From: “Chris Ho-Stuart” <>

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Subject: Re: faith (was creationism)

Another wrote:

> > If, as I have been told that a massive asteroid wiped out the

> > dinosaurs

> > 1. surely that would have wiped out all or most of other animals and

> > plants

Chris responded:

> It did wipe out most other animals.

>

> The evidence indicates that the mass extinction of the KT

> boundary killed all land animals over about 25 kilograms. It

> wiped out the dinosaurs, pterosaurs, plesiosaurs, mosasaurs,

> ammonites, belemnites, and also many kinds of plankton.

>

> For a good easy to read description of this event see

>

<http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/extinction/Asteroid.htm

l>

> For a better technical discussion, see

> <http://town.morrison.co.us/dinosaur/extinction/extent.html>

>

> Present evidence indicates that some small dinosaurs did survive,

> and that modern birds are their descendents.

>

> Plants generally managed much better, but there were still some

> significant extinctions in plants as well.

A:

> > 2. what about the other side of the world opposite to the impact of

> > the asteroid? Weren’t there dinosaurs in that part?

C:

> Death is not due to being crushed by a falling rock. It is due

> to the global changes in climate that result from such a

> dramatic event.

A:

> > 3. the simplest answer to the extinction of many dinosaurs is the

> > worldwide flood in the time of Noah. Chris has posted that in the

> > Pacific that is described as a Tsumi wave (sorry, I can’t visualise

> > the word just now) – and in time that could have become the given

> > event as the locals used a local occurrence to describe what had

> > happened

C:

> I can’t make sense of that statement; nor do I recall having

> said anything about tsunamis.

>

> Regardless, no, a global flood is most certainly not a good

> explanation for the demise of dinosaurs, or anything else.

>

> See <http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html>

> for a list of many FAQs on this subject. In particular, see

> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html>

>

> [snip]

A:

> > Land areas in the world are 75% covered with sedimentary rocks

> > according to one children’s science book I have. Sedimentary means

> > laid down under water, and sometimes in other ways.

C:

> Indeed most of the surface of the Earth is composed of sedimentary

> rock, and the vast majority of that is laid down in water.

>

> However, not all rock is sedimentary; and it is not all laid

> down in water. It is usual for the many sedimentary layers

> in any location to show alternating mixes of various kinds of

> rock, including many layers from material set down in dry land,

> like pure volcanic ash layers, or paleosols (fossil soils).

>

> This reveals a complex history, not one event. Effects of

> erosion, and glaciation, and thrusting, can also be seen.

> The attribution of most of Earth’s sedimentary rock to one

> event is merely stupid.

>

> See <http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/geo.htm> for a

> discussion of of the geological layers at a location in North

> Dakota, USA. The title of this article is

> “The Geologic Column and Its Implications to the Flood”

>

> For just one of many reasons why this sequence of layers is

> incompatible with the idea of formation in one flood, do a

> word search on “volcanic”.

>

> Glenn is an evangelical Christian and professional geologist,

> and prominent ex-creationist. Read his story at

> <http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/gstory.htm>

>

> What geological evidence shows is many many different eras

> of deposition; not one single global flood.

>

> This was recognized right from the start as soon as the

> science of geology began; around the eighteenth century. The

> flood geologists of that time (who had far more honesty and

> integrity than modern creationists espousing a global flood)

> generally recognized that Noah’s flood had to be just one

> of a series of great catastrophes. However, as more evidence

> accumulated into the nineteenth century, this also was shown

> to be inconsistent with the evidence, and by about 1830 flood

> geology was essentially dead.

>

> Creationists would be well advised to look at the history

> of geology. Many of the really influential geologists, who

> helped to establish the science of geology, were Christians

> and clergymen. Many were driven by the desire to help use the

> new field of study to prove the biblical flood account. And,

> for the most part, they recognized that the evidence indicated

> otherwise, and revised their views to fit the evidence better.

A:

> > Coal is compacted vegetable and other matter. Black coal

> > occurs with the greatest pressure, brown coal with less. One

> > Creation magazine or video has published a picture of a

> > fossilized tree trunk of great length imbedded in a coal

> > seam. It was stated that if the seam had been formed during

> > a long period of time that it would have rotted.

C:

> There are a range of similar and equally stupid claims made

> by creationist organizations. You do not give a clear reference,

> so I will have to pick a reference myself. The one to which you

> refer most likely has similar errors or distortions.

>

> Here are comments by Ken Ham, taken from Answers In Genesis at

> <http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/tools/xnv1n6.asp>

> +———–

> | Here’s the problem for evolutionists! There are a number

> | of places on the Earth where fossils actually penetrate

> | more than one layer of rock. These are called ‘polystrate

> | fossils.’

> |

> | For example, at The Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are

> | many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2500

> | feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees,

> | beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were

> | supposed have been laid down over millions of years.

> |

> | The fact is, the trees had to be buried faster than it took

> | them to decay. In other words, there’s NO WAY these layers

> | could have been laid down slowly over millions of years. The

> | trees would’ve rotted well before then and not fossilized.

> +———–

> Here is an ICR impact paper, going into more detail

> <http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-316.htm>

> Let me emphasise, I am giving both the above references so that

> those interested can see what the creationists are saying in their

> own words. Both the discussions cited are disgraceful examples of

> pseudoscientific codswallop.

>

> For a simple and straightforward description of the Joggins

> locality and its history, read this brief page. It will help

> give context to any further investigation into claims and

> counter claims about what is actually seen there.

> <http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/earth/waton/s931.html>

> Some good pictures of the locality are here:

> <http://earthnet.bio.ns.ca/english/VT/ns/cumberland/2/>

>

> I sympathize with people like Gladys, who are not really

> experts in the relevant science and who naturally perceive

> this as a case where different “scientists” have different

> perspectives or theories. But the sad truth is that the

> creationist material is merely deceitful. Scientists, for the

> most part, pay it no attention because it is so crazy.

>

> See <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html>

> for a good FAQ that explains the matter truthfully, and

> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/coal.html>

> for a discussion of coal formation and a global flood.

>

> Basically, the fossils at “The Joggins” were described in

> around 1868; and evidence even then was sufficient to refute

> creationist models. The evidence shows a number of separate

> forests, separated by many other layers of strata. There is

> evidence of forest fire, and the presence of roots in place,

> of fossil soils, show the trees to have been buried in place.

>

> Any real investigation of this site by people with even

> rudimentary common sense and integrity, shows it to be very

> powerful evidence against deposition in a single flood. This

> was the kind of evidence which rightly persuaded geologists

> over a hundred years ago that a global flood was not a major

> factor in geology.

>

> And finally, just for fun, here is a brief comment on some

> trees found in coal, along with dinosaur footprints.

> <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coalprints.html>

> Footprints? Yes — footprints. In fact, such finds are not

> really unusual, and show that the deposit in which the footprint

> appears is not from a global flood that wiped out dinosaurs.

>

> Cheers — Chris