English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

It's a layer of sediment that is where the dinosaurs went extinct. There is a single layer, found all over the world at the same place, of an element called Iridium. What is so weird about that? Iridium does not come from the earth, it comes from one place, space. Asteroids and comets to be exact.

The layers of the earth read alot like the layes of the rings of a tree. This layer goes back 65 million years ago when the entire planet was covered the dust from the massive impact that killed the dinosaurs. So creationists, how do you explain the Iridium and the date of which the Iridium arrived, around 65 million years ago.

2007-02-17 16:53:47 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

8 answers

They're not going to come to your question.

To be honest, I thought KT was Kentucky, and I was like, "not interested" but decided to click anyway.

You have a good point, though. Glad I already believe in evolution.

- 16 yo Pagan

2007-02-17 16:58:20 · answer #1 · answered by Lady Myrkr 6 · 0 1

this is properly no longer extensively popular that the meteor impact brought about the KT mass extinction, it rather is in basic terms a consumer-friendly fake impact. basically there are 4 obtainable motives that each physique have good evidence backing them up: a meteor impact; volcanic eruptions (Deccan traps); formation of Pangea and; anoxic seas/climate substitute . The liklihood subsequently is that the KT grew to become into brought about by utilizing a mixture of a few of those components somewhat than purely the meteor impact so on the spot annhiliation of all dinosaurs may be particularly no longer likely. evidence potential that the decline of the dinosaurs started out long formerly the KT boundary, yet another excuse there may be no mass graves, many species have been already extinct. some scientists have proposed that the extinction lasted a minimum of one million million years so the danger is that dinosaurs lasted for particularly a jointly as after the impact. of direction, there is often the potential for blunders in figuring out the KT boundary interior the rock checklist to boot!

2016-12-17 18:38:40 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Well, I for one am a creationist that believes God probably created the universe with a big bang, so I have no problem with dinosaurs living 65 million years ago. I just believe that the temporal world that has eternal significance to us began with Adam and Eve, whenever that was. I do not take the Bible literally.

2007-02-17 16:59:35 · answer #3 · answered by rndyh77 6 · 1 0

Yes, I've heard of the KT boundary. But I really want to respond to what Barjesse said.
Evolution doesn't necessarily move to higher order. Evolution is simply a series of random mutations. It is more likely that a beneficial mutation will be passed on because it will help it's owner survive longer and breed more (I guess that would be the order part). There are plenty of non-beneficial mutations (the chaos part); they just don't get passed along and become engrained in the species because they don't help the owner pass it's genes along.

2007-02-17 18:16:25 · answer #4 · answered by Jensenfan 5 · 0 0

(No, KY is Kentucky, not KT...)

Actually, I am familiar with K-T. (Let me guess, you just finished reading Lost World by Crichton, right?)

Were you the one who was around 65 million years ago to measure the validity of the dating mechanism, or was it just someone you know intimately?

Oh. Well then, how do you know it's accurate? Because of the bones you dated using this selfsame method?

This is a good definition and example of circular reasoning. We know they are 65 million years old because of the dating method, and we know the dating method works because it dated these fossils at 65 million years old.

I think you need to consult more people than just Malcolm or Levine. (Besides, Levine always was a little bit flaky.)

Let's try this one: Entropy. A universal law of science. It says that when left to their own, things naturally move from a state of order to a higher degree of chaos. (Evidence of this is everywhere, like for instance in every child's bedroom.) Evolution is a theory that says that when left to their own, things naturally move from a state of chaos to a higher degree of order. Which is right, the theory or the scientific law?

2007-02-17 17:19:31 · answer #5 · answered by barjesse37 3 · 0 1

Yup, its a pretty incredible thing that its been sitting there all this time and instead people came up with crazy stories to explain things. Then when its reveiled to us they just ignore it. Thats why religion is hereditory, to stop as much individual thought as possible.

2007-02-17 17:04:30 · answer #6 · answered by Woody 2 · 1 1

I've asked questions of Christians before that they couldn't answer, and all they told me was that questions like that are unfair.

2007-02-17 17:03:18 · answer #7 · answered by Gothic Shadow 3 · 1 1

Brace yourself...the answer will be something along the lines of, "God put it there to test us. My preacher told me so."

2007-02-17 16:59:00 · answer #8 · answered by KS 7 · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers