question about: I know that you believe that the Earth was more flat, but there were mountains, correct? At least, actual geology tells us there were mountains in the Permian....Maybe not quite as tall, just to go along with your reasoning for a bit?Well, let's see, first we have the statement in the Bible of: SourceSo, now you are using the Ice caps as the source of all the flood waters, correct? Trying to remain logical. Well, what would be the effect of the ice caps melting. First, the northern Ice Caps would not cause a rise in sea level because they are already displacing water by being partially submerged. Next, there is Greenland, which would raise sea levels approximately 20 feet. Not exactly mountain covering yet. Finally, if the entire Antarctic Ice Cap were to melt, it would raise ocean levels by about 200 feet. So, all in all the melting of the Ice Caps would raise the level of the oceans 220 ft. SourceIs it enough, well...let's look at the definition of a mountain, which according to the Bible must be completely covered, with an extra 15 cubits of water to spare. How tall must a mountain be to be called a mountain.....at least 1000 feet, or 780 feet taller than the amount of water that can be released by the ice caps..soooooo, no it is not a logical source for the water unless you make the Earth nearly flat everywhere. SourceI have been hiking in mountainous, flat, hilly, pretty much all terrains you can think of. There is an enormous difference between hiking in hilly/flat terrain and hiking in the mountains. The Bible specifically states mountains, which removes the possibility of the Ice Caps being your source, because there is not enough water.Also, I noticed in your response to me you had nothing to say to the growing times I posted for sea beans and other plants. What were the grazing animals eating while they waited the well over two weeks for these plants to grow? This is why the predators would have killed off the grazers, they would have been slow from the slow starvation they suffered through waiting for plants to regrow after the flood.As per your comment on the population bottlenecks, I will have to choose to trust the scientists who publish their research and show their calculations, rather than on an armchair scientist with a bias toward proving the Bible right. After all, they have studied the actual material in depth and could actually give an explanation if asked for it, not simply what if scenarios.Let me ask you this, if you are sick, do you go to a doctor or a mechanic? If you want to purchase a house, do you go to a realtor or a baker? If you want a football player, do you sign Joe Namath or Jim Abbott? What I am trying to get across is that there is specialization across every field now. Should you try and understand it, sure! But when those in the field are telling you something, understand that they do have far better knowledge of the topic at hand than you or I do and use that knowledge to increase your own...after all, it comes from the most trained in the field source.

No it does not.That is a misunderstanding on your part.Going straight to your "evidence";

quote:

---

"The two cycles accord with the sequence in the Meishan area, i.e., the Changxingian transgression after Longtanian uplift, followed successively by a late Changxingian regression, the end-Permian-earliest Triassic transgression, and the late Early Triassic regression[29]. Comparison with similar sequences over the whole Yangtze Platform[30] shows that the sequence stratigraphy at Chahe is correlative with that in the whole of South China"

---

This isn't saying what you seem to think it's saying. All that says is that a transgression was taking place at the time and that the Chahe section backs up the geology observed in the rest of South China. It is not saying that the transgression amounted to a marine incursion at the Chahe section.This a result of you reading papers that are beyond your pay-grade and cherry-picking anything you think sounds like a flood. In point of fact, every single geologist you've cited describes this as being a terrestrial feature. No matter how much you squirm and obfuscate, that represents a falsification of your scenario, which demands a marine layer. Well there is no marine layer. No. that can't be true. The fossils in the clays are entirely terrestrial. They are all of ferns, seedferns and suchlike; terrestrial plants. There is no marine material present. It cannot possibly be marine, thus it cannot possibly be the Flood.This is game over for your PT Flood, whether you have the decency to admit it or not. Completely wrong. Your own source says so;

quote:

---

"In the P-T transitional beds (Beds 56―80), the change from meandering fluvial at the top of Xuanwei Fm. to lacustrine in the lowest Kayitou Fm. reflects a deepening and transgressive process "

---

This describes the top of the Xuanwei as "meandering fluvial". That means rivers. The reason they describe it as reflecting a transgression is because when water levels rise, they rise across the board; marine levels and terrestrial levels. That does not mean that the sea covered this area. In fact, they clearly describe the opposite; rivers.Can you describe to me what an undersea river looks like? Rubbish. You fail to understand what you cite.A transgression either covers a section of land or it does not. If a geological section is marine, it means that it was covered by the sea. If a geological section is terrestrial, it means that it was NOT covered by the sea. Very simple.The Xuanwei formation was not covered by the sea. the Chahe section was not covered by the sea. We can tell this from the fact that every single layer is terrestrial. You posted piffle, so yes, I do deny it.The transgression did not cover the entire Yangtze Platform. It did not cover the Chahe section. We know this because every single bit of the Chahe section is terrestrial. We are in agreement about one thing then; a layer of terrestrial plants, minus any marine material is a terrestrial layer.The only reason for this apparent contradiction is that you have misunderstood the papers you cite; the transgression never caused the sea to rise sufficiently high to flood the Xuanwei. That is a reading error on your part. Obviously. But you don't have any actual evidence that it was ever a vast layer. that is only a personal and unevideced piece of speculation on your aprt.Has this formation been eroded? Yes, of course it has, all exposed formations suffer erosion. Does that mean that it covered the whole Yangtze platform? No. This is what psychologists refer to as "projection". Yes.Whilst a do not deny that a transgression took place, I do deny your erroneous interpretation of that fact. I deny that the transgression covered as large an area as you think it did. I deny that it represents a worldwide flood. I specifically deny that it inundated the Xuanwei formation, as evidenced by the fact that the Xuanwei contains no marine material.I deny your version, but your version is not the one that the experts are describing. There is no marine incursion in the Xuanwei. The claystones you are basing your case on were not formed in marine conditions. Yes. It is hard to understand the level of idiotic doublethink necessary to come to the conclusion that a terrestrial deposit represents a marine incursion. But to be honest, I'm not sure I want to be crazy enough to understand that. I could not give a rat's ass about your opinions, only your evidence. The fact remains that every piece of evidence you cite disproves your case. If you must misrepresent my position, you might not want to make it so obvious. I have never claimed any "mega-lake", that is your concoction, based on your own lack of understanding regarding lacustrine deposition. These deposits span millions of years. A lake is not static over that time-scale, it is mobile. They drift due to uplift and other forces. The rivers meander (exactly as one of your quotes describes)There is no mega-lake, only a series of meandering freshwater deposits. No mega lake, no mega layer, only a succession of smaller discrete layers, exactly as we see in the Chahe section; if we took our sample from any other Xuanwei section it would not be identical to the Chahe sample. Why not? Because these are not the vast deposits that you want to portray them as. The Xuanwei falsifies your "flooding". It does not display a marine flood layer. That's why we are taking it as an example, because it is an example which falsifies your position. Try to keep up. No they don't. The facts say different.How else do you explain the lack of any marine material?A marine flood cannot leave a freshwater deposit. Your version is not that of geologists. Your case is not resting. It is dead. It's bleedin' deceased. Stop flogging a dead parrot.Mutate and Survive

Hi Admin, Oh no, he's waaaaay crazier that that. He thinks the Flood is at the Permian/Triassic Boundary, some 250 million years ago, when there were absolutely no mammals at all. By comparison, a KT Flood seems almost sane.Mutate and Survive

Really? How major? I bet. But doesn't that tell you something? If you can't convince even your fellow-Floodists, how good are your arguments? Yes, but my evil twin would like you to do a little better than that. Specifically, he wants you to show that there's some location at the KT boundary that he can't interpret as signs of a global Flood. Your call. "Clearly"? No. It's an impact event according to the atheistic uniformitarianismistic dogmas of those God-hating so-called "geologists". My evil twin, on the other hand, interprets it as a sign of the Flood.Again, you're trying to have your cake and eat it. You think that geologists are completely right when they say that there was an impact at the KT boundary, but as wrong as wrong can be when they tell you how much land was land at the PT boundary. If you can ignore the geologists when they tell you what you don't want to hear, then so can a KT-Floodist.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

And yet you do:

quote:

---

... there could have been the types of insects and small rodents that currently are found as pests on ships, that added to their core numbers.

---

Speculating that there coulda/woulda/shoulda been something that is not mentioned in the Bible is adding to the Bible. Your thinking about the Bible seems to be as topsy-turvy as your thinking about science. What that is is an indication that the authors of the Flood story didn't know what would happen in a flood like the one they describe. That... has... been... done.Humans.Your only response has been, "Nuh uh."

I believe decay rates fluctuate, I will introduce a thread on this when this flood geology debate dies down.I haven't looked into this in detail, but I would place this event during the fall of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, which I place around the end of Holocene Climate optimum, occurring at the same time as the sudden ice age of Siberia.http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
Even the burial in ice of the prehistoric mummified corpse of the famous 'Iceman' (e.g., Bahn and Everett, 1993) at the upper edge of an alpine glacier coincided with the initiation of a cold period ('Neoglaciation') after the Holocene climate optimum (Baroni and Orombelli, 1996).Extraterrestrial Impact Likely Source of Sudden Ice Age Extinctions | News from Brown
"What killed the wooly mammoths? An international team of scientists, including Peter Schultz of Brown University, suggests that a comet or meteorite exploded over the planet roughly 12,900 years ago, causing the abrupt climate changes that led to the extinction of the wooly mammoth and other giant prehistoric beasts."You will notice the fascination of many of the earliest cultures with the Pleiades Star formation. The swastika is an ancient representation of extraterrestrial impact. Such fascination of early culture with extraterrestrial impact events can arguably be found across the world.
sumeria:
Decoded: 'The clay tablet that tells how an asteroid destroyed Sodom 5,000 years ago' | Daily Mail OnlineInca:
http://istina.rin.ru/cgi-bin/eng/print.pl?sait=1&id=328

Why is it that you continue to avoid addressing the topic which is "Which animals would populate the earth if the ark was real?"If the ark were real then what we MUST see today is a population of animals that all show the signature of a bottleneck event that happened 4500 years ago.It really is that simply. None of your fantasies, beliefs, imaginations, misrepresentation, nonsense and absolute bullshit are relevant or of any worth.What we see refutes the possibility of any of the ark stories being true.from Message 3 of thread No genetic bottleneck proves no global flood

quote:

---

IIRC I first presented that idea back in 2005 or 2006 and the beauty of it is that it begins by assuming only what the Bible stories say is true and asks, "If true, what must we see?"

​

If someone claims that they shot and hit the target, then we must see a hole in the target. If we look at the target and there is no hole, then the claim that the target was hit is falsified.

​

The test is also independent of when the flood happened; it does not matter if it was yesterday, 4300 years ago or 200,000 years ago.

​

Regardless of when the flood happened the genetic bottleneck would have been at the same time for every surviving species. The population would have been reduced to at best 14 critters of a kind and at worst 4 critters of a kind.

​

But wait, there is more...

​

one possible way around it has been to invoke some super genome, that the pre-flood genome was somehow different and so allowed for greater variation.

​

Well, there are two major problems there.

​

First, even if there was some super genome if the Biblical flood stories were true there would still only be at best 14 copies of it to work with and that is still a bottleneck.

​

Second, we have genetic evidence from humans that date to before the 4300 years ago date, from as far back as 30,000 years ago and as far back as 14,000 years ago in the Americas and there is no sign of any super-genome.

​

I think these two lines of reasoning are pretty solid.

​

Here is the detailed description of the first argument (the genetic bottleneck).

​

quote:

---

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 6 God instructs Noah to:

​

quote:

---

19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

---

​

In the version of the myth found in Genesis 7 we see similar (close but not the same) instructions:

​

quote:

---

2 Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate, 3 and also seven of every kind of bird, male and female, to keep their various kinds alive throughout the earth.

---

​

We also find similar explanations of what will be destroyed in Genesis 6 it says:

​

quote:

---

7 So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earthmen and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the airfor I am grieved that I have made them."

---

​

and in Genesis 7:

​

quote:

---

4 Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living creature I have made."

---

​

In both myths lots of critters get killed, in the myth found in Genesis 6 it seems to be talking about land animals and birds while the myth found in Genesis 7 goes even further and wipes out all living things.

​

If we play mix and match and take the best scenario from each of the myths we might be able to claim that only the birds and land animals were wiped out based on the passage from the Genesis 6 story and that we have the larger saved population found in Genesis 7.

​

Based on that mix and match game set we have a situation where all land animals and birds found today will be descended from a population that consisted of at most fourteen critters (seven pairs of clean animals and birds) and at worst case four critters (two pair of unclean animals).

​

Now that is what I would call a real bottleneck.

​

We know we can see bottlenecks in the genetic record; a great example is the one in Cheetahs but we even see them in the human genome and most other species.

​

BUT...

​

If the flood actually happened we would see a bottleneck in EVERY species of animal living on the land and EVERY bird and EVERY one of the bottlenecks show up in the SAME historical time period.

​

Talk about a big RED flag.

​

That bottleneck signature would be something every geneticists in the world would see. It would be like a neon sign, Broadway at midnight on New Years Eve. It would be something even a blind geneticist could see.

​

So it seems to me to be a very simple test that will support or refute the Flood.

​

If that genetic marker is there in EVERY species living on land or bird of the air, then there is support for the flood. It does not prove the flood happened but it would be very strong support.

​

If on the other hand that genetic marker is NOT there, then the Flood is refuted.

---

---