Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

yes, but remember we're arguing with people who don't believe the earth has existed long enough to subduct oceanic plates.

---

אָרַח

Actually, don't some/most creationist organizations agree plate tectonics happened - it's just the rate that's in questioned?

Good to know. Thank you for the information. Are they all over the globe or pretty much only in one part of the globe? And are there ALWAYS the same life forms found in the relevant layers and not found above the iridium? ALWAYS? Everywhere? No, nor show its irrationality to anyone either apparently. I can sit and laugh at its absurdity on the face of it though -- that's some consolation. Such neat flat compacted layers with such clear boundaries between different kinds. Built up over aeons. Hilarious. Of course they show meteorite impact. Noone is arguing with that fact, or at least I'm not. The peculiar chemistry apparently can have no other source (except possibly the core of the earth?) The chemicals are found in a particular stratum. That too is empirical evidence. But evidence of what? Not necessarily what is claimed -- by a long shot. What has not been shown is whether the chemicals are from only one meteorite impact or more than one, and how big they were and when they happened -- geo timetable notwithstanding. All that is hypothetical -- because the geo timetable itself is hypothetical. The idea can't be tested or falsified. Oh I don't lack all that much of it at all. I dispute it. What book? I've read quite a bit on all these things. You just need to try to follow the argument. I haven't violated any geological principles, I merely dispute some unprovable hypotheses.

Absolutely. I figured I'd get around to saying that myself eventually. I think it's very likely the Flood itself started the tectonic movement.

Just answered this in the post before but I can answer it again. The Flood very nicely accounts for the movement of the tectonic plates, as I've explained on other threads.

If somebody here can present this kind of thing as evidence and not get called on it, he needs to get called on it and the reports themselves are what the public is fed all the time, and they need to be exposed for the dramatized nonsense they are. Save your remarks for when I get to the supposedly more serious stuff. Yes you did accomplish that. Thank you. However, the absence of even an attempt to present that information in the CBS report is still a black mark against them. Yes that would be interesting. So would the possibility that the meteorite hit didn't happen anywhere near that long ago.

Admitted? I've myself on some threads reminded other posters of the law of superposition for heaven's sake. Why would I be trying to disprove it? In some respect of course, from minutes to as long as you like. I prefer something in between myself. OK where do I read up on it? Sorry, that's unproven hypothesis. So OK I'll read up on it so I can myself assess if I think the evidence is all that good.

yes. miracles are nice like that. you can get them to account for anything you want them to. hey, it's act of god, right?

---

אָרַח

Try this site. They are certainly found as far away as Denmark, Italy and New Zealand. "All over the globe," is a pretty tall standard of evidence, but this comes pretty close even with the effects of plate tectonics removed.http://www.rsnz.org/education/alpha/Alpha116.pdf Once again your raise the bar well beyond what any YEC theory could handle, but basically, yes. The K/T boundary is well-known, well-documented and has definite fossil assemblages associated with it. THis is probably hard for a YEC to understand, but there have been countless years of careful labor to put all this together. Most of it BEFORE the impact theory was even proposed.

do a google search for chicxulub. here's the wikipedia article. that'd be a good place to start. if you want some actual research (as opposed to wikipedia) i'd suggest going to a college library and asking someone to help you find something in the scientific journals. you say things like this, but you don't understand basic geology. it's not really open to interpretation, and it's not just a bunch of guys sitting around making up dates for things. if the evidence didn't strongly indicate dates, they wouldn't use them.take a geology class, and you'll get some appreciation of how the facts line up. and that law of superposition is one of them. i'm sure you'll make up some objection to it. seriously, take a geology class. it can be really interesting. give you a new appreciation for the majesty of god's creation.

---

אָרַח

Did you make those two statments?The sedimentary layers MUST be time periods. How long the periods are must then be determined.

Puhleeze try to pay closer attention. THIS WAS A PHOTO, not an artist's conception. NOT a painting, a PHOTO. Just a splash in the ocean, not rock, no crater, just a splash in the ocean, which I'm sure is not a photo of a meteorite hit. Please pay attention. That would be a misrepresentation, a quote out of context. I'm sure you don't want to add that sin to your sin of misreading do you?However, I give you permission to quote in context, something like: "Evolution: So little fact, so much drama. --Faith" Gee, ya think? Why, pray tell, am I the only one to address these articles? They were presented as evidence at the top of this thread to start the topic.I think it's because you all accept it as just fine until somebody takes it on. You wouldn't have found fault with the things in it I'm finding fault with.I also am quite sure that it is not merely "dumbed down" at all. Leaving out the more specific details is not the big problem with the reports, although I think the public deserves an attempt to explain these basics too, so they can actually think about the report instead of just having to swallow it whole. I don't fault the media myself. I fault evolutionist thinking.This scientist is reported in the next article to be off to Antarctica to study this "event." It's already an "event" although all that has been found is a few fragments. I don't think this is just media hype as I said in my critique of those articles so far.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 11:30 PM

While it has a "Photo" credit on the website it is quite clearly an artist's conception.

---

*not an actual doctor

Why is this hilarious? Why is it absurd? Why is it irrational? Because you do not understand it, or simply because you say so? Or is it because you have ignored the dozens of posts explaining it to you? Please explain. Maybe there is a reason that you cannot show how irrational it is to the rest of us.

No it's not entirely the media's fault. sigh It is labeled as a photo. It is a "photo" of an artists conception. I'd say you prove the point of the subtitle here. (In fact, I'd bet that it was never a conventional photo. It is a digital image constructed on a computer.)There is something that you haven't gotten the import of in this story by the way.Note:

quote:

---

Some experts are skeptical that Basu and his co-authors have found 251-million-year-old meteorite metals, although nobody questions that the material did come from outer space.

---

quote:

---

"It's astonishing, it's incredible, it's unbelievable," Jeffrey Grossman of the U.S. Geological Survey said in Science.

---

quote:

---

"I get a gut feeling it's wrong," he said.

---

The point is that this is being dealt with just as all good science is. It will not be accepted until it has been thoroughly critisized and further data is found.It took many years to pin down the comparitively recent K-T impact and reach an overwhelming consensus about it. It will take longer for this one.Your "review" and "critique" is meaningless compared to the real work that will be done by those in the field. They will not let it settle until the evidence is very firm indeed. (even then arguments will continue )This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-26-2005 11:40 PM