Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
393 online now:
AZPaul3, Coragyps, DrJones*, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, ringo, Theodoric, xongsmith (9 members, 384 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,694 Year: 21,730/19,786 Month: 293/1,834 Week: 293/315 Day: 49/77 Hour: 3/9


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Sarfati on K-T
gene90
Member (Idle past 2157 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 1 of 1 (252)
03-20-2001 12:02 PM


I have found an interesting Creationist interpretation of the K-T impact by Dr. Sarfati here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/dino_meteor.asp

The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record).

Yes it was. Most foraminiferans (3 species survived) became extinct within a few millimeters of strata. Because most fossils are marine microfossils, they are the best source of data on the impact that drove the dinosaurs to extinction. Dinosaur extinctions themselves are only a side consequence of the impact from the global perspective.

(Norris, R.D.; Huber, B.T., Synchroneity of the K-T oceanic mass extinction and meteorite impact: Blake nose, Western North America. Geology, May 1999.)

Light-sensitive species survived

Because they produce seeds, plants were barely affected. After a few months of darkness, they simply sprouted and picked up as if nothing had happened. Most marine light-sensitive (shallow water) animals were driven to extinction. Benthic organisms do not need light and they survived. Yet, half of all sponge genera (primarily shallow water) were still driven to extinction. Two thirds of all coral species (primarily shallow-water) were destroyed, and the family has never recovered.

We see here that the Creationists have taken a fact (plants survived easily) and ignored the obvious (plants produce seeds) and corals and sponges produce larval forms that do not need light, the deeper corals and sponges would have survived the impact.

But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood.

Not really, because it would be much larger if it were the Flood deposits, and it would contain organic matter and much ash, as opposed to what we really see in the K-T impact layer. So much ash is in the K-T impact that much of the biomass of the period had to have burned.

(Keller, Gerta; MacLeod, Norman; Carbon isotopic evidence for biomass burning at the K-T boundary; Comment and reply. Geology, December 1993.)

(Hecht, Jeff; Burning at the K-T boundary. New Scientist, 8 / 93) [Non-journal entry]

Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates.

Incorrect.

(Krogh, Thomas E.; Kamo, Sandra L.; U-Pb ages of single shocked zircons linking distal K/T ejecta to the Chicxulub crater. Nature. 12/23/93)

(Kerr, Richard A. Huge impact tied to mass extinction. Science. 8/14/92)

Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop.

That's a fact, but the solution is obvious. Not a single modern volcanic eruption has ever even remotely approaced the magnitude of the K-T impact.

The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.

I can't answer this without more specificity. How clearly defined must it be for Sarfati?

Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ crater on the Yucatán peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater.

Forests hidden by trees. See the above cites.

Very few dinosaur fossils are actually found near this boundary.

That's why microfossils are used, they go right up into the boundary.

Or else the Alvarez theory is supported by the iridium spike in the K/T boundary, but in some localities the K/T boundary is defined by the iridium spike.

This is not circularity, as the global K-T layer is marked by iridium and other platinum-group metals *whether or not the Alvarez theory is correct*.

[This message has been edited by gene90 (edited 03-20-2001).]


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019