Predatory dinosaurs before the flood

[JackRT]

There is no proof that I know about in regards to an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs but, there is a lot of evidence concerning a massive flood wiping them out.

Actually there is a great deal of evidence indicating that that an asteroid was instrumental in wiping out the non-avian dinosaurs some 63 million years ago but there is no evidence of a much more recent global flood or that dinosaurs were ever contemporary with humans.

 

[TerryHueffed]

Actually there is a great deal of evidence indicating that that an asteroid was instrumental in wiping out the non-avian dinosaurs some 63 million years ago but there is no evidence of a much more recent global flood or that dinosaurs were ever contemporary with humans.

 

[TerryHueffed]

I would love to see the evidence for the asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs, please tell me where I can find it. There is a book entitled, "Evolution Satan's Lie & Proof God Exists, that has a section in it about the flood. Very interesting the evidence for a worldwide flood.

 

[JackRT]

I would love to see the evidence for the asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs, please tell me where I can find it. There is a book entitled, "Evolution Satan's Lie & Proof God Exists, that has a section in it about the flood. Very interesting the evidence for a worldwide flood.

You can find thousands of articles concerning this on the internet but a good one for a start is found at:

https://www.psi.edu/epo/ktimpact/ktimpact.html

 

[TerryHueffed]

I read part of the article suggested. However there is no, and I mean no real evidence for gradual changes from one species to another. Evolution is a lie of Satan. The proofs offered for evolution have all been proven to be false. See the following books: The Evolution Handbook, and Evolution Satan's Lie & Proof Good Exists. These books are only a few of many that dispell evolution. Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” The Flagellum motor in cells, which provide locomotion, disproves evolution. Any component missing as a result of evolution would make living organism impossible to exist.

 

[JackRT]

Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Since you quote Darwin:

Claim CB301:
The eye is too complex to have evolved.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 7.
Hitching, Francis, 1982. The Neck of the Giraffe, New York: Meridian, pp. 66-68.
Response:

1. This is the quintessential example of the argument from incredulity. The source making the claim usually quotes Darwin saying that the evolution of the eye seems "absurd in the highest degree". However, Darwin follows that statement with a three-and-a-half-page proposal of intermediate stages through which eyes might have evolved via gradual steps (Darwin 1872).
   
   • photosensitive cell
   • aggregates of pigment cells without a nerve
   • an optic nerve surrounded by pigment cells and covered by translucent skin
   • pigment cells forming a small depression
   • pigment cells forming a deeper depression
   • the skin over the depression taking a lens shape
   • muscles allowing the lens to adjust
   
   All of these steps are known to be viable because all exist in animals living today. The increments between these steps are slight and may be broken down into even smaller increments. Natural selection should, under many circumstances, favor the increments. Since eyes do not fossilize well, we do not know that the development of the eye followed exactly that path, but we certainly cannot claim that no path exists.
   
   Evidence for one step in the evolution of the vertebrate eye comes from comparative anatomy and genetics. The vertebrate βγ-crystallin genes, which code for several proteins crucial for the lens, are very similar to the Ciona βγ-crystallin gene. Ciona is an urochordate, a distant relative of vertebrates. Ciona's single βγ-crystallin gene is expressed in its otolith, a pigmented sister cell of the light-sensing ocellus. The origin of the lens appears to be based on co-optation of previously existing elements in a lensless system.
   
   Nilsson and Pelger (1994) calculated that if each step were a 1 percent change, the evolution of the eye would take 1,829 steps, which could happen in 364,000 generations.

Links:
Lindsay, Don, 1998. How long would the fish eye take to evolve? http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_time.html
References:

1. Darwin, C., 1872. The Origin of Species, 1st Edition. Senate, London, chpt. 6, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter6.html
2. Nilsson, D.-E. and S. Pelger, 1994. A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Biological Sciences, 256: 53-58.
   
   
3. Shimeld, Sebastian M. et al. 2005. Urochordate βγ-crystallin and the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate eye lens. Current Biology 15: 1684-1689.

Further Reading:
Dawkins, Richard, 1996. Climbing Mount Improbable, New York: W.W. Norton, chpt. 5.

Land, M. F. and D.-E. Nilsson, 2002. Animal Eyes. Oxford University Press.

Fernald, Russell D. 2006. Casting a genetic light on the evolution of eyes. Science 313: 1914-1918.

Refer to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html

 

[TerryHueffed]

I stated nothing about eyes. Why did you bring it up?

 

[JackRT]

I stated nothing about eyes. Why did you bring it up?

You cited:

Darwin himself said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Is the eye not a complex organ?

 

[Job 33:6]

There is no proof that I know about in regards to an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs but, there is a lot of evidence concerning a massive flood wiping them out.

How about the K-T boundary? Makes sense that an asteroid hit and formed it.

A global flood on the other hand, would not make sense. Because, you have the deposition of cambrian strata, ordovicial, silurian, devonian, carboniferous and permian. Then you have your permian triassic extinction, then you have proliferation of dinosaurs, their nests with eggs, their foot tracks, their appearances and proliferation of fossils in mesozoic rock. Then you have the K-T boundary of iridium with their dissapearance and of course the massive asteroid craters, one of which is particularly large, in that same strata there at the end of the mesozoic, superpositionally equal in time with the iridium layer. Then you have the cenozoic and cenozoic megafauna and ice ages of the pleistocene and all that good stuff.


So the question would be, where is it that the flood would begin? If a flood killed the dinosaurs, is that to say that the flood did not occur until after paleozoic and mesozoic strata had lithified?

Of course this is a loaded question that could never be answered by global flood believers.

 

[Job 33:6]

I would love to see the evidence for the asteroids wiping out the dinosaurs, please tell me where I can find it. There is a book entitled, "Evolution Satan's Lie & Proof God Exists, that has a section in it about the flood. Very interesting the evidence for a worldwide flood.

See my post, post #49