It's definitive: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs

These scientist are still very wrong, there was an explosion but it was not a meteor, it was a bomb. Also the timing is wrong too, it goes back further than 65 million years ago.

hm, well at least this wasn't a new earth-shattering theory. (No pun intended)

I always thought the asteroid theory was rather credible. Especially when you take into account the huge crater underneath the Yucatan Peninsula.

reply to post by Grayelf2009

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.

You are an expert and you know you are right but you are basing this on a feeling? Is this how "experts" figure things out, gut feelings?

It wasnt just the impact that killed the dinosaurs. When there are large explosions, be it asteroid or volcano. Large amounts of debris are thrust into the atmosphere, this can block out the sun causing most plant life to die off. This cuts off the food supply for many of the larger creatures on the bottom of the food chain. Large plant eating dinos, need lots of vegetation, when that is gone, they die. Then the large meat eating dinos, no longer have a food source and they die

The reason that mammals and smaller reptiles and insects survived is because they need less food to survive. Small underground mammals can survive on tubers and buried seeds. Insects can consume decaying vegetation as well as decaying animal matter. Small reptiles can consume insects and also decaying animal matter.

This blocking of the sun was a temporary event. But it was long enough for the large animals to have their food chain destroyed, thus killing them off. When the sun returned and plants began to grow again, all that was left was small mammals, small reptiles, amphibians, fish and insects.

Why is all of this so hard for people to grasp?

Originally posted by Alxandro

...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.

No one really believes any more that oil comes from dead animals. Maybe .001%.

It was formed mainly from compressed zooplankton and alge mixing with other material under pressure in oxygen less conditions.

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
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??

You seem to be grasping the concept of geogrphy quite well, as the impact was indeed in the Yucatan peninsula.

However you seem to have no grasp of time. The evidence you cite for fossils in the Yucatan peninsula is 121,000 years old. From the source you cited:

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

What possible relevance could some fossils and events that happened 121,000 years ago have to something that happened 65 million years ago?

Regarding how what you say is not possible actually IS possible, read the post by iamcamouflage who explains it quite well.

reply to post by iamcamouflage

Thanks, good explanation.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by edmc^2

 

So it makes more sense for an omnipotent 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 wouldn’t 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!

Why didn't He just simply get rid of some vegetation. Why go through the trouble of creating the dinosaurs when He could have just waved his hand and "cut the lawn", so to speak?

I'll address this post and the rest later:
First off, very good and valid questions "If god can create dinosaurs, why wouldn’t he just remove the vegetation. And why did he create an earth with too much vegetation?'" Yes why not.

Sure God can just "wave his hand" like magic and things get done right away if he wanted to but such thinking does not go in line with what the bible tells us. That God is a God of order not of disorder and he follows that order very faithfully. As the creator he put into motion the laws that govern nature. All his ways are done in wisdom so there’s always a reason behind his actions. Sure he can put into motion another way of controlling the growth of vegetation but he choose to use the dino’s instead. And like what I already said, he had a purpose for creating them and for putting them to sleep (oil deposits(?)/or something for man to study/discover and learn from - I‘m glad he choose the latter). Also, contrary to popular belief or as some in the Christian community believe - creation was not done in 6 days being each day a 24 hr day or as some believe each day is a 1000 years day. No, according to the biblical calculations it's longer that that - we can calculate each "creative day" to be 7000 years. Thus the "creative day" mentioned in the bible is about 42,000 years. Note this "creative day" is NOT referring to the creation of the planet itself for according to the latest geologic data the earth is around 40B(?) years. The bible does not disagree with this calculation - science is not the issue. The "creative day" is the preparation of the earth to be inhabited. Notice how the bible describes it: "Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. (Gen 1:2). So before the 6 "creative day" the earth was "formless". Then if you read thru the next verses - you will notice the stages of this "creative day":
1st) Light became visible or discernable on earth. (Gen 1:3,5)
2nd) Separation between the waters - a water canopy above and water on earth. (v6-8)
3rd) Dry land - terra firma- appeared - tectonic plates pushed the lands upwards - creating flat lands, hill, mountains, a separation between land and water came to be - land came to be known as "Earth" and the waters came to known as seas/oceans. In the "third creative day" is where vegetation appeared - possible that organism were created at this stage too. (v9,10,11)
4th) Lights from the sun, moon and stars became more discernable from earth point of view. Thus if one is standing on earth one can easily see the sun/moon/stars from the "water canopy". (v14-16)
...cont next post...part2

part2...
5th) Animals of every sort was created - flying creature including the "great sea monster" and dinosaurs. After thousands of years had passed - it was time to put the dinosaurs to sleep. Obviously they served their purpose already since man will be the one responsible for taking care of the earth. (v20-21)
6th) More animals created including domestic ones and finally the crowning glory of God's creations - man was now to appear on earth. (v24,26,27)
7th) He "rested" - this not a literal rest but simply his "creative work" was done/completed so he "desisted" from his “creative” activity.

Interesting to note is that the "creative" stage agree with science.

Interesting to note is that the "creative" stage agree with science.
Note: the age of the earth and things in it are still being debated because of the process of dating the them: carbon dating - the scientific community might come up with a better a more accurate way of dating rocks/fossils.

Pros/cons of carbon dating: just couple of studies/findings - www.essortment.com...
www.examiner.com...
en.wikipedia.org...



[edit on 6-3-2010 by edmc^2]

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by Grayelf2009

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.

You are an expert and you know you are right but you are basing this on a feeling? Is this how "experts" figure things out, gut feelings?

You twisted that , I know that I am right from all the time I spent studying fossils. I know I am right from my research.
I can feel it. Dont you ever feel that you are right about anything??

It wasnt just the impact that killed the dinosaurs. When there are large explosions, be it asteroid or volcano. Large amounts of debris are thrust into the atmosphere, this can block out the sun causing most plant life to die off.

If this were true then we would not have leaf or insect fossils world wide.

This cuts off the food supply for many of the larger creatures on the bottom of the food chain. Large plant eating dinos, need lots of vegetation, when that is gone, they die. Then the large meat eating dinos, no longer have a food source and they die

Slow deaths from lack off food do not make fossils. Did you ever see what happens to road kill or any other critter that dies? It is picked apart and scattered by other animals..If what you were saying were true we would never find articulated skeltons. Or explaine why so many commited sucide like at Vernal Utah.

The reason that mammals and smaller reptiles and insects survived is because they need less food to survive. Small underground mammals can survive on tubers and buried seeds. Insects can consume decaying vegetation as well as decaying animal matter. Small reptiles can consume insects and also decaying animal matter.

Same thing goes here, a slow death would not give us perfectly preserved insect fossils from around the world.

This blocking of the sun was a temporary event. But it was long enough for the large animals to have their food chain destroyed, thus killing them off. When the sun returned and plants began to grow again, all that was left was small mammals, small reptiles, amphibians, fish and insects.

So all the fossilized plant life,also found world wide is fake?
By the way there are fish fossils world wide also,micro to 20 feet and longer.

Why is all of this so hard for people to grasp?

Because its not right, thats why its so hard to grasp. Look at the evidence.
World wide death,plants and critters.
Prefect preservation on most fossils due to quick burial in sediment deposits.
You know reading and going to school are one thing , but I wonder how many of the posters on this thread actually go out and collect and prepare fossils for museums?

I am as certain on this as I am on controlled demolition during 9/11,there is no way you can get me to budge on either one.

quote]Originally posted by olivi
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....

huh - "the extinction of dinosaurs actually allowed for mammels to develop and this led to the appearance of the human race -

So according to the article when the planet was hit by an asteriod, it killed the dinosaurs - if this is the case then there was no way for the them to evolve, correct? Now we know that according to the theory of evolution - man came from apes (homo something). We also know that not all dino's are huge like the Trex or a bronto, some are small as chickens or dogs or chimps. So if these dino's died how did the chimps (homo...) survive the blast or the ensuing ice age? I don't think they live in caves or burry themselves. So in what manner did they survived? If we say they were on the other side of the planet when the asteroid struck the earth. Can we also say then that other dino's were living amongst them - yet all dinos died. So what gives?

reply to post by Grayelf2009


I am curious as to what kind of expert you are? You say you handle fossils and claim to be an expert in this specific field but you seem to not be grasping very simple concepts. You also seem to have a lot of very basic spelling errors with makes me question your expertise.

I can feel it. Dont you ever feel that you are right about anything??

Yes I do, but it doesnt mean jack. And I tend to try to let the facts decide what is right not my feelings.

If this were true then we would not have leaf or insect fossils world wide.

We do have leaf and insect fossils from this period as well. Not all plants succumb to low light levels. And there are fungi, that survive and only grow in complete darkness. There are also tubers and seeds that remain dormant underground.

Slow deaths from lack off food do not make fossils. Did you ever see what happens to road kill or any other critter that dies? It is picked apart and scattered by other animals..If what you were saying were true we would never find articulated skeltons. Or explaine why so many commited sucide like at Vernal Utah.

Can you tell me what creature is going to carry off a dinosaur skeleton when almost every creature larger than a mouse or rat has died off? There were not any animals left that were large enough to disperse bones of this size. Larger bones are heavier and more difficult to move thus complete skeletons remain in one location. Bacteria, insects, small mammals and small reptiles would be able to break down the flesh but it wouldnt take long for the bones to be covered by either a) falling debris from the initial impact b) natural organic build up after plants begin growing again.

Not sure what you mean by "committed suicide" in Utah. If you just mean why there are so many skeletons in that area, I would say that certain climates and soils are going to be better suited to creating and preserving bones to form fossils.

Reptiles are cold blooded, this means that without sun(heat) and no or very little food, most reptiles would not last very long maybe a few days at most. So if the earth was thrust into a global winter because of the blocking of the sun, most reptiles would be dead within a day or two at most. The ones that survived that would quickly starve.

Same thing goes here, a slow death would not give us perfectly preserved insect fossils from around the world.

So all the fossilized plant life,also found world wide is fake?
By the way there are fish fossils world wide also,micro to 20 feet and longer.

Not every fossil is from this extinction point. Animals die all the time whether it is caused by a asteroid or a natural cause. We have insect fossils from all different time periods. Why would the fossilized plant life be fake? Plants die and produce fossils. Not all came from this extinction event.

Not to mention, fossils are extremely rare. As on poster mentioned, of all the species that have lived and died on this planet we have probably only found a tiny fraction of a percent. Not everything that dies forms a fossil, it takes specific conditions. Like being killed in a short amount of time and covered in ash or debris.

You know reading and going to school are one thing , but I wonder how many of the posters on this thread actually go out and collect and prepare fossils for museums?

You actually prepare fossils for museums? I really dont buy this. Are you implying that the scientists that came to these conclusions without being experts in the field? That they dont have experience with fossils.

Since you seem to have all the answers, where is your research paper on this subject? You could really shake up the institution and provide the world with some great knowledge. Why dont you take all your research(gut feelings) and write a paper describing your theory and then get it peer reviewed, so the world can know the truth of our past. Can you provide any evidence of your theory?

there is no way you can get me to budge on either one.

So there is no evidence that can sway you from your belief? That doesnt sound very scientific and is definitely not something and expert in a scientific field would say.

reply to post by edmc^2

So if these dino's died how did the chimps (homo...) survive the blast or the ensuing ice age? I don't think they live in caves or burry themselves. So in what manner did they survived?

It wasnt a chimp that survived it was a pre-primate mammal. Probably a small rodent type creature. We dont really know for sure, as we were not there. You need to do a little research on how the process of evolution works.

We did not evolve from apes or chimps, we only share a common ancestor. We are talking about 65 million year time frame, a span that is not easy to comprehend.

This stuff did not happen overnight, it took millions of years. Its not survival of the fittest, its adaptation to the current environment. Small creatures were better suited to survive in a post asteroid environment.

They need less food, they are warm blooded and dont need the sun to survive. They have hair or fur which also helps them survive in a cold climate. They carry and care for their young(not hatched from eggs). They are able to burrow underground. They are able to survive on a larger variety of food(omnivore) .

You very clearly have a motive of pushing your religious beliefs and not observing the facts.

Hey Evryone!! 41 scientists have gotten together and have proclaimed it to be true so it must true! LM-freekin-AO and how many scientists say we have global warming thats caused by mankind? Right o mate. Well thats settled than, NOT! I like Dr Paul LaViolette's explaination of a galactic wave. BTW I like how media jumps on this and says its a done deal. PROPOGANDA~

www.youtube.com...

Scientists also lied about global warming numbers for there fake earth religion.


The earth looks like it was all one piece at one time and has expanded creating the ocean basins.

Im thinking at one point in time all the continents were together as one planet. with no ocean and the earth was extremely smaller.

Something happened internally or external and the earth expanded and split apart creating the oceans that are separating the continents

That is the only way to explain the ring of fire.

The earthquakes are soil that is settling in the earth. Or could be the result of the earth shrinking grinding the plates together.

If a ball was expanding voids would be left where the cracks appeared as well as deep ravines on a planet scale they would be the size of our oceans.

The edges of the plates would cave in due to gravity creating a natural low lying area such as the oceans.

The above makes more sense to me. Rather some plates that are moving around. This explains the plates and why they are there. Why they grind on each other and why we have fault lines. It explains how the space the oceans now occupy. It also explains volcanic activity.

When there is heat there is expansion Inside the earth it still applies. Where there is heat there is pressure. We do know that there are several super volcanoes on the earth they have been inactive for a long time. I think If they have been inactive this would create huge pressures inside the earth causing slow expansion of the earth and creating pressures on the fault lines.

Volcanic activity is directly related to the size of the earth the earth's size expansion and contraction has a direct effect on fault line pressures.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage
reply to post by edmc^2

 

You very clearly have a motive of pushing your religious beliefs and not observing the facts.

In no way I'm pushing my religious belief but would like to test its validity against other belief - to see how it will stand to questionings and criticism. If it came out that way then I can't help it. But as I understand it, evolution also takes an amount of faith to believe in it. So it will need to be subjected to questionings and criticisms also and that's what I think we are discussing here. Not to imposed ones belief but tear it appart, study and analize it and then the verdict. So again, I'm not here to impose my belief - it's a personal matter.

reply to post by iamcamouflage


btw, may I ask the reasoning behind your signature? Are you implying that anyone that questions your belief and does not agree is considered an "idiot"?
Just askin' so pls don't take this the wrong way.

Never argue with an idiot...they'll bring you down to their level and then beat you with experience

Originally posted by edmc^2
In no way I'm pushing my religious belief but would like to test its validity against other belief - to see how it will stand to questionings and criticism. If it came out that way then I can't help it. But as I understand it, evolution also takes an amount of faith to believe in it. So it will need to be subjected to questionings and criticisms also and that's what I think we are discussing here. Not to imposed ones belief but tear it appart, study and analize it and then the verdict. So again, I'm not here to impose my belief - it's a personal matter.

You don't understand it. You can't even provide the genus name of our species let alone understand that we didn't evolve from chimps, monkeys, or apes (hint: we share a common ancestor). Of course evolution needs to be subjected to criticism -- what do you think has been happening for the past 150 years?

Why does evolution need faith to understand the facts the theory is based on?

in a few years someone will say these "scientists" were disinfo agents ..spreading false information..lol

on a serious note though....you can never be sure of anything..scientists a 1000 years back were pretty sure the earth was the centre of the universe and was flat..

my point being, dont take everything from scientists at face value..we dont even know how old the earth is and we dont even know much about evolution since we are finding new strange species every single day..we dont even know our own origins haha..

till then lets keep this finding as a 50-50.

Originally posted by the dacoit
in a few years someone will say these "scientists" were disinfo agents ..spreading false information..lol

on a serious note though....you can never be sure of anything..scientists a 1000 years back were pretty sure the earth was the centre of the universe and was flat..

my point being, dont take everything from scientists at face value..we dont even know how old the earth is and we dont even know much about evolution since we are finding new strange species every single day..we dont even know our own origins haha..

till then lets keep this finding as a 50-50.

We have a pretty good idea how old the Earth is: 4.56 billion years. How does finding a new species mean we don't know anything about evolution? Does understanding evolution suddenly gift us with the ability to catalogue every species that has ever and will ever exist?

It's not definitive, it's an opinion.
The same way the best scientific brains at the time weighed all the evidence, the pros and cons and concluded that yes, the earth was flat.
And the same experts who said the Titanic was unsinkable.
Scientific experts have made their name throughout the ages by generally getting things wrong.

reply to post by ukmadmax


If we knew everything already then what would be the point of science. I never claims to have the 100% correct answer. What it does claim to have is the best explanation for the data presented and it does that quite well. But, I guess things like planes don't exist and we have never made it through our atmosphere into space since science according to you science is always wrong.