Did we re-evolve after the comet that killed all the dinosaurs?

[Mr Jack]

A much more reasonable and logical explanation for most strata is liquefaction.

See this is classic Creationism. Look! It produces something that vaguely approximates layering! It must be the explanation!

Except it isn't. Because it completely fails to explain almost every feature of real sedimentary layers. It can't explain the differences between desert sandstones, and water-deposited sandstones, or mudstones; it can't explain surface features, or the pattern of the fossil record; it can't explain unconformitites, it can't explain sills and dykes. It can't explain the formation of metamorphic rocks, nor why they differ. Even the simple existence of the KT boundary demonstrates it's falsity.

And that's the really tragic thing about all Creationist explanations, and the real reason that science has no time for them: how utterly incapable they are of even explaining the observable facts yet alone making anything resembling a prediction.

Over in another thread you asked "Can questions like these only be discussed by scholars?", and this is the reason why it matters. If you'd actually studied the science and observations behind this to even a fairly basic level you'd have the knowledge to realise that the link you posted fails miserable to do what it purports to do and is packed full of factual inaccuracies and misunderstandings to boot.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Except it isn't. Because it completely fails to explain almost every feature of real sedimentary layers. It can't explain the differences between desert sandstones, and water-deposited sandstones, or mudstones; it can't explain surface features, or the pattern of the fossil record; it can't explain unconformitites, it can't explain sills and dykes. It can't explain the formation of metamorphic rocks, nor why they differ. Even the simple existence of the KT boundary demonstrates it's falsity.

Uh apparently you didn't read it.

And sorry... but Dr. Walt Brown's evaluation carries a bit more weight than your opinion. No offense.

 

[Granite]

Uh apparently you didn't read it.

And sorry... but Dr. Walt Brown's evaluation carries a bit more weight than your opinion. No offense.

Knight, even other creationists dispute Brown's findings and "research." I wouldn't put much stock into his evaluation or his pet hydroplate theory.

 

[Mr Jack]

Uh apparently you didn't read it.

I did read it.

And, unlike you, I know enough about geology, and physics, to spot the blatant holes in it all. Although I can't claim to be an expert on either.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I did read it.

And, unlike you, I know enough about geology, and physics, to spot the blatant holes in it all. Although I can't claim to be an expert on either.

So a self admitted non-expert knows more than Dr. Walt Brown.

Makes sense to me. :noid:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, even other creationists dispute Brown's findings and "research." I wouldn't put much stock into his evaluation or his pet hydroplate theory.

That's true.

Walt Brown rejects unscientific theories such as the canopy theory. It's no wonder other creationists aren't sure what to think of him. Yet his work is gaining traction. I believe his theories will eventually replace all the other creationist theories.

I have never met one person that hasn't been extremely impressed when they actually read the entire book "In the Beginning".

 

[koban]

So a self admitted non-expert knows more than Dr. Walt Brown.

Makes sense to me. :noid:

What is Brown's doctorate in? Is it geology? Physics?

 

[laughsoutloud]

That's true.

Walt Brown rejects unscientific theories such as the canopy theory. It's no wonder other creationists aren't sure what to think of him. Yet his work is gaining traction. I believe his theories will eventually replace all the other creationist theories.

I have never met one person that hasn't been extremely impressed when they actually read the entire book "In the Beginning".

Except Mr. Jack- he just said that he read it and was not impressed.

I couldn't make it all the way through. It is patently ridiculous. I did try though - read many, many chapters... just couldn't do it all - found it boring after a while.

Consider the "lensing" effects that are supposed to account for the stratification of animals killed in the flood. Smart lensing, I suppose it should be called, since it never sorts animals by size (so little dinosaurs don't end up with little rabbits), and knows to keep people far away from marsupial cats.

This isn't science, it is apologetics, plain and simple. It is like a cargo cult, with all the trappings of science, but no understanding of what it means. Cobbling together an explanation for how things "must have" happened, if Genesis 1 and the Flood were historical events is not science, and no amount of rationalization and patient piecing together elaborate scenarios will make it so.

 

[SUTG]

What is Brown's doctorate in? Is it geology? Physics?

Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

[koban]

Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So he's a non-expert when it comes to geology? Just like Mr Jack?

 

[SUTG]

So he's a non-expert when it comes to geology? Just like Mr Jack?

Let me put it this way. If I had a question about geology, I'd send an email to Mr. Jack before I'd send and email to Walt Brown.

 

[griffinsavard]

Man and dinosaurs....

What Happened To The Dinosaurs?
Author: John Whitmore
Although the monstrous creature was obviously a vegetarian, its size was overwhelming. Its hips could withstand the enormous force of each pounding step and its midsection was a mass of muscle. Its gigantic tail extended far behind him, not unlike a giant cedar tree swaying behind his body. Its bones were like steel girders with ribs like iron bars to support his enormous weight. This is the greatest creature to roam the swamps and rivers of the earth.

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. Is this a scene from the blockbuster movie, Jurassic Park? It could be, but it isn't. This description, which perfectly fits an Apatosaurus, is a paraphrased description taken from one of the oldest books of the Bible, Job 40:15-24. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, how could a writer of the Bible have accurately described the appearance, food, and habitat of this creature?

The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by water-borne sediment which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to the flood of worldwide extent, as the water flowed over all the land surfaces, animals would have been drowned and been buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.

Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did.

In the early 1900's on the Doheny expedition into the Grand Canyon, Indian cave drawings were found which closely resembled a duck-billed dinosaur. Legends from ancient China to ancient England have recorded descriptions of dinosaur-like creatures. The Kuku Yalanji aboriginal people have paintings which look exactly like plesiosaurs. These and other intriguing evidences seem to indicate that perhaps that age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly taught. Christians do not need to feel foolish about standing on Scripture in their understanding of the world around us. There is ample evidence to support the Biblical record. Evolution serves as the foundation basis for the religions of humanism and atheism. These world views are popular because man, instead of God, decides on rules and moral standards. Creation serves as the foundational basis for Christianity which acknowledges that all things were created by God, that we live in a fallen universe, and that it will be restored to perfection in the future.

There is a danger of becoming so indoctrinated by evolutionary thinking that we become closed to the creation alternative. As concerned parents, we need to be careful what our children are taught by making sure they are hearing all of the facts. By teaching them the evidence for creation and the fallacies of evolutionary explanations, they will be directed toward God instead of away from Him.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Let me put it this way. If I had a question about geology, I'd send an email to Mr. Jack before I'd send and email to Walt Brown.

To each their own.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Man and dinosaurs....
...

There is a danger of becoming so indoctrinated by evolutionary thinking that we become closed to the creation alternative. As concerned parents, we need to be careful what our children are taught by making sure they are hearing all of the facts. By teaching them the evidence for creation and the fallacies of evolutionary explanations, they will be directed toward God instead of away from Him.

On the other hand, we know that narwhal horns gave credence to the ideas of unicorns, and that large dinosaur bones were available for every age of human to see and marvel... and make up stories to explain. Do stories of unicorns make them real? Gnomes? Pixies?

Compare the evidence for humanities interaction with the mammoth. These creatures are also extinct, but we find houses made of mammoth bones, garbage dumps full of butchered mammoth bones, carved mammoth bones - pretty strong evidence that humans and mammoths lived together. On the other hand, there is no such evidence for dinosaur-human interaction. Instructive.

When taken together with where dinosaurs are found in the geological strata, and the distinctive f laura and fauna dinosaurs are found with, it is pretty clear that people never interacted with dinosaurs - and only when you are trying to explain the obvious problems with a literal interpretation Genesis 1 would you even try to make the case for human and dinosaur interaction.

 

[fool]

You really buy that fool?

Seriously??? Do you?

Look how thick those layers are. Every time I look at strata I laugh thinking that people actually believe those dramatically different layers represent millions of years of slow build up (what happened to erosion??). It kills me! I will never, ever, never buy that lie. It's so obviously false.

Then, we get a real life example of strata being laid down in floods all over the word and it looks just like normal strata, except it didn't takes millions of years to lay down it only took hours or minutes.

A much more reasonable and logical explanation for most strata is liquefaction.

Well there ya go, a hypothosys.
Moving on to step three we test it, I can build a plexiglas cube and attach a electric finish sander to it creating a liquefactor and when I get my dirt samples I'll put on my tee shirt turn on the camera and let er rip.

 

[laughsoutloud]

What's more, Knight, the geologic column does not match the undifferentiated layers of recent flood deposits

1. Varves within the geologic column show seasonal layers over many, many years. In many cases, such as the Green River formation, these layers are too fine to have settled out in less than several weeks per layer. Varves in New England show evidence of climate change 17,500 to 13,500 years ago, which matches climate patterns in other parts of the world (Rittenour et al. 2000). These layers prove that the geological record was not produced in just one event.

2. There are many different kinds of surface features preserved in the middle of the geological column. These features include soils, mud cracks, evaporite deposits, footprints, raindrop impressions, meteor craters, worm burrows, wind-blown sediments, stream channels, and many others. For example:

* The Loess Plateau in China has a layer of loess more than 300 m thick. Loess is wind-blown sediment that would not occur during a global flood. The Loess Plateau occurs around the downwind edges of the Ordos Desert, its source of sediments, and the grain size of the loess decreases the further one gets from the desert (Vandenberghe et al. 1997).

* The Loess Plateau includes paleosols within it. These are buried fossil soils, some of which would require tens of thousands of years to form (Kukla and An 1989; Liu et al. 1985).

The various layers reflect erosion events (Grand Canyon), and yet, are not compatible with a global flood. As usual, folks are trying to justify an historical flood without really digging into the details of the actual data - which in no way supports a global flood.

Contrast that with the KT boundary, reflecting a strike by a giant asteroid, that left a tell tail layer of sediment all over the world. We can be sure the asteroid hit, because we find the evidence all over the world. We can be sure the flood never occurred, because the evidence is nowhere to be found.

You can be incredulous, but that in itself does not make you right.

 

[griffinsavard]

On the other hand, we know that narwhal horns gave credence to the ideas of unicorns, and that large dinosaur bones were available for every age of human to see and marvel... and make up stories to explain. Do stories of unicorns make them real? Gnomes? Pixies?

Compare the evidence for humanities interaction with the mammoth. These creatures are also extinct, but we find houses made of mammoth bones, garbage dumps full of butchered mammoth bones, carved mammoth bones - pretty strong evidence that humans and mammoths lived together. On the other hand, there is no such evidence for dinosaur-human interaction. Instructive.

When taken together with where dinosaurs are found in the geological strata, and the distinctive f laura and fauna dinosaurs are found with, it is pretty clear that people never interacted with dinosaurs - and only when you are trying to explain the obvious problems with a literal interpretation Genesis 1 would you even try to make the case for human and dinosaur interaction.

Your geological strata means nothing, the layers came from the sifting of the world wide flood. Another event in the Bible that you are gonna say you dont believe in or explain away somehow. Just like your theory that Gen. 1 is not literal. The days are evening and mornig.... :chuckle:

 

[koban]

Your geological strata means nothing, the layers came from the sifting of the world wide flood. Another event in the Bible that you are gonna say you dont believe in or explain away somehow. Just like your theory that Gen. 1 is not literal. The days are evening and mornig.... :chuckle:

He wasn't talking about geological strata. He was talking about humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Your geological strata means nothing, the layers came from the sifting of the world wide flood. Another event in the Bible that you are gonna say you dont believe in or explain away somehow. Just like your theory that Gen. 1 is not literal. The days are evening and mornig.... :chuckle:

Actually, they most specifically DO NOT come from any flood. There are sun-baked layers in the strata, footprints, many, many layers of fine sediment that precipitated out over many, many seasons. The strata do not make any sense at all as a single flood event.

Not to mention the impossible sorting that went on - the same animals on bottom - never any modern ones - the same flora - again, never mixing modern with extinct, people don't show up until near the top - with modern animals, never on the bottom with creatures of a similar size.

No, no global flood.

Compare this with the KT boundary, clear evidence of a global event that left a sediment layer that can be found all over the world - how come you don't want to talk about the facts? All these delicious facts, you don't want to deal with them at all.

Also note that I gave you specific examples of why the layers did not come from any global flood - and you respond with... "did so."

I know you believe that Genesis 1 has to be interpreted literally (but NOT Genesis 2, or Joshua 10:13, or Job 22:14). What I am trying to show you is that you are interpreting the Bible incorrectly.

Just like Luther was wrong in holding that you had to believe that the sun circled the earth because this is what the Bible teaches, you have to let go of the idea of a 6 day creation and global flood.

 

[griffinsavard]

Actually, they most specifically DO NOT come from any flood. There are sun-backed layers in the strata, footprints, many, many layers of fine sediment that precipitated out over many, many seasons. The strata do not make any sense at all as a single flod event.

Not to mention the impossible sorting that went on - the same animals on bottom - never any modern ones - the same flora - again, never mixing modern with extinct, people don't show up until near the top - with modern animals, never on the bottom with creatures of a similar size.

No, no global flood.

Compare this with the KT Boundry, clear evidence of a global event that deft a sediment layer that can be found all over the world -

You are using the geologic column to date with. The geologic column is circular reasoning. The rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks.:dizzy: