Macro Evolution: The Evidence

[wattsr1]

Hey Jorge

Still waiting for your list of known impact craters you said exist.

Still waiting for you to explain how you determined Barringer is an impact crater

Still waiting for you to explain the multiple independent lines of evidence that show Barringer crater is approx. 49,000 years old.

Your dance got old long ago Jorge. Man up for once and answer the questions.

- T

Just thought I'd pop in to see if Jorge can explain why, in his True.Origins article, the Barringer crater is not of meteorite impact origin, whereas here on Theology Web it is probably of meteorite impact origin.

Nothing yet I see.

Same data different interpretation between sites I guess.

[rogue06]

Whether they are craters resulting from cosmic impacts or from exploding volcanoes and the like isn't really the issue for a YEC. Its all the heat they released (and poisonous gasses...) that's the problem here.

[Tiggy]

Hey Jorge

Still waiting for your list of known impact craters you said exist.

Still waiting for you to explain how you determined Barringer is an impact crater

Still waiting for you to explain the multiple independent lines of evidence that show Barringer crater is approx. 49,000 years old.

Your dance got old long ago Jorge. Man up for once and answer the questions.

Oh goody, 's back. Lets see if he'll answer the questions for once.

- T

[wattsr1]

Its all the heat ... released (and ... gasses...) that's the problem here.

I'd have thought that Jorge has both of those well covered, no problem.


Are you there Jorge? We're all busting to see how at True.Origins, the evidence shows that Barringer is not meteorite impact, while here at TWeb, the evidence shows that it probably is.

[USIncognito]

Forget Berringer, I'd like to see an explanation for Sudbury.

When I visited there as a boy, there were huge mining operations there for nickel and copper.

I wonder if Clownshoes or have any idea why that might be important in determining whether Sudbury was an impact crator or not.

also should look a bit firther than Wikipea or answers.com The only quotes - uncited, of course - seem to come from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Clearly_kefir/tektite

He could also have found radar imagery of Chicxulub instead of acting like there's nothing more than drawings.

Finally, Figure 12 is a drawing (not a photograph) of what the Chicxulub crater allegedly consists of.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/multimed....cfm?IM_ID=791

[Jorge]

Just thought I'd pop in to see if Jorge can explain why, in his True.Origins article, the Barringer crater is not of meteorite impact origin, whereas here on Theology Web it is probably of meteorite impact origin.

Nothing yet I see.

Same data different interpretation between sites I guess.

**************************************************************************************

I see that you suffer from the same severe reading comprehension handicap as does Tiggy.

No ... wait ... it's not a reading comprehension handicap, it's willful, selective, distorted reading.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Whether they are craters resulting from cosmic impacts or from exploding volcanoes and the like isn't really the issue for a YEC. Its all the heat they released (and poisonous gasses...) that's the problem here.

********************************************************************************************************

One word for you : F - L - O - O - D.

Read your Scripture, kiddo ... the part about a worldwide Flood.
You can't miss it ... it's right there in the first book, chapters 6,7 and 8.

Jorge

[wattsr1]

**************************************************************************************

I see that you suffer from the same severe reading comprehension handicap as does Tiggy.

No ... wait ... it's not a reading comprehension handicap, it's willful, selective, distorted reading.

Jorge

I see you've been off smoking pot Jorge. But I won't ask you for evidence of me using "willful, selective, distorted reading" if you don't ask me for evidence that you've been off smoking pot.

Deal?

Might be far easier if you just explained to us all how come, over on the True.Origin's article, you have all the evidence saying that Barringer is not an impact whereas here you say it probably is an impact.

Got an answer to that? Or should I keep on claiming that you are smoking pot?*



* That's not as bad as bearing false witness though. The Bible is clear about bearing false witness. It's very wrong. But I don't think it mentions "pot", so you can probably get away on a technicality with that one.

[Jorge]

I see you've been off smoking pot Jorge. But I won't ask you for evidence of me using "willful, selective, distorted reading" if you don't ask me for evidence that you've been off smoking pot.

Deal?

Might be far easier if you just explained to us all how come, over on the True.Origin's article, you have all the evidence saying that Barringer is not an impact whereas here you say it probably is an impact.

Got an answer to that? Or should I keep on claiming that you are smoking pot?*



* That's not as bad as bearing false witness though. The Bible is clear about bearing false witness. It's very wrong. But I don't think it mentions "pot", so you can probably get away on a technicality with that one.

***************************************************************************
First, you need to know that I grant you these few minutes because it's just a few minutes.

Second, if you had any reading comprehension ability at all you would know that in my article
I NEVER say that Barringer isn't an impact. That's why I insist that there are but two options:
(1) you and Tiggy have severe reading comprehension disabilities or,
(2) you are far from being intellectually honest

I see no other alternative.

Third, and last, accusing me of "smoking pot" is like accusing the late Mother Teresa of
participating in wild sex orgies with booze and drugs while wearing a string bikini.
On second thought, I wouldn't put such an accusation past you guys so forget it.

Jorge

[Tiggy]

Hey Jorge

Still waiting for your list of known impact craters you said exist.

Still waiting for you to explain how you determined Barringer is an impact crater

Still waiting for you to explain the multiple independent lines of evidence that show Barringer crater is approx. 49,000 years old.

Your dance got old long ago Jorge. Man up for once and answer the questions.

Oh goody, 's back. Lets see if he'll answer the questions for once.

Looks like Jorge is the same spineless coward he's always been. Making big claims and then clucking away as fast as his scrawny legs will carry him. Maybe he's going to the backboneless ranch.

- T

[USIncognito]

F - L - O - O - D.[/B]

Read your Scripture, kiddo ... the part about a worldwide Flood.
You can't miss it ... it's right there in the first book, chapters 6,7 and 8.

Did you happen to overlook my questions about Sudbury and all the nickel and copper mined from there? Does the "F-L-0-0-D" explain why so much of those particular elements were found in that location? An impact event does... how 'bout it ? Care to step up to the plate? (and I using a baseball metaphore, not a referance to what would be served on)

[rogue06]

********************************************************************************************************

One word for you : F - L - O - O - D.

Read your Scripture, kiddo ... the part about a worldwide Flood.
You can't miss it ... it's right there in the first book, chapters 6,7 and 8.

Jorge

Um, Jorge. If you shoehorn all the great cosmic impacts* with the magma traps** (Siberian, Deccan, Columbia River, Ethiopian…) and other substantial volcanic flood basalt flows*** and volcanic eruptions**** into the few months the Flood was supposed to have covered the world you wouldn't have to worry about a flood. In fact there would be no flood as the resultant heat would boil it all off.




* Vredefort, Sudbury, Chicxulub, Manicouagan, Popigai, Chesapeake Bay, Acraman...
** Siberian, Deccan, Columbia River, Ethiopian…
*** Snake River Plain, Parana Plateau Brazil, Karoo basalts...
**** the Toba eruption of 77,000 years ago that often gets mentioned is only the 16th largest

[USIncognito]

I see that you suffer from the same severe reading comprehension handicap as does Tiggy.

No ... wait ... it's not a reading comprehension handicap, it's willful, selective, distorted reading.

You mean like avoiding my questions about Sudbury and the nickel and copper content of the impact zone? Or how about ignoring the fact that I noted your "quotes" in your bogus propraganda piece don't cite a reference and the only other references to that particular phrasing are from Creationist sites - well, one is an alt-history woo site I'm sure you support completely since it "quotes" the same content almost verbatim. What kind of "Dr." with a $2595... or is it $2995 degree would post anything on the internet without a citation or reference of any sort?

[rogue06]

I NEVER say that Barringer isn't an impact.

Your article sure leaves the impression that you didn't think it was an impact crater what with the way you linked it to Hole-in-the-Ground, a maar crater of volcanic origin. But this avoids the central question that Tiggy has been asking... WHY do you think that Barringer Crater is the result of a cosmic impact?

[magellan004]

You mean like avoiding my questions about Sudbury and the nickel and copper content of the impact zone? Or how about ignoring the fact that I noted your "quotes" in your bogus propraganda piece don't cite a reference and the only other references to that particular phrasing are from Creationist sites - well, one is an alt-history woo site I'm sure you support completely since it "quotes" the same content almost verbatim. What kind of "Dr." with a $2595... or is it $2995 degree would post anything on the internet without a citation or reference of any sort?

You didn't ask questions in Post 140. What you did was beg for attention.

Magellan