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

[Nathon Detroit]

None so blind, Juke, none so blind.

Anyone could just as easily point this back at you. Please, either add something to this cordial and reasonable conversation or find another website to participate on.

 

[Jukia]

That's true (especially early on).

Yet those guys have entire curriculum's and years of pushing their own theories at stake (it's similar to those that have their investments in old earth models, yet this is on a tiny scale). It's really no wonder they resist him. If you had just spent years helping to create a museum display about the canopy theory you might resist a guy whos theory disproves your work - know what I mean?

Yet in this arena the times they are a changing! Walt is gaining serious traction because his YEC model is very reasonable, it doesn't have any wild, wacky, unsupportable canopy type elements to it. His theory explains everything regarding the flood and geology in one uniform theory. Therefore I think it will eventually take the place of the other theories (but that will take time of course).

Serious traction? With whom? Pastor Enyart?

Let Brownie publish in the real world. Oh wait, we do have that atheistic conspriracy and his work is toooo big to publish in one of the usual journals. I forgot, sorry.

But if that were the case--his theory is too big and all encompassing, how come he does not try to get the scientific establishment thinking his way, his paradigm shift, by publishing bits and pieces? Maybe because it is nonsense and he is simply either misguided or a fraud?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Serious traction? With whom? Pastor Enyart?

Let Brownie publish in the real world.

Brownie???

:wave2:

You guys are jerks.

 

[laughsoutloud]

Taylor Trail

A series of 14 human footprints with at least 134 dinosaur tracks in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

Ryals Track

A human footprint across a dinosaur footprint, about 30 feet from the Taylor Platform in the bed of the Paluxy River, near Glen Rose, Texas.

New Mexico Track
One of several very shallow but almost perfect human tracks found in the mountains of New Mexico in the Permian (supposedly before the dinosaurs).

:wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup: :wazzup:

Oh come on, these are debunked - even Morris, who write the book, says that the evidence for Paluxy is poor.

As far as the New Mexico track:

Strict creationist Don Patton has asserted that a Permian rock from New Mexico contains a genuine human footprint. Called the "New Mexico track" by Patton, and the "Zapata Track" by others, the print is sharply outlined, but shows a number of unnatural features. It evidently is not in stride with other tracks, but occurs on a loose block of rock whose origin and geologic context has not been thoroughly described or confirmed. Indeed, without being reliably associated with any host formation, the print is of little anti-evolutionary value even if it were genuine, which also has not been established. To date no major creationist group has endorsed the print as genuine or even likely so.

 

[Servo]

Serious traction? With whom? Pastor Enyart?

Let Brownie publish in the real world. Oh wait, we do have that atheistic conspriracy and his work is toooo big to publish in one of the usual journals. I forgot, sorry.

But if that were the case--his theory is too big and all encompassing, how come he does not try to get the scientific establishment thinking his way, his paradigm shift, by publishing bits and pieces? Maybe because it is nonsense and he is simply either misguided or a fraud?

Are you ever going to post something with some scientific substance? Can you actually address an issue head on? Or is insulting someone's name and credibility the only thing you know?

 

[laughsoutloud]

Stipe

I notice you haven't explained how the explanations he provides are inadequate. Instead you've settled for waving your arms, for lack of a better term...

Liquefaction is very well explained in his book. There are clear conditions, simple examples and reproducible experiments that even a school teacher could use to explain things to elementary school kids...

No arm waving here. There is no explanation that fits the fact of carefully arrangement of the fossil evidence. Why never a rabbit with a dinosaur? Why never humans with marsupial cats? Sorting by size, geographic location, swimming ability - none of it makes sense.

As far as salt water under the crust - how about the rising and falling of the oceans? Asteroids with similar composition to the earth? How about massive asteroid strikes that tore a chunk off the earth (the moon), and the fact that many of the asteroids and planets were created about the same time, of the same materials?

It is the flood model that does not fit the facts, and Brown who is doing the arm waving. I have offered specific examples that falsify his ideas - and he can't do the opposite with the standard model.

What is more, let's suppose that he does find a problem with the standard model. By itself, a problem with current theory does not establish the flood - it just means we have more work to do. The flood is already falsified - to falsify some part of standard theory just means another (non-flood, that one is already demonstrated false) has to be discovered.

Science is not a dogma, to be defended against all other ideas. Of course there are areas where we don't know it all, and no doubt, as we learn more facts, or look at them in new light, we will revise our theories. But we do know enough to be sure that there was no global flood.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

and he can't do the opposite with the standard model.

Uh... his book is FILLED with such examples.

I don't think you have read his book.

Your mind is made up and that's OK, I gave up long ago trying to make people think the way I do.

 

[Servo]

Science is not a dogma…

They why do you treat it as such?

to be defended against all other ideas.

It would be nice if the evolutionists could even consider a new idea.

Of course there are areas where we don't know it all, and no doubt, as we learn more facts, or look at them in new light, we will revise our theories.

Again, that would be nice but with the evolutionists, the argument is over. Also, please be careful how you use the word “facts”.

But we do know enough to be sure that there was no global flood.

No flood huh? Yeah, no evidence for a flood at all, I mean where is all the water? It's not like its all around us….

 

[Stripe]

Age of the Earth
I doubt that "evolutionists" refuse to discuss the age of the earth. I noted that I would be happy to talk about the age of the earth, but that that was beside the point of my discussion - I wanted to focus on how the geological makeup of the earth, taken as it is, disproves the flood. You don't need to date, or demonstrate that it is exactly the same everywhere you go (in fact, it would not be exactly the same, though it is similar). So no, evolutionists don't shy away from discussions of dates. 4.5 billion years!

OK. As long as you understand that we are not required to accept anything you say that relies on this assumption.

Evidence Against the Flood
You say there is no evidence against the flood - this is simply not true.

Did I really say that? Silly me...

We have evidence of great floods over and over, in many parts of the world - just no evidence of a single flood, all over the world, one year in duration.

:rotfl:

how would you tell the difference?

Later in your responses, you note that we do have strong evidence of the a world-wide catastrophe called the KT boundary, so you know what evidence would look like. A global flood could not have happened and not left evidence, and the earth as we find it would not have be as it is if a global flood, resulting in the death of all land creatures, had occurred.

You do realise that the worldwide layer of iridium rich clay was all deposited in water, right? Hence the question about one or more than one asteroid.

Footprints During the Flood
You ask how footprints in a geologic layer disproves the flood. Well, the normal creationist explanation for the sedimentary layers geologists find is that they were laid down in the flood. All creatures are held to have died in the flood, except those on the ark. Therefore, take any layer claimed to be laid down by the flood. Search above that layer, and when you find sun-baked layers, layers with footprints in them, layers with multiple fine deposits that would have taken more than a year to form (in the aggregate), the flood no longer works as an explanation. You can start from the top, as well, and go back 4,000 years from the present, and account for whatever layers you can in that time period, eliminate those, and you still have many, many layers that cannot be explained away by the flood.

I think you're using the assumption that footprints equals mud-baked to prove your point. Where we find footprints may well mean the layer was baked dry thus preserving the impressions last left. But you still need a soft surface in order to record the detail of the impression and then a fast enough drying process and subsequence deposition in order to preserve the print. The process Dr. Brown describes of water-adapted creatures surviving within lenses of sediment gives us all the factors required. Soft sediment and a rapid preservation process.

Fine Sediment in Multiple Layers The point about the fine silt precipitating goes like this: Fine silt settles slowly, and represents (for example) seasons (runoff from snow melt, for example, though there are various reasons for the periodic nature of fine silt deposits). It takes a long time for the fine silt to precipitate, so it takes calm water (turbulence keeps it in suspension), and time. You count the layers, and what you see is evidence that the layers in question were formed over time - sometimes as many as a million years. So it could not have happened in the flood (it is not a single precipitation event), and it could not have happened since the flood (not enough time). This is not "a couple of debatable exceptions," it is a common event, recorded in lakes and seas all over the world. Your claim that 90% of deposits could support a global flood is just not true. For example, a vast plain 300 meters deep, made up of loess in China could not have been deposited wet, and could not have been deposited since the Flood.

A million years is an awful long time for water to be calm, don't you think?

My claim was that 90% of sediments (I made up that number - I'm guessing it's on the low side) were deposited in water.

The KT Boundary - an example of positive evidence for an event
The fact that no one is disputing the iridium deposit around the globe underscores my point about falsifying the prediction that there was a global flood. When the idea of an asteroid strike as an extinction event was first floated, this was one of the predictions - then they went out and looked for the data. See how this works? When the iridium deposit was found around the world, this gave strong support to the theory of an asteroid strike. However, perhaps as implied by your question as to whether there as one or more asteroid strikes, there is some discussion about what created this layer - a single strike, or multiple strikes. Unlike a creationist apology for the data, it doesn't really matter if it was one or two strikes. What do I think? I think I'd like to hear more about what the data supports, which is what scientists are doing - looking at data, making models, testing them, trying to falsify them.

If the prediction had been a really big volcano the observations would have matched that as well. If the prediction had been lots of volcanoes the observations would match that as well. Claiming that a prediction came before an observation does not make the prediction more valid than another idea thought up to explain the observation after the observation has been made.

I hope you follow that .. it's rather convoluted

I think your dismissal of the question I asked is rather telling. It is vitally important for a theory, especially a well established one, to have good answers for the challenges it faces. The challenges whether you answer one asteroid or two are:
If there was only one then how did a single strike wipe out all the dinos, but not wipe out everything?
If there was more than one then what precipitated the barrage of asteroid strikes?

Conclusions
Is there any of the predicted evidence to be found for a global flood, that cannot be better explained by standard geological theories? No.
Do standard geological theories predict and explain geological features better than the flood idea? Yes.
Does the data (the earth as we find it to be) present features that cannot be explained by a global flood? Yes.
Based on this evidence, the idea of a global flood must be rejected.

Your conclusions are too quickly drawn and do not consider the viability of the challenges.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe
No arm waving here. There is no explanation that fits the fact of carefully arrangement of the fossil evidence. Why never a rabbit with a dinosaur? Why never humans with marsupial cats? Sorting by size, geographic location, swimming ability - none of it makes sense.

Your assumption of the careful arrangement of the geologic record is another thing we are not required to accept. If you want to discuss sorting you are forced to look at a single site. If you want to look at multiple sites you have to show why we should accept that those sites correlate.

As far as salt water under the crust - how about the rising and falling of the oceans?

Uh ... tides push salt into the Earth? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

Asteroids with similar composition to the earth? How about massive asteroid strikes that tore a chunk off the earth (the moon), and the fact that many of the asteroids and planets were created about the same time, of the same materials?

Uh oh. That confirms it. You don't know what you're talking about.

It is the flood model that does not fit the facts, and Brown who is doing the arm waving. I have offered specific examples that falsify his ideas - and he can't do the opposite with the standard model.

Actually, he can.

What is more, let's suppose that he does find a problem with the standard model. By itself, a problem with current theory does not establish the flood - it just means we have more work to do. The flood is already falsified - to falsify some part of standard theory just means another (non-flood, that one is already demonstrated false) has to be discovered.

You're pretty well dug in aren't you?

Science is not a dogma

:rotfl: Why so against a flood model then?

to be defended against all other ideas. Of course there are areas where we don't know it all, and no doubt, as we learn more facts, or look at them in new light, we will revise our theories. But we do know enough to be sure that there was no global flood.

We don't know, but we know you're not right. Nope, not dogmatic at all... :rotfl:

 

[laughsoutloud]

Uh... his book is FILLED with such examples.

I don't think you have read his book[/B].

Your mind is made up and that's OK, I gave up long ago trying to make people think the way I do.

No Knight, his book is filled with predictions that are also predicted by the standard model. If you think otherwise, please provide an example - I provided examples to support my perspective, or do not exclusively support a flood model. Remember, it is not just important that a theory fit the facts, it also must be the best explanation for all the facts. Brown, by selectively focusing on details that he alleges can be accounted for by a flod model ignores falsifying data - such as varves and the actual arrangement of fossils in the earth.

 

[Stripe]

No Knight, his book is filled with predictions that are also predicted by the standard model. If you think otherwise, please provide an example - I provided examples to support my perspective, or do not exclusively support a flood model. Remember, it is not just important that a theory fit the facts, it also must be the best explanation for all the facts. Brown, by selectively focusing on details that he alleges can be accounted for by a flod model ignores falsifying data - such as varves and the actual arrangement of fossils in the earth.

I think it is admirable that you are prepared to put forward a few theories and hold yourself accountable to them. :thumb:

 

[laughsoutloud]

Stipe writes:

Your assumption of the careful arrangement of the geologic record is another thing we are not required to accept. If you want to discuss sorting you are forced to look at a single site. If you want to look at multiple sites you have to show why we should accept that those sites correlate.

No, each site, taken by itself, tells the same story. This particular argument is not based on correlation. Everywhere you look, the same story is told - certain groups of creatures are found together, and groups are not mixed. The best explanation for the data is that these groups are separated in time. No liquefaction, lensing or settling explanation can be made to account for this arrangement.

Uh ... tides push salt into the Earth? I don't think you know what you're talking about.

No, take the central US for example. A shallow sea covered the central US for millions of years. Here you find salt, aquatic creatures (extinct, no modern creatures), all the trappings of a seawater environment. Then the whole area dries up, and over time gets covered over, and in these layers, a non-aquatic environment with modern creatures, including humans - but never mixed with the aquatic, extinct creatures. I am not saying this accounts for all salt deposits, there are many factors at work - the point is, the existence of salt does not prove a global flood. BTW, ever calculate the salinity of the water after the global flood? When you consider the volume required, you basically have fresh water - which would kill most sea creatures.

We don't know, but we know you're not right. Nope, not dogmatic at all...

It is not dogmatic to accept evidence. It is dogmatic to insist on a particular interpretation of the Bible, absent any evidence. I notice that in the rest of your post, you decline to offer specifics, or to deal with my specific objections. Data can rule out an option, even if you are not sure, of the remaining options, which is correct. For example, with the KT boundary- was this caused by one asteroid strike or two, or many? We can be sure that there was one or more events, without being certain just how many there were. We can rule out no asteroid strikes, because there is no other source of iridium to account for the KT boundary. So ruling out the "no asteroid strike" is not dogmatic, even if we don;t know exactly how many asteroids struck the earth.

In the same way, we can rule out a global flood, even if we don''t have all the details of earth's geologic history worked out.

 

[SUTG]

No Knight, his book is filled with predictions that are also predicted by the standard model. If you think otherwise, please provide an example - I provided examples to support my perspective, or do not exclusively support a flood model. Remember, it is not just important that a theory fit the facts, it also must be the best explanation for all the facts. Brown, by selectively focusing on details that he alleges can be accounted for by a flod model ignores falsifying data - such as varves and the actual arrangement of fossils in the earth.

Hey, at least you can say his model is falsifiable. :chuckle:

 

[laughsoutloud]

Stipe you ask how you can tell the difference between many regional floods, and one global flood. Well, for one thing, the flood areas have boundaries - which would not be the case in a single global flood.

You suggest that all the iridium was deposited under water, and that volcanoes could have been the source. Neither of these statements is true.

Alvarez and his colleagues at the University of California, while chemically analyzing a series of sedimentary strata from Italy, discovered that one layer had 25 times the concentration of iridium residing in adjacent strata. The iridium-rich layer forms the boundary between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods, 65 million years ago. During that death-filled interval, 50% of the earth's genera were wiped out. Such are the two correlated facts: iridium increase and mass extinction. But do they have the same cause? Alvarez et al point out that iridium is rare on earth but much more common out in space. The anomalous concentration of iridium could have been injected by a massive solar flare, a big meteor impact, or come other extraterrestrial catastrophe. Thus is catastrophism being resurrected.

Here is my point - we can come up with theories and discard them, while still rejecting a global flood, because the data does not fit that explanation. We don't have to have the explanation to rule out a global flood.

So no, my conclusions still stand:
Is there any of the predicted evidence to be found for a global flood, that cannot be better explained by standard geological theories? No.

Do standard geological theories predict and explain geological features better than the flood idea? Yes.

Does the data (the earth as we find it to be) present features that cannot be explained by a global flood? Yes.

Based on this evidence, the idea of a global flood must be rejected.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No Knight, his book is filled with predictions that are also predicted by the standard model. If you think otherwise, please provide an example

Ok.

Just one example???

How about more than that?

- The Grand Canyon
- Mid-Oceanic Ridge
- Continental Shelves and Slopes
- Ocean Trenches
- Earthquakes
- Magnetic Variations on the Ocean Floor
- Submarine Canyons
- Coal and Oil
- Methane Hydrates
- Ice Age
- Frozen Mammoths
- Major Mountain Ranges
- Overthrusts
- Volcanoes and Lava
- Geothermal Heat
- Strata and Layered Fossils
- Limestone
- Metamorphic Rock
- Plateaus
- Salt Domes
- Jigsaw Fit of the Continents
- Changing Axis Tilt
- Comets
- Asteroids and Meteoroids

For each of the above Dr. Brown shows how his theory fits the evidence and other theories do not fit.

Again, I don't think you actually read his book.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey, at least you can say his model is falsifiable. :chuckle:

Hey SUTG you know that I like you (I always have). But this thread is going pretty well, can you either stay out of it or try to add some value?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe writes:
No, each site, taken by itself, tells the same story. This particular argument is not based on correlation. Everywhere you look, the same story is told - certain groups of creatures are found together, and groups are not mixed. The best explanation for the data is that these groups are separated in time. No liquefaction, lensing or settling explanation can be made to account for this arrangement.

I think you'll find there are always exceptions to the rules you state. I think what you are looking for is a way to say that because we've never found a bunny with a dino that means bunnies and dinos never lived together. From that you are making the claim that therefore the flood didn't happen. It's a fairly tenuous line up of assumptions if that is what you are saying.

No, take the central US for example. A shallow sea covered the central US for millions of years. Here you find salt, aquatic creatures (extinct, no modern creatures), all the trappings of a seawater environment. Then the whole area dries up, and over time gets covered over, and in these layers, a non-aquatic environment with modern creatures, including humans - but never mixed with the aquatic, extinct creatures. I am not saying this accounts for all salt deposits, there are many factors at work - the point is, the existence of salt does not prove a global flood.

A prediction of Dr. Brown's was that salt water would be found under mountains and you said that was a prediction of the standard model. I don't think you understand what you are trying to debunk.

BTW, ever calculate the salinity of the water after the global flood? When you consider the volume required, you basically have fresh water - which would kill most sea creatures.

Uh.... yeah. The volume required is limited to what we have available today. I see lots of salt water today....

It is not dogmatic to accept evidence. It is dogmatic to insist on a particular interpretation of the Bible, absent any evidence. I notice that in the rest of your post, you decline to offer specifics, or to deal with my specific objections.

Well, the point of this thread is more the problems with how to wipe out dinos rather than me dealing with everything you say...

Data can rule out an option, even if you are not sure, of the remaining options, which is correct. For example, with the KT boundary- was this caused by one asteroid strike or two, or many? We can be sure that there was one or more events, without being certain just how many there were. We can rule out no asteroid strikes, because there is no other source of iridium to account for the KT boundary.

What about a lot of volcanic activity? Would a lot of volcanoes going off at the same time produce iridium the globe over?

To be fair, I do not believe there were no asteroids, but I don't need iridium to tell me that.

So ruling out the "no asteroid strike" is not dogmatic, even if we don;t know exactly how many asteroids struck the earth.

How about ruling out asteroids as the main reason for the iridium layer? You do face fairly serious challenges to the twin ideas that either:

• One large asteroid wiped out the dinos, or
• Many smaller asteroids wiped out the dinos.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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.

I think that is a pretty good point.

I really do try to be honest with myself and I think that is a reasonable criticism. I have also wondered why we don't find more fossilized human remains.

Clearly, I don't have all the answers, heck I don't even know all the questions.

 

[Stripe]

Stipe you ask how you can tell the difference between many regional floods, and one global flood. Well, for one thing, the flood areas have boundaries - which would not be the case in a single global flood.

Not so. A global flood has to have rising water and receding water. It is the receding phase which will leave the lasting impression and will generate bounded flood plains.

You suggest that all the iridium was deposited under water, and that volcanoes could have been the source. Neither of these statements is true.

I'm sorry .. none of what you quoted or the text you posted even mentions the issues I raised. Couldn't you just explain what you mean without posting irrelevant links?

Sedimentary deposits are formed almost exclusively in water. So either you admit that a single asteroid created a global iridium layer on a water covered planet or you admit that several asteroids hit over a long period of time during which every part of the planet was under water at some stage.

Here is my point - we can come up with theories and discard them, while still rejecting a global flood, because the data does not fit that explanation. We don't have to have the explanation to rule out a global flood.

That's a ridiculous thing to say. Why would you say that?