Guest shiloh357 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The global flood mentioned in Genesis is a far better explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs than a 6-mile wide asteroid/meteorite hitting the earth or a volcano. Maybe for you it is. No, it is THE best explanation. The asteroid or volcano explanation make no sense given that we have species of animals still around that are believed to have been contemporary with the dinosaurs. Given the conditions that are supposed to have resulted from the meteor hit or the volcano, no life at all should have survived. A mass exinction due to the flood is a better explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 23, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2014 The global flood mentioned in Genesis is a far better explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs than a 6-mile wide asteroid/meteorite hitting the earth or a volcano. Maybe for you it is. No, it is THE best explanation. The asteroid or volcano explanation make no sense given that we have species of animals still around that are believed to have been contemporary with the dinosaurs. Given the conditions that are supposed to have resulted from the meteor hit or the volcano, no life at all should have survived. A mass exinction due to the flood is a better explanation. I have to agree with Shiloh here, if you believe the dinosaurs walked with humans then the flood is likely the best explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted January 23, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The global flood mentioned in Genesis is a far better explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs than a 6-mile wide asteroid/meteorite hitting the earth or a volcano. Maybe for you it is. No, it is THE best explanation. The asteroid or volcano explanation make no sense given that we have species of animals still around that are believed to have been contemporary with the dinosaurs. Given the conditions that are supposed to have resulted from the meteor hit or the volcano, no life at all should have survived. A mass exinction due to the flood is a better explanation. Your comment that "no life at all should have survived"makes no sense. Obviously the bigger the asteroid, the greater the extinctions. What happens is the earth gets colder when huge volcanic/asteroid dust clouds reduce the sun's radiation. Reptiles are the most vulnerable to sudden darkness and cold. Obviously the impact wasn't strong enough to kill off all life, mammals are the most adaptable to sudden cold , and so became common after the impact. Could you kindly explain the iridium anomaly found throughout the earth at that time. Iridium is not something that a flood causes, it comes from asteroids/meteorites. http://education.jlab.org/itselemental/ele077.html "A thin, worldwide layer of iridium exists in a layer of sediment that was put down at the end of the Cretaceous period. Since meteors and asteroids contain a higher percentage of iridium than the earth's crust, this iridium enriched layer is seen as evidence that the earth was struck by a large meteor or asteroid at that time. Dust from the impact would have spread around the globe, depositing the iridium. The dust also would have blocked the sun for a time, resulting in the extinction of many plant and animal species, including the dinosaurs." Like I said before, there is actual evidence of worldwide flooding at the PT boundary, and so I prefer to argue for a flood then because scientists themselves confirm the marine transgressions on every continent at that time. The increasing consensus on this issue may soon result in the scientific community itself admitting that the main cause of that great end-Permian mass extinction was actually flooding. http://studentresearch.wcp.muohio.edu/extinctionsradiations/massextinctionsealevel.pdf "Review of sea-level changes during the big five mass extinctions and several lesser extinction events reveals that the majority coincide with large eustatic inflexions. (sea level changes ) The degree of certainty with which these eustatic oscillations are known varies considerably. Thus, the late Ordovician and end Cretaceous extinctions (dinosaur) are associated with unequivocal, major regressions demonstrated from numerous, widespread regions (sea levels dropped when the dinosaurs died). In contrast, the multiple, high frequency sea-level changes reported for the Frasnian–Famennian crisis based on the supposed depth-preferences of conodont taxa have little support from sequence stratigraphic analyses, which reveals the interval to be one of highstand. The end Permian mass extinction has long been related to a severe, first order lowstand of sea level Newell, N.D., 1967. Revolutions in the history of life. Geol. w Soc. Am. Spec. Pap. 89, 63–91. based primarily on the widespread absence of latest Permian ammonoid markers, but field x evidence reveals that the interval coincides with a major transgression" (new information now shows that the end-Permian mass extinction coincides with major sea-level rises) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Could you kindly explain the iridium anomaly found throughout the earth at that time. Iridium is not something that a flood causes, it comes from asteroids/meteorites. I can accept that meteors have hit the earth. I think there is plenty of evidence for that. I don't think there is any evidence that a 5 or 6 mile wide meteor hit the earth and caused massive extinction. That is another assumption that is touted as fact, but is not really a fact. It is an attempt at an explanation, but not one that scientists have ever come even close to proving to be the case. Obviously the impact wasn't strong enough to kill off all life, mammals are the most adaptable to sudden cold , and so became common after the impact. According to scientists, it was an impact 10,000 times stronger than the entire arsenal of all of the nuclear weapons currently in the world. The force of such an impact would have had a devestating effect on all life, including mammals. Even if you could make the case that some animals/mammals could survive that kind of impact the global conditions would make it impossible animals to find food thus any animals that did survive the initial impact would starve to death in a matter of weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARGOSY Posted January 23, 2014 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,695 Content Per Day: 0.45 Reputation: 583 Days Won: 2 Joined: 01/03/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/11/1968 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) Could you kindly explain the iridium anomaly found throughout the earth at that time. Iridium is not something that a flood causes, it comes from asteroids/meteorites. I can accept that meteors have hit the earth. I think there is plenty of evidence for that. I don't think there is any evidence that a 5 or 6 mile wide meteor hit the earth and caused massive extinction. That is another assumption that is touted as fact, but is not really a fact. It is an attempt at an explanation, but not one that scientists have ever come even close to proving to be the case. Obviously the impact wasn't strong enough to kill off all life, mammals are the most adaptable to sudden cold , and so became common after the impact. According to scientists, it was an impact 10,000 times stronger than the entire arsenal of all of the nuclear weapons currently in the world. The force of such an impact would have had a devestating effect on all life, including mammals. Can you tell me where you find that information about "10 000 times"? As far as I know the exact strength of that impact is unknown. I assume you are quoting one particular scientist's exaggerated guesswork, but the facts remain that there was an impact (there is a worldwide iridium layer) and many species did survive that impact. The iridium layer occurs at the same time as the dinosaur extinctions, it is related to the sudden change in dominant fauna/flora found in the fossil record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event "In the geologic record, the K–Pg event is marked by a thin layer of sediment called the K–Pg boundary, which can be found throughout the world in marine and terrestrial rocks. The boundary clay shows high levels of the metal iridium, which is rare in the Earth's crust but abundant in asteroids. It is generally believed that the K–Pg extinction was triggered by a massive comet/asteroid impact and its catastrophic effects on the global environment, including a lingering impact winter that made it impossible for plants and plankton to carry out photosynthesis.[4] The impact hypothesis was bolstered by the discovery of the 180-kilometre-wide (112 mi) Chicxulub crater in the Gulf of Mexico in the late 1970s,[5] which provided conclusive evidence that the K–Pg boundary clay represented debris from an asteroid impact.[6] The fact that the extinctions occurred at the same time as the impact provides strong situational evidence that the K–Pg extinction was caused by the asteroid.[6] However, some scientists maintain the extinction was caused or exacerbated by other factors, such as volcanic eruptions,[7] climate change, and/or sea level change." Edited January 23, 2014 by ARGOSY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spock Posted January 23, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 29 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,239 Content Per Day: 0.86 Reputation: 1,686 Days Won: 6 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2014 The global flood mentioned in Genesis is a far better explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs than a 6-mile wide asteroid/meteorite hitting the earth or a volcano. Maybe for you it is. No, it is THE best explanation. The asteroid or volcano explanation make no sense given that we have species of animals still around that are believed to have been contemporary with the dinosaurs. Given the conditions that are supposed to have resulted from the meteor hit or the volcano, no life at all should have survived. A mass exinction due to the flood is a better explanation. I have to agree with Shiloh here, if you believe the dinosaurs walked with humans then the flood is likely the best explanation. I don't believe they did walk with humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted January 23, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The global flood mentioned in Genesis is a far better explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs than a 6-mile wide asteroid/meteorite hitting the earth or a volcano. Maybe for you it is. No, it is THE best explanation. The asteroid or volcano explanation make no sense given that we have species of animals still around that are believed to have been contemporary with the dinosaurs. Given the conditions that are supposed to have resulted from the meteor hit or the volcano, no life at all should have survived. A mass exinction due to the flood is a better explanation. I have to agree with Shiloh here, if you believe the dinosaurs walked with humans then the flood is likely the best explanation. I don't believe they did walk with humans. Based on.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 23, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2014 Based on nobody was there to see them together, so for anyone to claim they did is pure unsupported speculation. Please provide scienctific proof they did or the default position has to be they did not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Based on nobody was there to see them together, so for anyone to claim they did is pure unsupported speculation. Please provide scienctific proof they did or the default position has to be they did not But if "no science works in proof" as you stated in your last post in the Radiometric dating thread, why are you erecting a standard requring "scientific proof" in this thread? Why is there one standard of proof for evolutionist/OEC claims and a different standard for a creationist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted January 23, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted January 23, 2014 I am not erecting that standard, I was merely using the standard of the one I was replying to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts