Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by fool View Post
    Knight;
    Here is the wiki on the K/T extinction event;
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretace...tinction_event

    It includes this picture;

    And this text;


    The reason they think meteor or such is the iridium they tend to find in this layer.

    This is a great oportunity to go see what those crazy old earthers are talking about, go see the layer, get some samples from it, look at the dirt above and below.
    The old earthers say it's an extinction event from 65 million years ago that took out most life on the planet.
    What do you say it is?
    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.
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by fool View Post
      Why?
      When?
      Because volcanoes produce iridium and because there are a LOT of volcanic remnants that are morphologically similar the planet over.
      Where is the evidence for a global flood?
      E≈mc2
      "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

      "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
      -Bob B.

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Little Buzz View Post
        Plus the dinosaurs were cold-blooded, so any lack of sunlight would seriously affect their mobility.
        As has been pointed out dinosaurs appear to have no been entirely cold-blooded. It's also worth noting that in a creature the size of, say, a Triceratops or Stegosaurus, let alone a Diplodocus, it makes very little difference. The ratio of surface area to volume means that they would pretty much maintain their body temperature anyway, just through heat produced as a by-product of metabolism and movement.
        If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Mr Jack View Post
          As has been pointed out dinosaurs appear to have no been entirely cold-blooded. It's also worth noting that in a creature the size of, say, a Triceratops or Stegosaurus, let alone a Diplodocus, it makes very little difference. The ratio of surface area to volume means that they would pretty much maintain their body temperature anyway, just through heat produced as a by-product of metabolism and movement.
          Sorta like Oprah Winfrey?
          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Knight View Post
            Sorta like Oprah Winfrey?
            Yeah, pretty much
            If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Knight View Post
              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.
              If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Mr Jack View Post
                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.
                Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by Knight View Post
                  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.




                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Knight View Post
                    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.
                    If you're really a Goth, where were you when we sacked Rome?

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Mr Jack View Post
                      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.
                      Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                      TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Granite View Post
                        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".
                        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Knight View Post
                          So a self admitted non-expert knows more than Dr. Walt Brown.

                          Makes sense to me.


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

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Knight View Post
                            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.
                            Last edited by laughsoutloud; April 22nd, 2008, 05:28 PM.
                            When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by koban View Post
                              What is Brown's doctorate in? Is it geology? Physics?
                              Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by SUTG View Post
                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X