Living Fossils Could not Survive the K/T Boundary Unchanged

Posted by karl on September 12, 1998 at 12:53:09:

It seems to me that living fossils and the K/T Boundary created by the "asteroid impact" has done an enormous amount of damage to the evolutionary theories. These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts. The question is, how did these living animals and plants survive the impact and over 65 million years with very little if any change? Perhaps they could last a few hundred thousand years unchanged, but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions of years in this brand new environment they found themselves struggling to survive in. Some evolutionary scientist claim that these species found a special *ecological niche* and therefore were not exposed to the pressures presented by evolutionary change after the impact. Not only is it amazing how some of these living fossils according to evolutionist conformed to a certain ecological niche, yet, some how they were able to pass through the K/T boundary which some scientist claimed wiped out 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings. The whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when one big time major ecological niche change happened, ...but, some how, some species weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event that supposedly happened at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that effected everything from the seas to the mountain tops.

Certainly after an event such as the mass extinction mentioned above, the tempo of evolution would be increasing while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental niche. Despite the argument that time alone coupled with the normal pressures of evolutionary change should be enough to introduce change into the living fossils, the events surrounding the K/T boundary make the likelihood of living fossils impossible and unfounded.


First Response

Posted by R Myers on September 12, 1998 at 13:58:10:

But what about those coccoliths, Karl??? (nt)


Response to R.Myers

Posted by a creationist on September 12, 1998 at 14:45:04:

Why should any creationist reply to your unsupported claims? You present a bunch of nonsense while at the same time you didn't back it up.
I would really like to hear how you evolutionist get out of this k/t problem.
Later dudes,
Tommy Hellfighter


Response to a creationist

Posted by R Myers on September 12, 1998 at 20:23:47:

Hey Mr. Hellfighter, do you even know what a coccolith is? Bet you don't...


Response to RMyers

Posted by Tommy Hellfighter on September 12, 1998 at 21:45:30:

Two paragraphs of intense truth:

It is difficult to model the productivity of coccoliths because coccolith concentrations in water vary in space and time by orders of magnitude One can start by allowing each meter squared column of water to contain a conservative 3.5xlOE+11 coccoliths in suspension. This situation is realized, for example, by having 35 million cells per liter (as sometimes seen today (35)) to a very conservative depth of 10m, or a very conservative concentration of 700,OOO Cell per liter to depths of 500m (commonly exceeded today by great densities of coccoliths (35)). A bidiurnal turnover rate for coccoliths can occur (36) though even greater rates can occur for smaller coccoliths (35-36). There are 1.2 million turnovers in 1656 years. At the said exaggerated value of 2.99x10E+13 coccoliths per cu. meter., a 1.4 km thick column is produced (i.e., 4.23x10E+17 coccoliths per meter squared column). Taking the said exaggerated necessity of 17.5 million km cubed of coccoliths (i.e, 5.23x10E29 cells),). a l2.5 million km squared area (merely 2.5% of earth's area) suffices.

An alternative model of coccolith accumulation is now presented in order to reflect the fact that coccolith accumulation is not steady-state but highly episodic. There are intense blooms of coccoliths, and these can cause "white water" (36) situations because of the coccolith concentrations. Approximately 10% of earth's surface underlies, and is able to have supplied, marine Late Cretaceous and Tertiary (see Maps 32 and 34 of my work (39). If each bloom covers 10% of the earths surface to a water depth of 500m and generates 35 million cells per liter, 8.93x10E+26 coccoliths are spawned per bloom. Roughly 588 such blooms are needed to produce the highly exaggerated 5.23x10E=29 coccoliths required. This means one such bloom, on average, every 2.8 years in antediluvian times. Of course, these calculations are conservative even in that they assume that each massive bloom spawns only one generation of coccoliths.

The above was taken from John Woodmorappes paper:  THE ANTEDILUVIAN BIOSPHERE AND ITS CAPILITY OF SUPPLYING THE ENTIRE FOSSIL RECORD, found in the book Studies In Flood Geology, A Compilation of Research Studies Supporting Creation And The Flood.


Response to Tommy Hellfighter

[note: RMyers had several posts in response to this, so they are listed here in the same response]

Posted by R Myers on September 12, 1998 at 23:26:46:

Let's see... the average coccolith weighs about 1.8e-12 g. So Woodmorappe's putative 2.88e+13 coccoliths per cubic meter of chalk deposits comes out to 1.8e-12 grams/coccolith * 2.88e13 coccoliths/m^3 = 51.8 grams of coccoliths per cubic meter.  But chalk deposits are typically 90-99 percent coccoliths.  So already, we can see that the Woody's numbers don't add up. Unless you can convince me that a cubic meter of chalk weighs on the order of 50 grams, that is...

Posted by R Myers on September 13, 1998 at 00:28:17:

Typo alert -- 2.88x10e13 should be 2.99x10e13...and the #grams of coccoliths per cubic meter of chalk should be 53.2 instead of 51.8.

Posted by R Myers on September 13, 1998 at 00:09:32:

Just took another gander at Woody's work -- It looks like he's confused coccoliths (the calcium "exoskeleton" segments) with the critters that produce them, which are known as coccolithophores... Each coccolithophore produces about 30 coccoliths -- an error that could weigh in his favor, but alas, not enough. Even if you multiplied my 50-something gram figure by 30, you still get only a bit more than 1.5 kg per cubic meter -- still orders of magnitude too low.

Also, there's an error in his math -- he multiplied 2.99x10E+13 by 1400 and got 4.23x10e17 (the right answer is 4.19x10e16).
Generally, it's a good idea for an author check his/her work for errors like that before committing it to publication...


Second Response

Posted by Pat on September 12, 1998 at 15:19:49:

Not only is it amazing how some of these living fossils according to evolutionist conformed to a certain ecological niche, yet, some how they were able to pass through the K/T boundary which some scientist claimed wiped out 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings.
Which means that one in four survived. And the few truly ancient creatures left were among that 25% which survived. You find that remarkable? No wonder you're confused.

karl:

The whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when one big time major ecological niche change happened, ...but, some how, some species weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event that supposedly happened at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that effected everything from the seas to the mountain tops.

Pat:

The damage was mostly to larger terrestrial animals, as you might expect. Go learn a little about the details of which animals, and so on. It won't be a mystery to you anymore.

karl:

Certainly after an event such as the mass extinction mentioned above, the tempo of evolution would be increasing while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental niche.

Pat:

The relatively few and tiny mammals did diversify into the assemblage of animals we see today. The niches occupied by reptiles were assumed by new kinds of mammals.

karl:

Despite the argument that time alone coupled with the normal pressures of evolutionary change should be enough to introduce change into the living fossils, the events surrounding the K/T boundary make the likelihood of living fossils impossible and unfounded.

Pat:

No scientist I ever heard of made that argument. The coelacanth, for example, seems to have survived because it was on the other side of the world, living at great depths. Most of the larger archesaurs died, but the crocodillians did not, even if their numbers were reduced.

You need more than a simple assertion to show that these animals are impossible. They are here. The K/T event is very well established. The iridium layer, with shocked quartz, the dieoff at the same time, and the discovery of a huge crater off Yucatan, of the right age pretty much nails it.
Again, one in four survived. A few very old species were among them. By your own admission, it's not impossible.


Third Response

Posted by The Dire Puppy on September 13, 1998 at 00:13:14:

Evolution and the fossil record may document change, but it is not a requirement.  Many animals inhabit a host of ecological niches. In some, environmental pressures can and do prompt changes, and in others the changes may not affect them So what's the big deal?

Even this is a narrow perspective. There are many other factors involved. Animal/ plant communities, introduction or loss, geologic changes, climatic fluctuations, as well as big rocks falling from the sky. Pat P. mentioned coelacanths below. Let's take a look. Lobe-finned- and lung- fishes (Sarcopterygians, minus us tetrapods) have been around for hundreds of million years. The body plan they evolved was and is quite successful. They enjoyed a great diversity, inhabiting many climes, as well as fresh, brackish, and salt waters. They have survived not just the KT extinctions, but all of the major extinction events. So what? On several occasions many families of them went extinct. Some survived, some diversified yet again, and some didn't.

Coelacanths were widespread and diverse during the Cretaceous also. The fact that the lineage of only 1 genus survived is special only to itself. No big deal, it happened.

I think what the real problem with creationist writers (along with omitting what they please) is that they tend to reinforce the "cartoon version" where there is a set reason for change- means to an end so to speak. Pathetic to say the least, but in many circumstances their biblios are pretty good. I suggest you check them out for the whole story.


Response to Dire Puppy

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 09:51:51:

puppy:

Evolution and the fossil record may document change, but it is not a requirement. Many animals inhabit a host of ecological niches. In some, environmental pressures can and do prompt changes, and in others the changes may not affect them So what's the big deal?

Karl:

As pointed out to you in previous post and back up top, the k/t event would have caused a change in the ecological niches around the globe from the sea bottoms to the mountain tops.

puppy:

Even this is a narrow perspective. There are many other factors involved. Animal/ plant communities, introduction or loss, geologic changes, climatic fluctuations, as well as big rocks falling from the sky.

karl:

would not that big rock falling from the sky produce the changes you just mentioned above? heck, you guys said it wiped out 75% of the known species.


Response to karl

Posted by The Dire Puppy on September 13, 1998 at 13:28:19:

1st- Different niches change differently, and greatly so over geographical distances. An easy example of an animal with a broad range is the black bear, inhabiting mountainous, wooded, and subtropical,... areas.
Same goes for many of the Cretaceous critters.

Somewhere in these ranges, survivability is not just likely, but easy.  What happened at the time of impact?  A 140 mile wide crater was smacked out. Ejecta would have devastated hundreds of square miles around it. The ensuing tidal wave would have wiped out many coastal areas in the Atlantic, Tethys Sea, and the Pierre Seaway.  Other than total regional devastation, outside of several thousands of square miles around the area, there was little or no physical damage.

The global effect would have been a major cooling trend, build up of ice at the poles, drop in sea level.  How fast would this happen? It most likely took hundreds, if not thousands of years to reach its worst.  Remember that temps. were running from 15-20 degress C. warmer than today. Think about how long it took the bathtub temperature of the oceans to dissapate.  This event was severe, was not all-out devastating.  Doesn't seem to be any problem of survivability for a lot of different animals, including "living fossils".  (Also have to take into account that the impact was not the only factor involved. There were a few squirrely things going on prior to it. Ammonite populati8ons on the decline for one. 
Yeah, it wiped out a lot of species, including at least two entire classes (dinosaurs + ammonoids), so?  Those that survived, survived, adapted and diversified. And a lot (not all) of their descendants survived still more extinction events.

Back to bears.

Tomorrow global warming shoots up temps. 10 degrees, and there they stay.  Such a change may prove to be intolerable to the southern populations, and they may be extirpated from the southernmost range.  Does that mean they'll all die off?  Does that mean that all the world's ecosystems would be completely different. Geographically shifted yes, but still around somewhere.
Look at the patterns of desertification today.


Evolutionist playing k/t dodge ball

Posted by karl on September 12, 1998 at 23:51:55:

It seems to me that living fossils and the K/T Boundary created by the "asteroid impact" has done an enormous amount of damage to the evolutionary theories. These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts. The question is, how did these living animals and plants survive the impact and over 65 million years with very little if any change? Perhaps they could last a few hundred thousand years unchanged, but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions of years in this brand new environment they found theirselves struggling to survive in. Some evolutionary scientist claim that these species found a special *ecological niche* and therefore were not exposed to the pressures presented by evolutionary change after the impact.

Not only is it amazing how some of these living fossils according to evolutionist conformed to a certain ecological niche, yet, some how they were able to pass through the K/T boundary which some scientist claimed wiped out 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings. The whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when one big time major ecological niche change happened, ...but, some how, some species weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event that supposably happened at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that effected everything from the seas to the mountain tops. Certainly after an event such as the mass extinction mentioned above, the tempo of evolution would be increasing while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental niche.

Despite the argument that time alone coupled with the normal pressures of evolutionary change should be enough to introduce change into the living fossils, the events surrounding the K/T boundary make the likelihood of living fossils impossible and unfounded.


First Response

Posted by Mockingbird1 on September 13, 1998 at 00:03:28:

PK: The meteor strike of 65 some odd million years changed the environment such that 75% of the earth's life forms abruptly extinguished, if I understand you correctly.

PK: I would infer that the other 25% were already adapted to the modified environment.

PK: I would point out that if 5 or 10% of the life forms were extingushed directly by the changes directly from the meteorite, their absence would be a second wave of environmental change which could precipitate a domino effect of subsequent extinctions.

PK: Could you name some of the species that resemble life forms of the period in question?


Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by Deb on September 13, 1998 at 09:25:09:

PK: I would point out that if 5 or 10% of the life forms were extingushed directly by the changes directly from the meteorite, their absence would be a second wave of environmental change which could precipitate a domino effect of subsequent extinctions.

Could you rephrase this? I'm afraid the syntax has defeated me...


Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by Stephen Charchuk on September 13, 1998 at 09:27:39:

PK: I would infer that the other 25% were already adapted to the modified environment.

Not really. In those who did survive they were under a certain body mass, which the majority of mammals were, plus the fact that mammals are more easily able to survive colder weather and live underground. This allowed for us mammals to get the toe hold we needed over the dinosaurs. There are still some of the smaller dinos around, we call them birds.

PK: Could you name some of the species that resemble life forms of the period in question?

Sharks (They haven't changed much in over 300 million years), and Cealicamps (sp) caught off of South Africa, and Roaches just to name a few.

Response to Mockingbird1

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 09:40:43:

PK: Could you name some of the species that resemble life forms of the period in question?

karl:

Here is a partial list of living fossils. YES I realize some are dated after the k/t boundary.

#Triops, Fossils dated at 200 million years old, yet found unchanged today.
#The Aysheaia dated at 530 million years old turns out to be the same as the modern Peripatus.
#The fossil Crinoid Anthedon dated at 150 million years is still alive today and virtually unchanged.
#The fossil Busycon contrarium dated from 5.3 to 1.6 million years ago is still alive today and the modern unchanged version is found in Florida.
#The fossil maple leaf Acer monspessulanum found in tertiary rock, appears the same today in southwest Germany as it did millions of years ago.
#The Polistes Wasp fossils found in tertiary deposits have been found living today in southern Europe.
#The 35 million year old aber fossils of the Mastotermes Electrodominicus (termites) appear just as they do today in Australia, only smaller.
#The fossil Pleurotomaria shell found in Englands jurassic deposits dated at 135-205 million years has been found virtually identical in Japan.
# Folded fern fossils found in coal buried millions of years ago appear identical to ferns found today.
#The fish Coelacanth which was believed to have gone extinct 80 million years ago was found off the east coast of Africa in 1938, virtually unchanged.
#Horseshoe crab fossils dated at millions of years old match the living crabs found today.
#The Tautara fossils found in 135 million year Cretaceous strata have been found alive today.
#A fossil of the Conifer genus metasequoia dated to 60 million years ago has been found growing today.
Here are a few more living fossils.

....Bats,Rats.from...Paleocene
....Alligators.&.Crocs..from.Jurassic.
....Sharks,lungfish..from.Devonian.
....Snails,sponges,jellyfish...Cambrian
....Bacteria,Algae,........Precambrian.fungi
....Scorpions.corals......Silurian
....Clams,starfish.........Ordovician
....Ferns,cockroaches...Carboniferious
....Pines,Palms........Triassic
....Pelicans,ducks.....Cretaceous
....Lemurs,rhinoceroses.....Eocene


Response to karl

Posted by Deb on September 13, 1998 at 10:00:04:

You do notice that several of the fossils you listed date from after the k/t event, and several others are marine organisms, which did not suffer as much from the effects of the event?


Response to Deb

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 10:13:45:

deb, go back and read my top line. It's obvious you didn't read it the first time around.

Whoops! Sorry. (nt) Deb 10:29:32 9/13/98 (0)


Second Response

Posted by Frank on September 13, 1998 at 01:02:17:

karl posted:

It seems to me that living fossils and the K/T Boundary created by the "asteroid impact" has done an enormous amount of damage to the evolutionary theories.

Completely disagree. If there are no external forces to a large enough and viable population, the chance for evolutionary changes in such a population are slight.

These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts.

Pray tell us karl, why would a successful organism, that is part of a larger and genetically compatible breeding stock need to change?

The question is, how did these living animals and plants survive the impact and over 65 million years with very little if any change?

Again, show us why they would need to change if:
1: They are part of a larger and accessible breeding stock.
2: They are successful in their niche.
3: There is little or no compition for that niche.

Perhaps they could last a few hundred thousand years unchanged, but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions of years in this brand new environment they found theirselves struggling to survive in.

Again karl, tells us why these animals are "struggling to survive" and their new environment is so changed that they must change with it. From what I understand crocs are one of those species that have remained unchanged. Last time I checked, there were swamps and river valleys both before and after any meteor hit.

Some evolutionary scientist claim that these species found a special *ecological niche* and therefore were not exposed to the pressures presented by evolutionary change after the impact.

Possibly. What is also possible that they were successfull enough in these niches as to prevent any upstarts from really getting a "foot in the door" so to speak.

Not only is it amazing how some of these living fossils according to evolutionist conformed to a certain ecological niche, yet, some how they were able to pass through the K/T boundary which some scientist claimed wiped out 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings.

And so what?

The whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when one big time major ecological niche change happened, ...but, some how, some species weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event that supposably happened at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that effected everything from the seas to the mountain tops.

Some things will survive. And your point is?

Certainly after an event such as the mass extinction mentioned above, the tempo of evolution would be increasing while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental niche.

Two things here karl,

1: Mass extinction does not mean Total extinction.
2: Like the crocs, there were swamps and river valleys before and after the impact.

What "living fossils" are you refering to here karl. By showing what these species are, it might be possible to show why they can and did survive.


Response to Frank

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 09:34:40:

frank: Pray tell us karl, why would a successful organism, that is part of a larger and genetically compatible breeding stock need to change?

karl:

because the environment of the whole world changed. ..something about kicking dust up into the sky that blocked the sunlight that killed the trees while everything got cold and the scenario plays on and on to a point where every niche is altered. Why did the turtles make it through? because the little dust particles bounced off their shell? because the went into hibernation for a long time to allow the vegetation and food supply to grow back? Why did the turtle make it and not the dinosaur?

Apparently they had many of the same reptillian features.....perhaps the turtles ran away from the blast to the other side of the world frank.


Response to karl

Posted by Pat on September 13, 1998 at 18:23:04:

frank:

Pray tell us karl, why would a successful organism, that is part of a larger and genetically compatible breeding stock need to change?

karl:

because the environment of the whole world changed. ..something about kicking dust up into the sky that blocked the sunlight that killed the trees while everything got cold and the scenario plays on and on to a point where every niche is altered. Why did the turtles make it through? because the little dust particles bounced off their shell? because the went into hibernation for a long time to allow the vegetation and food supply to grow back? Why did the turtle make it and not the dinosaur? Apparently they had many of the same reptillian features.....perhaps the turtles ran away from the blast to the other side of the world frank.

Pat:

We don't know all the details, but we do know that the killoff was not uniform. Big animals died, and smaller ones tended to survive. The big turtles died, too. And the smaller ones lived on. So did many of the smaller reptiles, and those peculiar feathered dinosaurs. And the mammals, of course. You're puzzled how this happened? So are a lot of folks. But we're learning. Instead of giving up, why not learn a little yourself? Why did small animals and marine animals tend to survive when others did not?


Third Response

Posted by Frank on September 13, 1998 at 02:00:00:

To accept the meteor hit at the k/t boundary. means that one must accept the Earth being abit, like 775,000 times older than a 6000 YEC estimate.

So karl, how can you use the k/t boundary to disprove Evolution when to accept it, you must throw out a 6000-10,000 year old Earth?
Sounds like even if there would be problems with "living fossils", YECs would be completely "blown out of the water" by the Earth being even just 65MY old.

Response to Frank

Posted by Paul Rothberg on September 13, 1998 at 02:15:07:

You make an excellent point.


Response to Paul Rothberg

Posted by Frank on September 13, 1998 at 02:31:07:

hey karl, do you have any evidence from a YEC perspective that would invalidate evolution?
For the k/t boundary to be a problem, and quite simply it ain't, you would still invalidate YEC.
So, where's some YEC evidence that would invalidate evolution!


Response to Frank

Posted by Joe Martin on September 13, 1998 at 06:08:09:

Which is just an advanced form of OEC. Sort of like a new physics that seeks to get to the heart of the matter. Which is humanity and the creation that brought us about. There is no dishonesty, just a recognition of the facts that God has imprinted upon us. Now OEC, is a different matter. It recognizes the YE creationist positions but deals within the realm of space-time expansion and the 3-dimensional laws of physics we have developed to understand it. While YEC attempts to understand the creation from God's perspective, i.e., outside of space-time. OEC, attempts to deal with it from within the laws that we are comfortable with. God has deemed that both positions are accurate or you wouldn't be asking the question. He would like you to know that there is no deception involved because we are looking through the lens of human perception which is flawed because we are looking from inside the creation to the outside. This produces inherent flaws that require God's clarity to see through. Without his clarity we will have one flaw after another which science has recognized to be the case.


Response to Joe Martin

Posted by Frank on September 13, 1998 at 13:04:05:

other than "evolution is evil", of course I can't truly describe that changing goal post either.
Unless Joe Martin, you'd like to give us any information about any YEC theory and its predictive information.


Response to Frank

Posted by Joe Martin on September 14, 1998 at 06:29:44:

That evilevolution stuff starts right with you guys and gals that can't possibly see anything other than a materialistic universe. Because creationists attempt to look for evidence that is detrimental to the completely materialistic view they are portrayed as thinking that evolution is evil. I try to be as objective as possible on these matters. What I see are scientists that are afraid of biblical and religious ideas soley because they are trying to introduce a paradigm that does away with what they perceive to be superstitious beliefs. This is nothing more than the creation of a new religion dependent upon dishonesty. The mere facts of science do not support it.


Response to Joe Martin

Posted by MagFlare on September 14, 1998 at 14:42:33:

For someone who is trying to be as 'objective as possible', don't you think you tend to use rather inflammatory remarks? What *I* see is a living science that is able to surpass religion as a teaching tool. Religion is unscientific. Why try to prove your religion by using tools of the 'materialistic universe'?


Response to MagFlare

Posted by Joe Martin on September 15, 1998 at 19:32:39:

Being objective means not picking sides the way that you have done. I encounter a tremendous amount of inflammatory remarks so forgive me if I slip once in a while. If getting to the heart of the matter is in itself inflammatory then so be it. We are discussing science and creation. Somebody is bound to be inflamed. You are correct, science is a teaching tool. Religion is about the creator of that tool as well as the creator of the being that utilizes that tool. My religion requires no proof, your science does. In case you haven't noticed, the material universe is where we live. Where would you suggest that I park my other tools?


Response to Joe Martin

Posted by MagFlare on September 15, 1998 at 20:44:19:

Religion, unlike science, is not based on observations. If your god can change the laws of physics whenever he wants to (and, from the creationist standpoint, has repeatedly done so in the past), why bother learning about our environment at all? Why count the stars if God's going to modify the number on a whim? Why did God send more water than the Earth actually has available at any point to cover the surface in order to kill off a failed version of humanity? Religion is separate from science for a reason. Let's try to keep it that way.


Second Response to Joe Martin

Posted by B.Coyote on September 15, 1998 at 21:28:23:

"Science exists because of evidence, whereas religion exists upon faith--and, in the case of religious fundamentalists and creationism, in spite of the evidence" (Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism 1990 p:130). So much of science can be tested and proved; hypothesized, theorized, and substantiated; created and recreated. And all without a dependence on traditional belief or blind faith. Conventional science cannot refute the existence of God, nor should it want to do so. Religious beliefs are external to the scientific realm and should remain there. Science continuously corrects itself in its pursuit of understanding how the universe and "things" work. Do strict adherence to "inerrant" words of a supernatural Divinity allow for change? ...for flexible interpretations?

Will scientific creationists with their "presupposed truths" concerning man's origins ever relent in their determination to call themselves scientists and what they do --science?

You encounter inflammatory remakes because all of what you say is absolute nonsense. Your view is anything but objective. You should learn the meaning of the words you use before you use them.

If your religion reguires no proof then what is it doing for you? I don't know where you park any of your tools (I doubt you have any), but a good place to park them if you have any is in the real world.


Response to B.Coyote

Posted by Joe Martin on September 16, 1998 at 07:31:33:

Still taking any opportunity you can to take a nip of my heels? I hardly think anyone can be objective the way that you said. All I said was I was trying to be objective. If to you that means, eliminating any and all beliefs that one has, then that is impossible regardless of which side of the debate you approach it from.


Response to Paul Rothberg

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 09:22:03:

Your theories and your time frame for the hit.....destroyed your evolutionary theory.

BTW: Why did it wipe out ALL of the dino's? How come some of the little ones didn't survive?


Response to karl

Posted by Frank on September 13, 1998 at 12:59:22:

You already said 75% of the life was killed, not all. So what did you expect?


Response to karl

Posted by Pat on September 13, 1998 at 13:12:48:

Your theories and your time frame for the hit.....destroyed your evolutionary theory.

BTW: Why did it wipe out ALL of the dino's? How come some of the little ones didn't survive?

Pat:

Some of them did. You can probably find several of them in the nearest tree. Don't be shocked; the mammals look a lot different than they did in those days, too.


Response to Pat

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 19:11:13:

Pat: Some of them did. You can probably find several of them in the nearest tree. Don't be shocked; the mammals look a lot different than they did in those days, too.

karl

So, pat wants us to believe that only dino with feathers survived.....ok

...........sorry ROFLOL

next.

Response to karl

Posted by Pat on September 13, 1998 at 20:01:19:

Got any other examples? No? Why is no one surprised. But then, I saw your web page. The one where you thought a kangaroo skeleton was from a dinosaur?


Response to Frank

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 09:19:16:

frank:

So karl, how can you use the k/t boundary to disprove Evolution when to accept it, you must throw out a 6000-10,000 year old Earth?

karl:

Who says I accept it in the time frame you’re referring to?  The problem is for you evolutionists. So, why/how did the "living fossil" animals and plants make it through the k/t boundary virtually unchanged?


Response to karl

Posted by Frank on September 13, 1998 at 12:58:01:

Tell me where in the Bible it says anything about a giant meteor impact!  Remember, disproving one theory does not make the other one standing right.

So karl, when did the meteor hit? Why, if like a suppose you beleive, people had been around since almost the beginning, why there was nothing written about it?

Response to Frank

Posted by batman on September 13, 1998 at 19:05:03:

Well Frank, that's a no brainer. All the people except Noah and his family were DEAD!... duh.


Fourth Response

Posted by Pat on September 13, 1998 at 13:07:20:

karl:

It seems to me that living fossils and the K/T Boundary created by the "asteroid impact" has done an enormous amount of damage to the evolutionary theories. These currently living species appear almost identical to their fossil counterparts. The question is, how did these living animals and plants survive the impact and over 65 million years with very little if any change?

Pat:

The coelacanth was relatively small, lived at great depths on the opposite side of the world from the KT impact. You couldn't name a better candidate for survival among the vertebrates. Name another.

karl:

Perhaps they could last a few hundred thousand years unchanged, but according to evolutionary theories certainly not millions of years in this brand new environment they found theirselves struggling to survive in.

Pat:

You have evidence that the coelacanth didn't merely migrate to a marine environment in which it could survive? So far all we have is your fantasy. Fill it out with some facts, then we'll talk.

karl

Some evolutionary scientist claim that these species found a special *ecological niche* and therefore were not exposed to the pressures presented by evolutionary change after the impact.
Not only is it amazing how some of these living fossils according to evolutionist conformed to a certain ecological niche, yet, some how they were able to pass through the K/T boundary which some scientist claimed wiped out 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings.

Pat:

So, at worst, one in four species survived without major evolutionary changes. And you are shocked that some very ancient species were among that one in four, because...?

karl:

The whole world was upset in an iridium nightmare when one big time major ecological niche change happened,

Pat:

How do "iridium nightmares" differ from the regular kind? Are you claiming some special effect from a miniscule layer of iridium? What? Or did you just copy this from the tract you read? Or is it just tossed in to make it sound like you know what you are talking about?

karl:

...but, some how, some species weren't effected at all by the catastrophic event that supposably happened at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary that effected everything from the seas to the mountain tops. Certainly after an event such as the mass extinction mentioned above, the tempo of evolution would be increasing while scrambling to create new dramatically varied species that thrived in the new environmental niche.

Pat:

There were a lot fewer reptillian creatures, especially the big ones. And the tiny mammals increased in numbers, species, and size. Pretty much what evolutionary theory predicts. You find this surprising? It's because you don't understand science yet.

karl:

Despite the argument that time alone coupled with the normal pressures of evolutionary change

Pat:

"time alone coupled with.." Is an oxymoron.

karl:

should be enough to introduce change into the living fossils, the events surrounding the K/T boundary make the likelihood of living fossils impossible and unfounded.

Pat:

As you've admitted, one in four species survived the KT event. You seem astonished that a few very old species did so, but you seem unable to explain why.


Response to Pat

Posted by karl on September 13, 1998 at 19:01:16:

PAT, no species survived the K/T event. zero, zilch, none, nada. THEY ALL DIED. (animals onboard the ark not included)


Response to karl

Posted by Pat on September 13, 1998 at 19:57:44:

Couldn't be. Those coelacanths are still around. They weren't on the ark. Further, there are too many species around to have ever been carried on an ark, even the impossibly big one supposed by Woodmorappe.

As noted, there are many, many species in the fossil record before the KT event, that are also in the fossil record afterward. Why? Because they survived, karl. Couldn't be there otherwise. You know it, and everyone else knows it.

Second Response to karl

Posted by Deb on September 14, 1998 at 09:15:03:

You posted:

Not only is it amazing how some of these living fossils according to evolutionist conformed to a certain ecological niche, yet, some how they were able to pass through the K/T boundary which some scientists claimed wiped out 75% or so of all species from a wide range of taxonomic groupings.

Then you posted:

PAT, no species survived the K/T event. zero, zilch, none, nada. THEY ALL DIED. (animals onboard the ark not included)

Since when did 75% = 100%?

Are you claiming that the Flood is actually at the k/t boundary? Can you cite some creationist literature that agrees with you?  What is your explanation for the end-Permian extinction event? The one that is actually far bigger than the k/t event? Or hadn't you heard?


Coccoliths, Reprise

Posted by R Myers on September 13, 1998 at 15:27:59:

According to devout Christian Joel Duff, the chalk deposits in Europe alone would cover the entire Earth to a depth of 83 centimeters. He references Peter A. Ziegler, Geological Atlas of Western and Central Europe, (Amsterdam: Shell Internationale Petroleum Maatschappij B. B., 1983) enclosure 32, to support this claim. (Follow this link to review Duff's article. [broken link]

In response to my coccolith challenge to Karl, a chap who calls himself Tommy Hellfighter copied a bunch of material from a Woodmorappe paper that claimed that enough pre-flood coccolith deposits could have formed prior to Noah's flood to account for the extensive chalk layers that we see now. In that material, Woodmorappe came up with a figure that he claims is a ballpark estimate of the total number of coccoliths produced by pre-flood plankton blooms. That number is 5.23x10E29.

Now, I did a little research and found that the average coccolith mass is about 1.8x10E-12 grams. I also found that the specific gravity of calcium-carbonate (the primary consituent of coccoliths) is 2.7,and that chalk deposits typically consist of 90-99% coccoliths.

Now Karl or Mr. Hellfighter or whoever, here's a little exercise:

1) Calculate a rough estimate of total volume of chalk deposits that would be created by 5.23x10E29 coccoliths. If you wish to use a lower specific gravity than 2.7, feel free to do so. But since chalk sinks in water, you must use a specific gravity that's greater than 1.

2) Estimate the depth of these chalk deposits if they were spread uniformly over the entire world. You can use a figure of 12750. km as the Earth's diameter.

3) How does this number compare with the 83 centimeters cited in Duff's article?

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison
 
 
CARM.org
Copyright 2014

CONTACT US:
CARM Office number: 208-466-1301
Office hours: M-F; 9-5 pm; Mountain Time
Email: [email protected]
Mailing Address: CARM, PO BOX 1353, Nampa ID 83653