It's definitive: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs

reply to post by edmc^2

So by your scenario - are you saying that the smaller the animal the better its chance of survival - thus they are the fittist?

In this scenario, yes. Once the environment was disrupted by an asteroid, it put the smaller, under ground dwelling organisms in a better position for survival.

What about the insects? How did they survive the cataclismic event? The simple mosquito has more survival chance because of it's size/qty? What gives?

Yes, exactly. Insects are very durable and able to survive quite a bit. Some insects can remain dormant(especially in cold temps). Many insects live underground.

So from my perpective - selective elimination/extinction makes more sense, mathimatically, physically and logically.

So it makes more sense for an omipotent god to have created an earth with too much vegetation, so to fix this he created an entire species of creatures thats sole purpose is to consume the vegetation.???

If god can create dinosaurs, why wouldnt he just remove the vegetation. And why did he create an earth with too much vegetation?

This might make more sense to you from a theological perspective but it absolutely does not from a mathmatical, physical or logical standpoint.

Ignoring evidence and saying "god did it" is a long way from denying ignorance or even attempting to understand the world.

These scientist are mad because these scientist said>>>>"Global Warming, Not Asteroids Caused Planet's Mass Extinction Events"

Her is my Re-Post>>>

Anything but the truth from these guys "So called top Professors"
1. Up to about the 80's the Dinosaurs were beleived to have just died and slowly burried over time Billions of years ago.

2 Then we had the "They all got a disease therory" I think that was Jack Horner's idea

3. Then the dreaded Asteroid, which is just as stupid as the first two.

4 Now Global Warming.

Next therorys will be POLE SHIFT
ALIEN INTERVENTION
NIbirui (spell check)
All these lame therorys can get funding but you mention the "Flood" as in Noahs flood and you won't get a dime. All about the money. Plus if leading figures in the scientific circles addmitted this , that would be proof of the Bible story and we just can't have that.

Just so you folks know , they find dinos in Antartica also.


[edit on 5-3-2010 by Grayelf2009]

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So it makes more sense for an omipotent god to have created an earth with too much vegetation, so to fix this he created an entire species of creatures thats sole purpose is to consume the vegetation.???

If god can create dinosaurs, why wouldnt he just remove the vegetation. And why did he create an earth with too much vegetation?

This might make more sense to you from a theological perspective but it absolutely does not from a mathmatical, physical or logical standpoint.

Ignoring evidence and saying "god did it" is a long way from denying ignorance or even attempting to understand the world.

LOL!

Personally, I've never understood why this infinitely powerful, omnipotent guy needed to rest on the seventh day. Did he have a sore back?

IRM

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So by your scenario - are you saying that the smaller the animal the better its chance of survival - thus they are the fittist?

In this scenario, yes. Once the environment was disrupted by an asteroid, it put the smaller, under ground dwelling organisms in a better position for survival.

What about the insects? How did they survive the cataclismic event? The simple mosquito has more survival chance because of it's size/qty? What gives?

Yes, exactly. Insects are very durable and able to survive quite a bit. Some insects can remain dormant(especially in cold temps). Many insects live underground.

"Survival of the fittest" is a bit of a myth since 98% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct, and certainly some of those were the fittest at some point. But I think part of the confusion lies around interpreting "fittest", it doesn't have to mean the biggest, fastest, or strongest, as many people assume, though in some cases it can mean that. "Fittest" can also mean most fit for the environment they are living in. So when the food supply dramatically diminishes, which animals will be best suited to survive in such an environment? Those that need the least food, so yes, smaller is better or "more fit" when there is little food.

We've also seen things like pygmy elephants on small islands where food was scarce and insufficient to support full-sized elephants, so again, smaller is "fitter" for the environment when the environment contains less food.

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
Her is my Re-Post>>>

Anything but the truth from these guys "So called top Professors"
3. Then the dreaded Asteroid, which is just as stupid as the first two.
Just so you folks know , they find dinos in Antartica also.

So what's wrong with finding dinosaurs in Antarctica? You know about plate tectonics right? And that land masses move around, and the Earth also gets hotter and cooler over time?

Regarding the impact theory stating that a meteor hit Chicxulub, are you denying all the evidence that shows such an impact took place, like this image, etc?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1d33a427cbac.jpg[/atsimg]
Or do you believe such an impact took place but you're denying that a massive impact like that can cause a global extinction?

[edit on 5-3-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by edmc^2

 

...they were killed off for the purpose of becoming the oil that we depend on every day.
And the good book has plenty to say about this too.

Not to nit-pick, but most of the oil we use came from algae. Dry Land plant life and animal life would go to coal.

That aside, I have always pondered something and I just cannot get my head around it...

If the dinosaurs died because of the impactor that created the KT layer, why is it that no fossils are found above it or, for that matter, in it (the KT layer, that is). It would seem to me that they were all, for the most part, dead BEFORE the impactor hit.

Originally posted by rogerstigers

Originally posted by Alxandro
reply to post by edmc^2

 

...they were killed off for the purpose of becoming the oil that we depend on every day.
And the good book has plenty to say about this too.

Not to nit-pick, but most of the oil we use came from algae.

Dry Land plant life and animal life would go to coal.

That aside, I have always pondered something and I just cannot get my head around it...

If the dinosaurs died because of the impactor that created the KT layer, why is it that no fossils are found above it or, for that matter, in it (the KT layer, that is). It would seem to me that they were all, for the most part, dead BEFORE the impactor hit.

Interesting take there RogerS, that's an excellent Q. So if we accept the theory that earth was struck by an asteriod which resulted in the extinction of the dino's there should be fossils showing signs of a massive explosion. I hope those who catter to the asteriod theory can provide an explenation. I'm very intersted to know.
Also would I be correct to assume that those who accept/catter to the asteriod theory beleive in evolution?

Originally posted by rogerstigers
If the dinosaurs died because of the impactor that created the KT layer, why is it that no fossils are found above it or, for that matter, in it (the KT layer, that is). It would seem to me that they were all, for the most part, dead BEFORE the impactor hit.

You seem to be forgetting something, over 99.99...% of all animals that ever lived never left any fossils, it's a relatively rare event for an animal to leave a fossil. So you can't assume that any or all the animals killed in the KT boundary extinction would have left fossils, conditions have to be right for that to happen and perhaps they weren't.

So no, your observation isn't proof they were all dead before the impactor hit, but as I said earlier, due to the volcanic activity, even if they weren't all dead it's not unreasonable to say that populations had declined prior to the impact, so the smaller the population, the less chances you have of leaving fossils.

Absolutely ironic....

The Bible says the dinosaurs died off by water...
Science says they dies off by fire....
The Bible says they died only a few thousand years ago...
Science says they died 65 millions years ago...

I think the scientist all got together to find a theory that was as far off from the Biblical account as possible. Don't want to give those fundie Bible thumpers any cred. right....elbow nudge the guy in the lab coat next to me...yeah

Originally posted by trueperspective
I think the scientist all got together to find a theory that was as far off from the Biblical account as possible.

Yes, that is exactly what they did.

Scientists just sit around in their little white lab coats thinking of ways to discount the biblical view of the world.....Yeah.

reply to post by SilentShadow


A monster earthquake in South America affected the earth's orbit and spin. It would be interesting to know how of earth's path was affected by an explosion a billion times more powerful than a nuke.

Peace...............yak055h

face-to-palm. of course these scientists say it's definitive. how else to better line the pockets of their string-pulling, finance-providing museum directors and boards? they gotta fill those museums (and the clear, plastic cubes for donations) somehow. asteroids are exciting. but, there's opposing views so there's hardly a consensus. therefore there's no way it was really an asteroid. there have always been asteroids. they didn't kill everything on earth every time one hit, so how could they have killed the dinosaurs? anyway, isn't al gore on the board of the museum of natural history?

Originally posted by yak055h
reply to post by SilentShadow

 

A monster earthquake in South America affected the earth's orbit and spin. It would be interesting to know how of earth's path was affected by an explosion a billion times more powerful than a nuke.

Peace...............yak055h

that's a really interesting comment. sometimes you hear about these little tweaks to the earth's orbit or whatever from a volcano (like krakatoa) or an earthquake, but you're right, an enormous explosion like that, one would think, would have had profound effect on the earth's orbit/spin.

anyone mathematically inclined enough to do the following math calculations about load and bearing:

1. what was the mass density and weight of the bones of a typical tyrannosaurus rex? what's the calculated total weight of the t.rex?

2. given earth's gravitational field, would a t.rex be able to maintain vertical stationary position or vertical momentum?

reply to post by slowfade

The whole notion of anything "65-million years ago" being "definitive" or "scientific fact" is just plain silly.

www.talkorigins.org...

Scientific fact doesn't mean absolute truth or absolute certainty.

"fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.

We can say with certainty based on evidence, until evidence suggest otherwise. It's much better than sitting on our collective asses and saying well it's so long ago so we dunno!

I mean seriously--we don't even know for sure how old Earth is.

We knows it around 4 billion years old give or take several hundred million years. Sorry if we can't specify the exact date, but is it really necessary to!?

You can tell me the size of the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs? Wow! That's pretty impressive.

The evidence suggest so... do you have an alternative to suggest at least? Again I refer to a few lines above where scientific evidence does not mean absolute certainty because nobody can give you that however much anyone may wimper for it....

We can't ever know for sure because we weren't there to witness it firsthand.

Of course not... what do you expect??? We can't go back millions of years to observe it... why complain because we cannot do that???!!! *tut tut*

Not everything is observed first-hand that you may already accept as reasonably and logically truthful.

I never observed you type your post, yet it exists and I know someone did send it.

[edit on 5-3-2010 by john124]

To everyone questioning the conclusion of this study: If these scientists had come to conclusion that the likely explanation for why the dinosaurs died off was a global flood would you be criticizing their results?

the whole article said that the extinction of dinosaurs actually allowed for mammels to develop and this led to the appearance of the human race...wether it can be proven that at that exact time an asteroid hit the earth or not is less relevant in my oppinion...at a certain point in time this happened...and this led to evolution...so here we are....

reply to post by Hadrian


It has been said that climate change did the dinosaurs in. If the meteor nudged earth a little farther from the sun the temperature change might have been significant. Couple that with the steam/vapor. dust, smoke, etc. it was a bad day for lizards. It was a stroke of fortune for humans though..............
...............no dead dinosaurs = no oil. Without the lizards there would be no conflict.

I still dont buy into the big rock fell from sky and killed all dinosaurs.

i also dont belive that they were wiped out instantly. like many are taught.

i think it took over a hundred years at least.

something 65 millions years ago,. can never be said to be definitive.


[edit on 5-3-2010 by MR BOB]

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
To everyone questioning the conclusion of this study: If these scientists had come to conclusion that the likely explanation for why the dinosaurs died off was a global flood would you be criticizing their results?

Well that depends on whether they claim the flood happened 65 million years ago or less than 10,000 years ago.

I actually agree with the study but I've debated enough people who would doubt it to guess the answer they would give.

There was definitely an impactor extinction at the KT boundary, the evidence is overwhelming, however I don't rule out that there was other stuff going on at the same time, like volcanic activity, I'm sure there was.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


What Im saying is the idea for an asteroid to kill all the dinos all over the world all at once is just not possible.
Lets think about it....
Would it be safe to say that close to the impact that there would be no signs of life ? Say 20 miles,50 or a 100 miles. How far? They find fossils all over mexico.... Fossils in Yucatan Peninsula Is just one example

The study focuses on a set of fossil reef remains exposed in excavations for channels at a resort and water park, Xcaret, about 35 miles south of Cancún on the east coast of the Yucatán Peninsula

One would think an asteroid would burn to cinders or destroy anything close to impact...Isin't the Yucatan Peninsula close to said impact??

Just set back and look at the evidence like 9/11.

Most of the time I am learning from you , my fellow members, but on this issue ,Im an expert...its what I do...I know Im right. I can feel it.
Besides would any of you really care how they died? Would it affect they way you live? Would you run to the nearest church and repent ? Probably not .
(Yoda voice over here) Faith in you younglings I have

now excuse whilest I go back to listen to Rock Lobster at volume