Dinosaur Extinction — Asteroid or the Flood?

Get ready for a great lesson in creation science from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their new post is titled Did an Asteroid Impact Kill the Dinosaurs?, written by Brian Thomas. He’s described at the end of his articles as “Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.” This is ICR’s biographical information on him. Here are some excerpts from his fascinating article, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

During a recent visit to a church, I told a group of children how and why Noah’s Flood fossilized the dinosaurs. [Hee hee!] A boy told me he saw a documentary that said an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs. Did an impact or the Flood kill them?

Wow — this is an important question. For those who care about the materialist, scientific answer, Wikipedia has an article on the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, but lets stay with Brian. He says:

Three science clues help answer this question. One clue is frogs. An impact powerful enough to demolish thick-skinned, tough, monstrous dinosaurs all over the world surely would have erased thin-skinned amphibians first.

Yeah — why didn’t the frogs go extinct? Here’s Brian’s next clue:

Next, where is the impact crater? An impact large enough to wipe out all the world’s dinosaurs should have left a huge, round pit. Most scientists who study this think a region beneath the southern Gulf of Mexico and northern Yucatan Peninsula represents the impact site. However, others disagree for good reasons.

Brian gives us those good reasons:

For one thing, the underground feature at that site is not round. Plus, an impact with worldwide destructive force would have melted rocks, but the site has very little melted rock. The rocks down there don’t need an impact to explain them. Magma that rose from the depths could have made the rocks the way we see them today. Why should we believe an impact killed the dinosaurs if we can’t find a crater that fills the bill?

For those who care about how scientific fools see the matter, here’s Wikipedia’s article on the Chicxulub crater. Brian continues:

The size and shape of rock layers give us a third clue that the Genesis Flood, not an asteroid impact, best explains the dinosaur fossils they contain. Each of these rock layers can cover thousands of square miles! A single layer can cover several states. … How could an impact way down in Mexico deposit this thick layer so far away? An impact should make a wedge-shaped layer, with mud thinning out from the crater. But actual dinosaur layers keep the same thickness for hundreds of miles. Noah’s Flood could do that.

This is great stuff! Let’s read on:

The Bible says that surging Flood waters took months to cover the whole globe. Sure enough, dinosaurs got buried in mud on every continent. And this Flood happened about 4,500 years ago, not 66 million years ago. [Hee hee!] Science supports this, too.

We’ll skip the creationist clunkers that Brian uses to support that claim and get right to the end:

Did an asteroid impact kill the dinosaurs millions of years ago? No way. Noah’s recent Flood formed dinosaur fossils fast all over the world.

So there you are, dear reader. It was the Flood that killed the dinosaurs 4,500 years ago. Now you know The Truth.

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

25 responses to “Dinosaur Extinction — Asteroid or the Flood?

  1. Noah was highly skilled in handling poison dart frogs.

  2. Michael Fugate

    The gravity anomaly map on Wikipedia sure looks round to me.

  3. An impact powerful enough to demolish thick-skinned, tough, monstrous dinosaurs all over the world surely would have erased thin-skinned amphibians first.
    Does he think that scientists say that each of the dinosaurs were killed by direct impact? No matter how far they were from Yucatan, even on the opposite side of the world?
    Why single out frogs? If impact were the only cause of death, then there are plenty of delicate forms of life which would be killed by impact.
    Or have I misunderstood?

  4. Karl Goldsmith (@KarlGoldsmith)

    “Did an impact or the Flood kill them?” It was at that moment I knew I was a lying expletive, lying to a child.

  5. The frogs had to stick around so Yahweh could plague the Egyptians with them, later on in Exodus.

    Dinosaurs would have been too cumbersome, even the ones the size of sheep.

  6. Does ICR have a corporate motto? Surely it must be ‘Lying for God’.

    Thomas’ asks his readers to consider the science – what a pity that he doesn’t actually present any. The collective catastrophic impact on both frogs and dinosaurs relies on that great scientifically-based, research-emboldened maxim – “surely would have“. The impact crater isn’t round? – oh, I guess those drilling studies of Chicxulub crater never made it to Brian’s reading list. Other claims besides Chicxulub? – wow, who would have thought there could be multiple impact sites? And then, the sleight-of-hand segueway to Flood geology for which there is no science – period.

    I can cope with lying to adults, they’re old enough to make their own choices. But lying to children, inexcusable!

  7. But, I thought Hambo has a couple of dinos on the ark?

  8. So really he lied to the little boy.

  9. “Get ready for a great lesson in creation science”
    I’m sitting on the edge of my seat.

    “Yeah — why didn’t the frogs go extinct?”
    And why didn’t the small mammals?
    Might the answer be hidden in the question itself?

    “where is the impact crater?”
    I suppose Brilliant Brian also will explain away the Alternative hypotheses in Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event, and especially: “There is clear evidence that sea levels fell” (underlined by me).

  10. Oops – something went wrong with the hashtags once again.
    The word “fell” should have been underlined.

    [*Voice from above*]: Worst coding ever! But all is well.

  11. He says the crater isn’t round. It is. He says the rocks weren’t melted locally. They were. He denies the formation of a debris layer, thickest near the impact site. It’s there (and what led to the discovery, over in Italy, of the iridium spike). He points out that the impact can’t account for the thick deposits containing dino fossils. On this at least he’s right.

    His other argument is from flexible tissue recovered from dino bones. He says they contain haemoglobin proteins and whole bone cells. They don’t.

    The BBC did an excellent documentary on the 2016 drill. I’m trying to find out if it’s still available anywhere, and would be grateful for news of sightings

  12. Finally, he says “Erosion over millions of years would have carved ruts. Where are the expected ruts between the layers?” I assume he’s referring to the paraconformities in the Grand Canyon, and the answer to his question is, indeed, “between the layers”.

    I am struggling to work out what is going on in his mind

  13. “This is ICR’s biographical information on him….”
    And here is the “Encyclopedia of American Loons” entry on him:

    “I am struggling to work out what is going on in his mind”
    His what? For sure nothing is going on in his head that a dead spider couldn’t exactly emulate with zero effort.

    And the alleged world wide flood laid down a nicely defined layer of iridium sediment in the 65 million year old sediment layers how? Iridium is a rare element on this earth so how did it get so concentrated in the 65 million year old layer?.

  14. @PaulB shows courage: “I am struggling to work out what is going on in his mind.”
    I admire you – after reading that crap I immediately gave up.

  15. You don’t understand! All the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous sediments were laid down during the Flood (that’s why they’re absent on the Kaibab plateau, where they were washed away by the retreating waters that carved the Grand Canyon). And iridium, being ureactive, just floated up to the top.

  16. Thanks, Frank. I’m trying,I realy am, to find some way of reaching his followers, but it’s like trying to wrestle with a marshmallow

  17. Never mind, Paul. You reach us. It’s all grist to the mill.

  18. Brain Tomas is completely delusional and needs to get his head checked.

  19. Sorry, I meant this post:
    Thomas could not biblically claim that Noah’s flood caused dinosaur extinction – as Genesis plainly shows that the flood was not an extinction event. To be biblically he can only allege that the flood killed many dinosaurs and caused them to be fossilised – and the survivors of the flood recolonised the world but then all went mysteriously extinct and mysteriously left no fossils (or none, above the Cretaceous-Paleogene boundary, have yet been discovered). “Noah’s recent Flood formed dinosaur fossils fast all over the world.” No such event occurred 4,500 years ago and the dinosaurs were already dead and sometimes fossilised. (Following an asteroid strike which also produced shock quartz as well as an iridium layer.)

  20. Even Answers in Genesis have articles on their website accepting there was once a large impact at Chicxulub. Though in 2017 Tim Clarey attempted to cast doubt (in his Conclusion he claims the Yucatan evidence can also be explained by ‘rapid crystallization’ and ‘volcanic activity’
    Today (and 4,500 years ago) there are NO live volcanoes in the limestone area of Mexico’s Yucatan.

  21. Mike Elzinga

    I am pretty sure that an explanation for the iridium layer at the K-T (K-Pg) boundary is not found in their holy book. Did their deity lay down a misleading clue to lure all us sinners off track? Was it the Devil?

  22. “Today (and 4,500 years ago) there are NO live volcanoes in the limestone area of Mexico’s Yucatan.”
    How do you know, Ashley? Were you there?

  23. No but volcanoes don’t usually either go walkies across the land or suddenly vanish leaving no traces.

  24. Something I tried to post on 16 June (I’ll try again):

    https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/extinction/do-data-support-large-meteorite-impact-chicxulub/ (cited by Thomas at footnote 2)
    Thomas claims: “The rocks down there [in the northern Yucatan peninsula] don’t need an impact to explain them. Magma that rose from the depths could have made the rocks the way we see them today”. Clarey claims: “It seems more likely that the hydrothermal alteration … was the result of intrusive igneous activity and not from an undiscovered massive impact melt. In contrast, superheated ground waters are commonly produced above and ahead of an intrusive magma body”. But the Yucatan is a LIMESTONE area as Clarey well knows. Thus we also get this far-fetched claim from Clarey just ahead of his Conclusion: he invokes the great Flood and then claims “There was sufficient Late Cretaceous and Paleogene volcanic activity in the subduction zone along western Mexico, and across Cuba and much of the Caribbean (Jamaica, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and the Dutch West Indies) to easily provide a source for the glassy spherules so commonly claimed to be exclusively from the Chicxulub event (Martini et al. 2009; Pardo 2009).” But what about the andesite at Chicxulub – surely that could not have been transported from eg western Mexico and might instead have resulted from the melting caused by an impact from space?