Did you even read post #115? Your cut-and-paste utterly fails to deal with the majority of it, and disingenuously waffles around the key points of the one thing it does address. Care to try again, or would you like to concede you have no proper rebuttal?
The extinction was not that sudden (using evolutionary/long age interpretations of the geological record).
There were climate changes prior to the end of the Cretaceous which had some species on the decline. But the KT extinction most certainly was "sudden", and no amount of creationist hand-waving changes that. Dinosaurs -- vanished. Ammonites of all species: Gone. Over 75% of the species present immediately before the KT impact vanish at the KT boundary, both land and sea.
But the spread in the geological record makes sense if much of the sedimentary deposits were formed in Noah’s Flood.
There is no such "spread" in the geologic record of the kind Sarfati is trying to vaguely imply.
Light-sensitive species survived.
Which is relevant to *what*, exactly?
Extinctions don’t correlate with crater dates.
This is quite simply disingenuous. Yes, they do.
Modern volcanic eruptions don’t cause global extinction patterns, even if they cause a temporary temperature drop.
They don't cause worldwide fires and countless cubic miles of atmospheric debris, either, so this is a straw man distraction from the actual point.
The iridium enrichment, supposedly a key proof of meteor impact, is not nearly as clearly defined as claimed.
Looks pretty "clearly defined" to me:
Drill cores of the apparent ‘smoking gun’ crater on the Yucatán peninsula in south-east Mexico do not support the idea that it is an impact crater.
What has Sarfati been smoking? Yes, the drill cores most certainly *do* "support the idea that it is an impact crater". For just one study of countless:
SHOCK METAMORPHISM OF IMPACTITE LITHOLOGIES OF THE ICDP CHICXULUB DRILL CORE YAX-1Warning: Creationist websites are often less than honest.
R. T. Schmitt, A. Wittmann and D. Stöffler Institute of Mineralogy, Museum of Natural History, Humboldt-University of Berlin, Invalidenstr. 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany (ralf-thomas.schmitt@rz.hu-berlin.de/Fax: +49-30-20938565)The ICDP Chicxulub drillcore YAX-1 exposes about 100 m of allochthonus polymict impact breccias in a depth of 794.63 to 894.94 m [1]. In this preliminary study we focus on the shock effects and shock metamorphism of these impactites. 26 thin sec-tions of the impactites from YAX-1 have been investigated for shock effects by optical microscopy and REM. The shock classification of the components uses the method de-scribed in [2]. Within all 6 impactite units (794.63 - 894.94 m, see [1]) more or less the same shock features within silicate fragments are: (1) Quartz and feldspar fragments of shock stage I display decorated PDF’s. (2) Unaltered fragments of shock stages II (diaplectic glass) and III (normal mineral glass) are lacking since they are completely recrystallized. Therefore ballen quartz textures and checkerboard plagioclase are rel-atively frequent. (3) Melt fragments of shock stage IV are the dominating component within the suevite. In most of the units at least two different types of silicate melt fragments occur. They are crystallized, in many cases indicate a possible exsolution of carbonate melts (droplet-like and/or dike-like shapes of calcite) and contain shocked and recrystallized crystalline fragments. In comparison to suevite deposits of smaller impact craters (e.g. Nördlinger Ries [3,4]) the content of melt fragments within the Chicxulub suevites is much higher. The intense (re)crystallization of fragments and melt fragments indicate very high post-depositional temperatures and a strong post impact hydrothermal activity which is typical for melt-rich impactite units [5].
References: [1] Stöffler D. et al. (2003), this volume. [2] Stöffler D. (1971) JGR, 76, 5541-5551. [3] Stöffler et al. (1977) Geologica Bavarica, 77, 163-189. [4] Engelhardt v. W. (1997) MAPS, 32, 545-554. [5] Grieve R. F. A. et al. (1996) MAPS, 31, 6-35.
Oard points out that iridium enrichment can be caused by massive volcanism, as many evolutionists agree.
But *not* the kind of Iridium enrichment found in the KT layer, for reasons I've already explained.
‘there are now over 30 iridium “horizons” in the Phanerozoic record.
Minor ones, because as already discussed volcanic eruptions can produce small "bumps" in Iridium levels. But again, *not* ones as large as, nor of the type of, the KT spike. Straw man again.
These can be explained by a slowdown in sedimentation rate as iridium rained from the sky (whether from a terrestrial, or an extraterrestrial source). They pose no problem for the Flood at all.’
Actually, it does, to a great degree, for too many reasons to get into here.
K/T (Cretaceous/Tertiary) boundary Oard also pointed out that the K/T boundary supposedly marking the end of the dinosaur age is most likely not synchronous around the world, and is not defined coherently.
Oard is, quite simply, wrong. Or dishonest. And neither option inspires confidence.
Very few dinosaur fossils are actually found near this boundary.
"Very few" dinosaur fossils are found anywhere -- fossilization of any sort is a rare event, most animal bodies do not get fossilized. This is yet another straw man.
Sometimes the argument becomes very circular. For example, the end of the dinosaur era is supposed to be clearly marked in the geological column by the K/T boundary,
Disingenuous description -- that's not how the KT boundary is located.
but in many localities the K/T boundary is defined by the highest dinosaur fossil.
Here Sarfati admits that no dinosaur fossils are found anywhere above the KT boundary, but he tries to make it sound like a problem for standard geology. On the contrary, it's a problem for Sarfati's "alternate" scenario.
Or else the Alvarez theory is supported by the iridium spike in the K/T boundary, but in some localities the K/T boundary is defined by the iridium spike.
It's only Sarfati who is being circular here. The KT boundary has an Iridium spike, period. None of Sarfati's handwaving changes that, even if he tries to falsely make it seem "circular" by admitting that the Iridium spike in the KT boundary supports the "Alvarez theory" (i.e., the meteorite impact), and admitting that the Iridium spike is characteristic of the KT boundary. He's only conceding the evidence.
Conclusion The Bible provides the only coherent framework within which we can properly interpret history, including that of the dinosaurs.
There's nothing "coherent" about a "framework" that flies in the face of all the real-world evidence.
Other theories are doomed to failure, even the glamorous ‘deep impact’ theory, because all circumstantial evidence counts for nothing if it ignores the only eye-witness account we have of Creation and the Flood — the Bible.
Sarfati should have just said this up front and saved himself a lot of trouble. If he wants to believe whatever the Bible seems to say, no matter what the real world actually indicates, then he's welcome to do so. But he shouldn't try to bear false witness about the evidence in the process.