It’s thought by many evolutionists that the dinosaurs died out when a huge asteroid- about six miles wide- struck the Earth nearly 66 million years ago. The impact, now identified as the Chicxulub crater in the Yucatan Peninsula, was responsible for climate changes that led to the extinction of the dinosaurs.
There are a number of problems with this theory, however. First, the impact predates the mass extinction by 300,000 years, so it seems inconsequential. Further, there are many plants and animals that didn’t go extinct, including ones that would have been sensitive to environmental changes. According to Princeton scientist Gerta Keller, there were 52 species present both before and after the impact; therefore, if the asteroid didn’t cause them to go extinct, why should we believe it caused the extinction of the dinosaurs? Keller went on to say, “Not a single species went extinct as a result of the Chicxulub impact.”
Yet other scientists have claimed that the asteroid is responsible for the extinction of 65 percent of life on Earth, so advocates of this theory must account for these discrepancies, and one way they’re doing that is to claim that birds were almost wiped out by the asteroid too!
Well, the story is a bit convoluted, but the scientists in this study suggest that the birds living before the asteroid (Cretaceous) impact were living in and around trees, and afterwards (early Paleogene) they became ground-dwellers. Why? Because the asteroid destroyed all the forests on Earth, leaving birds without their habitat.
Anyway, the Earth eventually recovered, and scientists point to a bird-boom, so the assumption is that birds must have nearly gone extinct due to the loss of habitat and food sources. Therefore, even though all the dinosaurs went extinct, birds almost didn’t make it either.
Their story doesn’t seem to add up; even with fossil evidence, their theory is built upon unprovable assumptions about the distant past. We don’t really know if the Chicxulub crater is a true impact crater or not. Scientists believe it is because of the presence of the element iridium, which is found in asteroids. But this element could also be present due to volcanic activity, so there’s no reason to assume it resulted from an impact crater- except that evolutionists need to explain the dinosaur extinction, and this theory serves as a rescuing agent.
One thing I always find fascinating when I read stories like this is how much the evidence actually makes more sense from a Biblical perspective, and, in this case, as a result of a world-wide flood. There’s no doubt, for example, that the Earth has faced catastrophic events in the distant past, causing the extinction of a vast variety of life. In fact, if the Bible didn’t describe a world-wide flood, I’d wager that scientists would have proposed a global flood theory to describe the various geologic layers and mass extinctions long ago. But the problem is that a global flood is, not only a Biblical event, but a supernatural one, and most scientists only accept natural explanations, even if the evidence suggests otherwise. Why? Because that’s what’s expected… or they’re unwilling to admit that God exists and that he sent a global flood, just as the Bible describes.
This article documents a mass extinction resulting from a global catastrophe, then a booming recovery. A global flood would easily explain why all the forests on the face of the planet were destroyed, as well as the extinction of the dinosaurs and other animals, and then a recovery. In addition, we’d expect volcanic activity during such an event, and most creationist models include asteroid impacts.
Which theory provides a better explanation for the past? I think a global flood wins easily.
“In fact, if the Bible didn’t describe a world-wide flood, I’d wager that scientists would have proposed a global flood theory to describe the various geologic layers and mass extinctions long ago. ”
Love it! The evidence is so strong for a worldwide flood, but the naturalists avoid it like dieters avoid carbs: They want to use it because of its explanatory power but know it’s not good for their worldview.
Yup, very true. If they’d actually read what they’re writing, much of it smacks of a global flood.