Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 arwen52
Joined: 3/13/2008
Msg: 51
view profile
History
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?Page 3 of 7    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7)


& I understand science very clearly. That's why they have things called theories.

& don't worry, you're not alone in being unable to understand the difference between a theory & a fact either.


I'm not sure if you were being serious or facetious but can we review seventh grade science here?

In conversation, the term "theory" is used to mean "speculation" or "hypothesis." In science, a "theory" is a pretty well established explanation for natural phenomena. To dismiss a scientific statement as "it's just a theory" is to misunderstand the use of the word in science. And facts are measurable, observable, and repeatable. A "hypothesis" is a tentative explanation, similar to our use of the word "theory" in conversation.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 52
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 8/4/2010 2:17:26 PM

What is the effect of a collision with a large Nickel Iron meteorite which raises the temperature locally to c 10,000 C after collision

Would the core remain magnetic or would there be a magnetic disturbance effecting the Van Allen Belt


Ummm....not sure the point to this is but since Earth's core is roughly the size of the moon, I'm going to go with yes to the core remaining a very effective magnetic dynamo. Would there be a magnetic effect with the impact of a large iron/nickel asteroid? Possibly. Certainly the explosion of large yield nuclear devices in the upper atmosphere had some interesting effects. But it wouldn't eliminate it.
 pippypete
Joined: 8/15/2010
Msg: 53
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/5/2010 8:32:44 AM
The author seems to be easily mislead by more non factual gossip permeating the atheistic community.

Not unlike the many who have agreed with him.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 54
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/6/2010 5:01:54 AM

The author seems to be easily mislead by more non factual gossip permeating the atheistic community.

Not unlike the many who have agreed with him.


As opposed to...?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 55
view profile
History
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/6/2010 6:19:40 AM
I have heard the theory that climatic changes changed their diet as such, that they ate certain plants that caused much digestive tract gas, that the dinosaurs could have farted themselves to death, much like we are doing today with our diet of fossil fuels.

I heard Dana Lyons and Johns seed perform this song..
Their Brains Were Small and They Died
(Mark Graham)

When I sit in contemplation of the human situation
I often feel a certain sense of pride.
For our achievements are many and mighty
And the evidence cannot be denied.
But my reverie is shaken 'cause my thoughts are always taken To a
tragedy that happened long ago,
When there moved throughout the land
Beings awesome and grand
The fabulous dinosaur.

They were creatures in a manner quite reptilian
In their unique and stylish way,
And their numbers could be reckoned in the millions;
But there are zero of these heroes in the world today.
They had music, art and fashion, there was dinosauric passion
And I think they'd be enraged and mortified
That when they`re mentioned today it's only to say:
Their brains were small and they died.

Perhaps some asteroid that mother earth could not avoid
Became the agent of their premature demise.
Well l understand that these things can happen,
So who are we to criticize?
When we'll spend most any price to have the ultimate device
That insures the perfect global suicide.
Well, l would venture instead that the humanoid head
Is where the tinier brain resides.
And when we're gone our works they'll start to crumble
Until nothing can be found.
In ten million years some other guys may stumble On our fossils
then some ***hole will begin to expound, in some scientific study
to his****oach science buddies How the evidence can never be
denied---They were big dumb and slow, they couldn't go with the
flow Their brains were small, and they died.

Copyright 1987 by Eternal Doom Music
RG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fisdqP1FyAo
 pippypete
Joined: 8/15/2010
Msg: 56
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/8/2010 5:52:42 AM

Since the thing exploded catastrophically several kilometers up, none of it made it to the ground. So no one is quite sure.


A lot of it made it to the ground actually.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 57
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/8/2010 6:21:09 AM


Since the thing exploded catastrophically several kilometers up, none of it made it to the ground. So no one is quite sure.


A lot of it made it to the ground actually.


Really? Care to cite a source for that? Because the history of it is that people have been going there for years and have yet to find a single large piece of meteoritic rock. Or even a crater.
 pippypete
Joined: 8/15/2010
Msg: 58
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/9/2010 2:00:08 AM

Really? Care to cite a source for that? Because the history of it is that people have been going there for years and have yet to find a single large piece of meteoritic rock. Or even a crater.


In peat samples corresponded to 1908 permafrost boundary they found significantly higher levels of the heavy nitrogen and carbon isotopes 15N and 13C. The highest accumulation levels were measured in the areas at the epicentre of the explosion and along the trajectory of the cosmic body. Increased concentrations of iridium and nitrogen in the relevant peat layers support the theory that the isotope effects discovered are a consequence of the Tunguska catastrophe and are partly of cosmic origin.

It is estimated that around 200,000 tons of nitrogen rained down on the Tunguska region in Siberia at that time. !!!

Isn't 200,000 tons of evidence enough ???
 pippypete
Joined: 8/15/2010
Msg: 59
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/9/2010 2:12:25 AM
Nitric oxide production by Tunguska meteor




References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.


Chul Park

Ames Research Center, NASA, Moffett Field, CA 94035, U.S.A.

Received 4 August 1977. Available online 11 February 2003.

Abstract
The nonequilibrium chemical processes of nitric oxide formation are computed for the wake of the Tunguska meteor of 1908. The wake characteristics are derived by carrying out an optically-thick radiation field analysis for ablation of the meteoroid. The wake flow field is approximated by a one-dimensional, well-stirred reactor model. Known characteristics of the Tunguska event are imposed as constraints, and three controlling parameters—chemical composition, density, and velocity—are varied over a range around the values derived by Korobeinikov et al. (1976) and Petrov and Stulov (1975). The calculation shows that at least 19 million tons of nitric oxide is produced between the altitudes of 10 and 50 km. The anomalous atmospheric phenomena following the event are attributed to the reactions involving nitric oxide thus produced and atmospheric oxone. It is speculated that the nitric oxide produced by the event fertilized the area near the fall, causing the observed rapid plant growth.

Want any more evedence ???
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 60
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/9/2010 5:40:54 AM

Want any more evedence ???


Well, if you want evidence of the event itself, there's the more than 2,000 square miles of flattened trees. Everything cited is indicative of a highly energetic event that would be indicative of an airburst - including nitric oxide. Lacking is actual pieces of the impacter itself, such as found scattered among a fair number of identified impact craters such as Arizona's Meteor Crater, etc. Indeed, the existence of a crater in Tunguska isn't without debate.

But, before you prevaricate any more, let's look at the following exchange:



Since the thing exploded catastrophically several kilometers up, none of it made it to the ground. So no one is quite sure.


A lot of it made it to the ground actually.


Can you cite the discovery of piece of the actual impacter itself, which is what this refers to? Also, perhaps you could clarify this statement:


The author seems to be easily mislead by more non factual gossip permeating the atheistic community.

Not unlike the many who have agreed with him.


What specifically is "non-factual" and what does it have to do with not believing in a magical sky man?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 61
view profile
History
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/9/2010 6:34:31 PM
Okay then...
The Truth is Waaaaaaaaaaaaay Out There.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4CRkpBGQzU
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 62
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/9/2010 6:52:47 PM
The author seems to be easily mislead by more non factual gossip permeating the atheistic community.

Not unlike the many who have agreed with him.


What specifically is "non-factual" and what does it have to do with not believing in a magical sky man?

--------------

Facts. Again. Arguing what's a fact and what is not. We must all agree on the parametres of an event or a condition or a being, which parametres must all be true, to be able to call something a fact.

In fact, I tried to do that on the "Darwin" or "Evolution" thread. Not much response to my suggestion.

Without a failsafe way of determining what a fact is, we will just keep saying, potentially, "it's a fact" "no it's not" "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes" "no".

I see no point in doing that argument. Nobody can win that way. I like to win, and I like an even playing field. I don't like to cheat or my opponent to cheat. I like to know the rules of the game. We all seem to agree on the rules of logic, and we, on this forum, all seem to agree what the elements of a logical argument is; but we are gravely lacking in a set of determining parametres that delineate a fact from non-facts.

So let's work on that, peeps. I suggest that two things must be met for a fact to be a fact: It is directly observable, and it is universally accepted. For historical events, such as what Colombus said or discovered, or what he thought, obviously we can't make "observable" a rule; so for an historical event to be called a fact it has to be well documented, and accepted by all sane people.

I say "sane" because some people deny very obvious historical facts, though those facts have plenty documental support, artifacts, photos, court transcripts, and millions of others.

-------

According to these definitions, gravity is not a fact, but that gravity exists, is. Newton discovered the rules around acceleration, momentum, kinetic energy and mass, and he put these together into a mathematical formula -- it is a fact he did this. But kinetic energy is not a fact. If a wrecking ball hits a brick wall, and the wall collapses, the fact is that the wall collapsed, because you could directly observe it. It was due to forces of nature that Newton described in his theories; but Newton's descriptions were, and are still, mere theories. He needed to explain the directly observable, and he even used math. If you need math, you are ab ovo not talking fact, coz math does not occur freely in nature.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 63
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/9/2010 6:54:47 PM
I challenge that anything wiped out the dynos. At least entirely.

Birds. Birds are direct descendants of the dinos. If dinos were completely wiped out, we would have no songs like "Turn, Turn, Turn", or "Eight Miles High".
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 64
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/10/2010 7:53:53 PM

I have lived long enough to know that scientists have a herd instinct. If the herd believes a theory most of them go for it....Today they think it's an asteroid, that's about all you say about it.


Creationists love this kind of thinking. What they fail to understand is that scientific knowledge evolving is not a sign of its weakness but its strength. I would dare venture to say that scientific thought is more apt to change than religious thought and does so for very solid reasons - the discovery of new evidence.

Of course its possible that current theories for the demise of the dinosaurs could be proven partially or even wholly wrong. But it is going to have to be replaced by a theory that accounts for much of the evidence that currently strengthens current. Anybody got anything like that?
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 65
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/11/2010 7:15:41 AM
Stargazer, you are wrong.

Religious thought changes just as rapidly as scientific thought if there is enough pressure to make it change.

For instance, the oath of celibacy. It came to existence in religious occupations in the Christian church many centuries after Christianity came to existence.

Or take the fact that if you are a Roman Catholic, you can eat meat every Friday of the year now, except I think for one.

Or take the fact that The Bible became a book giving us guidance in spiritual and moral questions, from having been a book in which every word was literally true. And they did not change a single word in the Bible to attain that!!

So when you look at these facts, you see that religion can change its colours and its tenets just as conveniently as science can.
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 66
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/11/2010 7:27:53 AM
I have lived long enough to know that scientists have a herd instinct. If the herd believes a theory most of them go for it.

Pirate heaven, you are absolutely right about this. You don't know how very right you are about this.

Non-scientists are also people who have a herd instict.

Religious people, too.

Catholics, any sort of Christians, too.

Muslims, too.

Jews, too.

Sun-worshippers and Hindus and cannibals and house locators in real estate sales offices, too.

As do telephone repairmen, washbasin-operators, transgenderized bigots, and bj queens.

Every human has a herd instinct, every normal human.

You say this of scientists as if it were a weakness, a deplorable one at that, particular only to groups of people we consider scientists.

Jesus had a herd instinct, and so did Zeus.

You are very emotional in your expressions, and each can be pointed out very easily, shot down, along with the argument which you base on the emotions of your posts.

You keep being disparaging against those who think differently from you. That is not nice. Nobody is disparaging you for your beliefs. I disparage you for the way you use emotions and for believing that your mixing them with logic, and trying to make your logic convincing due to the emotions, not due to the reason behind the logic. This is, I believe, a weakness on your part, to believe that this tactic works. This is a weakness which is not pervasive in the species, like our herd instinct.

I do believe that this tactic works, in certain crowds. In a Southern Baptist church, during worship, for instance. But not here, on a forum of scientific and philosophical topics.
 pippypete
Joined: 8/15/2010
Msg: 67
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/12/2010 1:38:04 AM

I have lived long enough to know that scientists have a herd instinct. If the herd believes a theory most of them go for it.

For over a 100 years scientists agreed that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, spicy food and all other kinds of malarky. In 1982 two doctors discovered that they were caused by bacteria. They won a nobel prize for their work in 2 0 0 5! It took their learned colleagues several years to shed their bogus theories.

Today they think it's an asteroid, that's about all you say about it.


Unfortunately this is so very true, not only in medicine but also with the head up their ass, brain dead, text book dribblers who call themselves scientists or scientific.

And the masses of their braindead brainwashed followers.

So goes the world to hell because of the bullshit of lots of pseudo scientific therories by morons.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 68
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/12/2010 5:54:56 AM

Stargazer, you are wrong.


In your opinion.


For instance, the oath of celibacy. It came to existence in religious occupations in the Christian church many centuries after Christianity came to existence.


And has there been much progress in changing it back? Or how about (at least in the catholic church) the ordination of women? At least the Catholic church is at least prepared to accept evolution and big bang cosmology. Would that some of the more fundamentalist evangelical churches shows such forward thinking.

In the meantime, in less than a century, we've gone from believing that there was only one place in the universe - the Milky Way - to the Milky Way being only one of hundreds of thousands of galaxies and from believing we lived in one static universe to understanding that the universe originated in a big bang and is not only expanding but accelerating. We've gone from believing that everything we see is all there is to the profound understanding that everything we see represents the smallest fraction of what makes up the universe while things we can't see - dark matter and dark energy - dominates.

Biology has experienced multiple paradigm shifts with the discovery of DNA and an understanding of the processes of evolution that might have started with Darwin but has evolved, if you will, to encompass the New Synthesis that takes in natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, etc...

Do scientists agree with everything and all march to the same tune? Nonsense! There are scientists who have different opinions on a variety of conclusions, which then drives them to conduct further experiments, observations, etc. Science operates with the evidence and draws a conclusion. Religion starts at the conclusion - God - and attempts to make the facts fit that conclusion.

I find those who are the most critical of science are the ones who have the most to lose from scientific understanding - having to give up personally cherished biases and beliefs that don't hold water in the light of objective and reasoned examination. I used to be a believer. However, the arguments made by other believers have provided me the best arguments against religious thought.


I have lived long enough to know that scientists have a herd instinct. If the herd believes a theory most of them go for it.


Again..nonsense! And just so we're clear, you're not that much older than me, so spare me playing the 'age' card. If scientists generally accept a particular theory or conclusion, it's because the preponderance of evidence is such that to try and argue against it is being stupidly contrarian. Or are you saying that the general acceptance of General Relativity is herd instinct? And do you have a better alternative?
 FoshFish
Joined: 4/30/2010
Msg: 69
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/12/2010 6:54:07 PM
"My example on peptic ulcers was to the point. Two doctors had the guts to ... etc."

I don't know if you had purposefully planned the pun, but it is nice. Very nice.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 70
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/12/2010 7:31:01 PM

They are often WRONG and rarely admit it.


If they are, then you can bet your hiney that someone else is more than happy to show how they're wrong. It's called the peer review process. Not to mention the innate competitive nature of people in a variety of different pursuits...including science.


They often present their conclusions as being absolutely correct when in fact it is just a theory subject to change.


Telltale phrase there "just a theory." Type it into a google search and see what you get. Creationists love that one.


They often have agendas which go beyond searching for the truth. It may be political or financial.


and...


They do not always follow the scientific method. If there is money available for supporting a certain outcome many of them will go for the money instead of being objective.


Ah, again, the "scientists have an agenda" statements. Of course, what those deep, dark agendas are are never specified.


My example on peptic ulcers was to the point.


And newtonian physics dominated for years until the discovery of Relativity. So what? Science learns. Sometimes quickly. Sometimes slowly. Again, this isn't a weakness. It's just the way it works.


Some of the comments here are very amusing. Anyone questioning the image of scientists as being impartial, objective, non political observers is denigrated.


What's denigrated is the use of the same tired old arguments that have been used time and time again by people who usually argue a viewpoint that bears little resemblance to reality.


It could be they are entirely right about an asteroid wiping out the dinosaurs, then again they could be wrong. This is the best theory they have right now.


Exactly right. But as has already been pointed out, anything that comes in to replace it is going to have to answer questions a lot better than the current theory - based on a plethora of strong evidence - does.
 JP1111
Joined: 4/13/2008
Msg: 71
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/12/2010 7:48:49 PM
Should scientists still do more research to what end? To find more plausible answers to what is a question that has proven not to be answerable? C'mon, and what if they DO find THE real answer, what does that get them? What does that give all of us knowing what caused dinosaurs to die?

If you ask me, that was a time eons ago and today we have the reality of our life that has its own set of conundrums that need answers to. So I would say to take the money we would pay for the continuation of this study and put it somewhere where their can be real, factual and provable results that will improve life as we know it today.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 72
view profile
History
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/12/2010 8:53:44 PM
More to the point - scientists are human. They are subject to the same influences, temptations, and corruptions as everyone else - theologians, politicians, teachers, children, etc.

They stand apart, for the most part, in two respects: dependence on the scientific method [note that I do not say "adherence to"], and peer scrutiny [note that I do not say "peer review"]. They are not alone in these, not by a long shot. To one extent or another, everyone who studies and publishes depends on these two things, but it is those branded as "scientists" who are held to the flame by them.

Regarding my first qualifier, I trust that it is evident why I have included it, without having to explain at length? If a researcher falls short in his methodology, someone ELSE will discover those shortcomings, thus ensuring the dependence. To the second, "peer review" is often used in fora such as these to describe the post-publication evaluation by peers. That's not "peer review". Peer-review is a pre-publication process in which a paper is scrutinized by anonymous reviewers familiar with the field of study. Primarily, they evaluate the paper as to proper and appropriate methodology, and logical conclusions. They do not normally repeat or test any of the studies - what they do, in essence, is verify that the scientific method has been properly applied and that the results are consistent with it.

The argument I am seeing involves [as usual] multiple fallacies of argumentation:
Rather than attack the argument scientific conclusions], attack the proponent [scientists]. Ad hominem.
Attack the proponent not on the basis of his argument but because he is somehow fallible. Least common denominator - everyone is subject to the same failings, and it does not follow that having those failings renders the conclusions false. Non sequitur; strawman.
There are more, I'm sure.

Bottom line is, other approaches to determining "truth" are less reliable than "science". Certainly religions and philosophies and so many other fields utilize the scientific method and peer scrutiny, but at some point they often depend on assumptions which are actually unwarranted or contrary to logic, evidence, or parsimony.

To take an extreme example, a seminarian may study the Bible and biblical history assiduously and scientifically. To be successful in their studies however, they can never conclude [depending on exactly which faith they follow] that the Bible is anything but the word of God, or even the literal word of God. Notwithstanding that 1) no-one can reasonably deny that this book was created by the human hand, and 2) it was not written in English. Logically, it is neither God's words, nor literally so.

At the other end of the spectrum, we have the subject of this thread. We have fossils, concluded to be the mineralized remains of formerly living animals. Many are virtually identical to living forms. Multiple types resembling different living forms can sometimes be found together. Multiple copies of the same type may be found in one place, or hundreds of miles apart. Multiple parts are often found associated with ne another in much the same way as the same parts would be organized in living specimens. It's very reasonable to conclude that fossils ARE the remains of dead organisms. We draw similar conclusions regarding the nature and composition of bolides, how they impact the ground, what their composition is, etc. We reasonably conclude that the Chicxulub features are the impact crater of a large bolide. We equally conclude that a global iridium layer was left by a large impactor. We also study radioactive decay - we have a very good grasp how electromagnetism works and how and why atoms undergo excitation and decay. So good in fact that we have very reliable x-ray machines, telecommunications, fluourescent lighting [in myriad colors], all manner of color video displays, microwave ovens, radar, etc ad nauseum. Combining the many nuances of this understanding, we measure the mineral compositions and radioactive decays to conclude that the K/T boundary was created 65 mybp. Given that the iridium layer is global and of the same age, the K/T extinction was essentially global and of the same age, and the Chicxulub impact was the same age and large enough to be globally significant...we reasonably conclude that this particular bolide was the most likely cause of the near-extinction of the dinosaurs [and many other taxa].

Those who think this is just "assumptions" or "theory" are likely unaware of just how reliable and inter-related all the relevant sciences are, nor of the irony of how absurdly little support alternate views have in the same respects.

Oops. Didn't go back and review to see how I might have rambled on. Oh well.


<div class='quote'>If you ask me, that was a time eons ago and today we have the reality of our life that has its own set of conundrums that need answers to. So I would say to take the money we would pay for the continuation of this study and put it somewhere where their can be real, factual and provable results that will improve life as we know it today.
I have a better idea. Pull the funding out of military or political sinkholes. Those are orders of magnitude greater than any public funding put into basic research like this. These types of studies are often undertaken in order to better understand things which DO affect everyday life. When that's not the case, the results, or derivatives from the results often have such impacts. Did Marie Curie have any inkling of how radiation might be widely used? Did Mendel abandon his studies of peas and their flowers because it was frivolous? Besides, "those who do not learn from history, are condemned to repeat it".
 ~DREAMS~
Joined: 1/8/2007
Msg: 73
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/12/2010 9:33:40 PM
Well this pretty much sums it up...


20 years' worth of research to try to confirm the cause of the so-called Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) extinction


and this


Scientists working on the study analyzed the work of paleontologists, geochemists, climate modelers, geophysicists and sedimentologists who have been collecting evidence about the KT extinction over the last 20 years.


Thats 20 years of pay checks. 20 years of lab fees. 20 years of getting stories strait to line up with all the rest. 20 years of papers written. And the end result is... drum roll.....

A large group of people that that have recieved billions of dollar to all share in the credit and having their names co-joined with all the other names in the studies for the rest of their working careers. AH yes gotta love the scientific crowd.

Now after all that it sets a very firm inflexable stance on a specific topic of scientific scrutny.

Since such and exhastive study was done anything challenging it must match the funding and processes (which i am sure have many patents issued by the manufactures of much of the equipment that was specifically designed to carry out much of that testing) involved to complete all that data collection.

However the kicker is that since it is a settled matter then all funding sources on the matter are depleated. Now we wait for technology to progress. The driving force of debunking theory set in stone.

We have a plethera of theories. very few verifiable given current means however. And just like the microscope was to the bacteria sooner or later technology always catches up and makes the impossible, possible.

It is for these reasons when you ask a child who a famos scientist is they get a quizical look on their faces. These peoples names will never make it to a history book. Their names will never be etched in stone anywhere because they still have no smoking gun.

They have a justification for billions spent listed in billions of words of text and data that is now stored in computer banks and printed and placed in crates. They have samples and cataloges of vast amounts of physical data that must be protected, climit controlled, and staffed to maintain for students and such to use for learning.

Firmly enhancing the acceptence numbers with each generation to the point that after time the earth is flat dammit now accept it is the only accepted stance.

I however love God. Sooner or later a piece of technology will come along and someone will be raised up to question the authority of those in controlling positions just enough to build a boat to circle the earth and proove the earth was indeed not flat.

Without that inner nagging that something just does not seem right that boat would never be envisioned, without the belief that they are right and everyone else is wrong that boat would never get built. Without the faith that a single event could change everyones mind he would have never started the journey around the world.

Those types of people are still out there in the world and they are still born in todays world.

It is those people that we write history books about. It is those people that we tell our children and grand children about. It is those people that we use as examples of humanity. Not the scientists that band together and all get their names written down in the credits of a study.

Nobody writes about how a team of people all agreed that this was this and that was that. Nope sorry my friends.... We write about and etch in stone the loners that said NO it is NOT correct i feel it in my heart that it is wrong.

So what makes them different and able to overcome???????

Invisable sky man???? LMAO thats funny. Not invisable to me....lol

Just my opinions and observations
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 74
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/13/2010 6:24:02 PM
Any of you clucking your tongues and doubting the big, bad, agenda driven scientists have any solution yet to this challenge?


Of course its possible that current theories for the demise of the dinosaurs could be proven partially or even wholly wrong. But it is going to have to be replaced by a theory that accounts for much of the evidence that currently strengthens current. Anybody got anything like that?


Hello? Anybody?
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 75
view profile
History
It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?
Posted: 11/14/2010 12:43:52 AM
Another asteroid strike during humankinds tenure on earth seems likely, unless we off ourselves soon with some stupid human trick. Looking at a past cataclysmic extinction does have merit as we ponder our current human induced extinction cataclysm. Perhaps there might have been extenuating circumstances, related to or unrelated directly to the strike itself..ie; dietary changes, fungal outbreaks, viral influences that ultimately wiped out many species. The arrogance of dissing species that thrived for millions of years, yet became extinct, speaks to our remnant reptilian brains as we wipe out our pollinators, genetically modify our foodstuffs, poison our wells, and tear down the lungs of our planet.

The Neo- McCarthyites of the next congress are poised to declare war on science. Seems to be some of that sentiment here as well. Studying climate change, independent of oil company funding, is deemed to be quack science be the denier/flat earthers. The new war on "things we don't want to hear about" will get rather testy in months and years to come.

There was a UA scientist featured in our local paper today in a story about his research in Antarctica on climate change and the symbiotic relationship between shrimp and sea butterflies. http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2010/nov/13/message-of-discovery/
In the course of his research, other discoveries may lead to an H1N1 preventative patch, a possible cure for skin cancer, and medication for cystic fibrosis, according to the article. More often than not, research leads to unintended benefits in other directions. Research can also lead to unintended consequences if funded by corporations who place the bottom line above benefits to humanity, truth, and good science. Monsanto and BP come to mind.

Some of you act like most people get into the sciences for the vast wealth, bragging rights and triscuits with aerosol cheese products as the prime motivators. Sure, there are probably a few that go into the sciences with the intent of being biostitutes and confusionists for corporate scumbags, but most go into the sciences because of their desire for getting to the truth of the world around us. The pay is not that great folks, particularly in the postdoc world of science.
http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/57381/

Past is prologue. Understanding the consequences of the last major extinction might benefit humanity as we go through our current human induced one, and face the possibility of a global upheaval in our lifetimes. Incuriosity killed a few cats too.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > It's official: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs?