Skip to comments.The Permian Extinction: Good Science, Bad Assumptions
Posted on 03/21/2009 1:02:49 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
The Permian Extinction: Good Science, Bad Assumptions
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Ninety percent of marine and 70 percent of terrestrial creatures perished suddenly in an event variously called the Permian extinction, the PermianTriassic (P-Tr) extinction, or the Great Dying. The calamitys cause, referred to as the K-T event, remains unknown, even though asteroid impact has been in vogue.
At least, this is the account that has been repeated for several decades. Now, a recently-published study is showing that evidence of the Permian extinction is not limited to a single rock stratum.1 The whole story must be rewritten...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
“Flood” is comprised of total and water but, in turn “total” is comprised of eight, united and earth.
And, remember, these ancient pictographs were developed BEFORE moses transcribed Genesis!
Yes, I think I vaguely recall a Dr. Humphreys.
Peter’s comment about “by those means” I wanted to call your attention to. “by those means”? What means? The water that the earth had above the expanse and those beneath the expanse, the “flood gates of the heavens and the springs of the watery deep” of Gen. 7:11.
If poetical expression is preferred see Job 38:9, wherein Job gets an attitude adjustment as God explains He put a ‘cloud around the earth like a swaddling blanket’ as He recounts Gen.1:6,7.
Please note that Peter is not suggesting the earth is composed of water but rather that earth stood both out of the water and in the water as the next verse shows.
Who said those two rivers were not affected? Not the Bible. Not me nor anyone else that I know of. By the description in Genesis the topology of the land was greatly changed.
Being called by the same name BEFORE and AFTER the flood is hardly surprising as we called rivers that have changed dramatically by their best known name.
The Mississippi has changed its course over the years. But we still refer to it by the same name although the river of today is far different than pre-Columbus.
Apparently you did not read the account in Genesis any too closely, right?
Wrong. I’ve read it many times.
You want it both ways. You want the earth’s surface to be dramatically changed by a flood five miles deep, but you want two rivers to be recognizable afterward.
I have a hunch you want the Grand Canyon to be caused by the Flood instead of the accepted scientific explanation, right?
You didn't read his post correctly.
For example, I've gone fossil hunting in a town near London, on the Thames river.
I’d be more convinced if you went fossil hunting on the Tigris near Baghdad, Alberta.
Thanks for the ping!
I said nothing about a five mile deep flood, that's your assertion, not mine. And dramatic change does not mean something would be unrecognizable OR that perhaps one place might not be changed as much as another OR that the same name would be given to a newly formed river in the same general area.
Who knows on what basis the Tigris and Euphrates were called such after the Deluge? They were and the Bible is silent on the how and why. Probably because it really is of no importance.
Grand Canyon? I have no certain idea what made it, evidently a variety of processes were involved. “the accepted scientific explanation,” is as much a guess as an explanation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.