It's definitive: An asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs

reply to post by SilentShadow


I think the 1 billion times more powerful than a atomic bomb maybe not be right.That sounds far to powerful.Just think for a minute how powerful that would be and you would proberly have a bomb powerful enough to exsplode the earth into little pieces,

[edit on 6-3-2010 by GORGANTHIUM]

Originally posted by ukmadmax
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.

It seems you're a little confused about the flat earth theory. It was never concluded that the earth was flat. In fact, many proposals for a spherical earth were dated back to ancient Greece. But like any theory, there were opponents to it for quite a long while. But regardless of all that, our technology has improved a little since ancient Greece, and I didn't say it was definitive, I said we had a pretty good idea. Yeah, you're right, science is based on observation and trial and error. If we didn't change our theories based on new data, it wouldn't be considered science.

Originally posted by GORGANTHIUM
reply to post by SilentShadow

 

I think the 1 billion times more powerful than a atomic bomb maybe not be right.That sounds far to powerful.Just think for a minute how powerful that would be and you would proberly have a bomb powerful enough to exsplode the earth into little pieces,

[edit on 6-3-2010 by GORGANTHIUM]

Proof?

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

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?

how are you so sure that the earth is exactly 4.56 billion years old? who told you that? text books? scientists? its not definitive..and you didnt get my point about evolution, i said we dont know much..as opposed to saying we dont know anything. my point is that never treat science to be 100% ..just like global warming or some other pseudo-science

[edit on 6-3-2010 by the dacoit]

Originally posted by edmc^2
But as I understand it, evolution also takes an amount of faith to believe in it.

Maybe. But of all the explanations out there it's the most logical and takes the least amount of faith. You can't go telling me an invisible man in the sky that waves his hand and creates everything makes more sense.





I've enjoyed reading your posts, iamcamouflage. Keep it up.

reply to post 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.

What about your two posts on page 3 of this thread where you quoted the bible several times and attempted to provide your own interpretation of the length of gods "creative day".

You make claims that god "...purpose for creating them(dinosaurs) and for putting them to sleep.." to create oil for us to use. Where is the evidence of this? If you choose to use ancient, non-scientific texts to make your argument, why cant I, or anyone just choose some old book to validate any theory that they wish?

You are claiming that evolution "...would like to test its validity against other belief - to see how it will stand to questionings and criticism...." As one poster put it, we have been testing this theory critically for 150 years. And I am all for the continuation of its testing. That is how good science works.

To date it is by far the theory with the most evidence to validate its conclusions. If new information presents itself, they the theory will change to fit the new data. You would be a fool to do things any other way. If new evidence was presented to say that combing your hair will make your teeth fall out, are you going to continue to comb your hair? Or are you going to ignore this new evidence in order to maintain a traditional and comfortable belief system?
Without the use of the bible, provide me with evidence to help validate another theory.

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.

No thats not what i'm implying at all. These are not MY beliefs, they are the theories validated from the scientific community. I have no problem with people suggesting that something I think could be wrong but you better have some evidence to back your claim. The bible is NOT evidence. An idiot in this example would be someone who does not use logic and critical thinking to come to a conclusion. Basing a theory on a "feeling" or theological text would be acting idiotic.

evolution also takes an amount of faith to believe in it.

I'm glad you brought this one up, because I hear it used very often in an attempt to discredit science. What many do not realize is you are actually discrediting your own claims with this argument. If you want to claim that both science and religion require faith, you have just evened the playing field. So, I will indulge you for a moment.

Science and religion both require faith. Deal. Now lets compare the facts, evidence and tools used to test each belief system.

Religion- Bible

Science- Microscope, telescope, calculator, math, DNA synthesis, carbon dating, gas chromatography, chemical reactions, punnett squares, beakers, testable repeatable experiments, etc., etc., etc.

Since according to you they both require faith, then we must look at the evidence and means to obtain that evidence to determine which system is better. Which has the upper hand?



@the Dacoit

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..

This is another example, that I'm glad you brought up because again its a poor argument that uses false logic to make a claim.

Are you claiming that science today is using the same tools, methods and practices as 1000 years ago? The reason that science was wrong on so many things 1000 years ago is because they lacked many of the tools and methods that we have today.

When they gained the correct tools/methods they were able to more accurately test their theories. When they realized what was right and what was wrong, they changed the theory based on new information. Science has advanced and continues to do so each and every day even while certain groups attempt to discredit its methods without providing alternatives.

Proving one aspect of a theory wrong does not invalidate the entire thing and it certainly does not validate your own faulty theory.

"Science is wrong so I must be right." This makes no sense. You still need to provide evidence for your own theory.

Maybe. But of all the explanations out there it's the most logical and takes the least amount of faith. You can't go telling me an invisible man in the sky that waves his hand and creates everything makes more sense.

Excellent point. Star

I've enjoyed reading your posts, iamcamouflage. Keep it up.

Thanks You too.



[edit on 6-3-2010 by iamcamouflage]

Originally posted by the dacoit
how are you so sure that the earth is exactly 4.56 billion years old? who told you that? text books? scientists? its not definitive..and you didnt get my point about evolution, i said we dont know much..as opposed to saying we dont know anything. my point is that never treat science to be 100% ..just like global warming or some other pseudo-science

[edit on 6-3-2010 by the dacoit]

Did I say it was exactly 4.56 billion years old? I said we have a PRETTY GOOD IDEA. Who told me that? I studied the data, obviously. Do you have a better hypothesis to put forward? Perhaps you should model a hypothesis and try to come up with a solid theory that completely destroys our current model, and perhaps win yourself a nobel prize in the process. Otherwise, all you're giving me are empty arguments that mean absolutely nothing except the disillusioned view of science you're pushing.

reply to post by iamcamouflage

Your expectation of "proof" is pretty high. If the only way to prove something is to have witnessed it, you will have a hard time proving anything. Witnessing something is probably the worst form of proof.

What other way can you define proof?

Without proof, you only have theories.

Don't "facts" require proof?

So we either call it a theory or call it a fact. Without proof, it can only be a theory....without proof how can it be considered a fact?

Speculation?

Speculation isn neither proof nor fact.

I agree with the other guy - we don't know what dinosaurs looked like, but we can draw a picture with exact dimensions of what killed them.

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

Your expectation of "proof" is pretty high. If the only way to prove something is to have witnessed it, you will have a hard time proving anything. Witnessing something is probably the worst form of proof.

What other way can you define proof?

Without proof, you only have theories.

Don't "facts" require proof?

We have proof but I'm not sure what proof you feel is missing?

Are you saying that we don't have proof of a giant impact 65 million years ago?

Or are you saying we don't have proof that such a giant impact can cause mass extinctions?

The proof is pretty solid but we need to know what proof you're looking for to provide it. Here's a video that provides an overview of the KT extinction, starting around 3m35s, so if you want to watch this to form the basis for questions about proof we can at least be on the same page about what scientists propose.

How the Earth was made Part 7:



That video explains the mass extinction 65 million years ago. It actually mentions a combination of the volcanic activity along with the meteorite impact.

reply to post by Snarf

I agree with the other guy - we don't know what dinosaurs looked like, but we can draw a picture with exact dimensions of what killed them.

Yes, we can. What else do you suggest? Doing nothing or only use science or critical thinking to define things that we can directly witness.

We have a very good idea what dinosaurs looked like. The bones alone give us a very good idea. Are there things we dont know? Of course, we were not there, thus we must make deductions based on the evidence we do have. The only other option is to do nothing. Ignore any evidence and just give up and say, "well we werent there so there is no point in attempting to form a theory of what actually happened.

Are you telling me that you will only believe something if it is observed by you? And if its not observed by you then we should be content without even attempting to know and ignore any evidence that may shed light on the event in question.

Example: you come out from a store and there is a big dent with blue paint in the side of your car. Based on the evidence, it is safe to say that something painted blue ran into your car. Considering that you are in a parking lot it was probably a car and not someone with a baseball bat painted blue. Do you report this event to your insurance?

Based on what you and the other poster are saying, because you were not there to witness this event, there is no way to know what happened. You should ignore the evidence in front of you and just say, "oh well I guess I will never know". You should also not report this to the insurance company because you have no way of knowing what actually happened. For all you know(ignoring evidence) that dent with blue paint could have spontaneously formed.

What other way can you define proof?

Without proof, you only have theories.

Don't "facts" require proof?

Facts, require evidence, that evidence results in attempting to prove something based on the evidence. Scientists have used the evidence to prove that the theory of an asteroid killing the dinosaurs is the most logical deduction. If new evidence presents itself, it will provide us with new proofs which will be used to adjust the theory.

Theory does not mean guess. Theories require evidence to help prove them logical/currently correct.

This theory could change, if new evidence were to present itself.

Can you present an alternative theory that uses evidence?(bible not included)

reply to post by iamcamouflage

Are you telling me that you will only believe something if it is observed by you?

No. But i wont' call it a scientific fact unless it can be proven.
Big difference.

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by iamcamouflage

 

Are you telling me that you will only believe something if it is observed by you?

No. But i wont' call it a scientific fact unless it can be proven.
Big difference.

So what would you be using to prove it? Evidence maybe. Is there anything that you consider to be scientific fact? Can you give me examples? Of these examples, what method was used to prove that they are scientific fact?

Again by this definition, nothing can be proven to be scientific fact. There could always be something out there that we dont know.

Yet we rely on scientific fact based on evidence from repeatable test to prove that this internet thing works, as shown by my words being typed on this screen and then displayed for you to view. It is widely considered scientific fact that the internet works. But if new evidence came along to disprove the mechanisms we think cause it to work, it would not negate the fact that it does work.

By your standard nothing can be proven as scientific fact because there could always be a piece of information or evidence that we do not currently have the means to obtain. And if you cannot prove anything to be scientific fact (by your standard) why do you risk your life everyday getting in a car or using your computer. By your standard I cannot prove that your computer will not blow up in your face.

Originally posted by slowfade
The whole notion of anything "65-million years ago" being "definitive" or "scientific fact" is just plain silly. I mean seriously--

Godsilly

Tada! Humman erro... Godzilla





EDIT: Godzilla vs Gia...

[edit on 6-3-2010 by dzonatas]

Did any one hear that the alternate theory that it was actually 2 asteroids that destroyed the dinosaurs
Until now, it has been accepted generally that the Chicxulub impact off the coast of Mexico 65 million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs. Evidence of the crater left by the giant asteroid or comet has been found under the sea off the coast of Yucatan.
But a group of scientists led by Professor Gerta Keller of Princeton and Professor Wolfgang Stinnesbeck of the University of Karlsruhe begged to differ. They uncovered a series of geological clues which suggests the truth may be far more complicated.


I've long thought it likely that the Alvarez' theory regarding the Chixulub impact was only part of the story. I haven't read the paper for this new research, so I can't evaluate its accuracy beyond a very superficial level, but I suspect they're on to something. Here's the specific argument they seem to be making:

The previous impact theory was beautifully simple and appealing. Much of its evidence was drawn from a thin layer of rock known as the "KT boundary." This layer is 65 million years old (which is around the time when the dinosaurs disappeared) and is found around the world exposed in cliffs and mines.
For supporters of the impact theory, the KT boundary layers contained two crucial clues. In 1979, scientists discovered that there were high concentrations of a rare element called iridium, which they thought could only have come from an asteroid. Right underneath the iridium was a layer of spherules, tiny balls of rock which seemed to have been condensed from rock which had been vapourised by a massive impact.

But Keller's team concentrated on a series of rock formations in Mexico where the iridium layer was separated from the spherule layer by many metres of sandstone. Keller found evidence such as ancient worm burrows that suggested that the deposition of the sandstone had been interrupted many times.

Her team concluded that there was a gap of some 300,000 years between the deposition of the spherules (from the Chicxulub crater) and the iridium (from an asteroid). Therefore, there must have been two impacts.


Again, this seems quite reasonable to me without having seen the data. They speculate that a second, possibly larger impact occured in India. So far, they have not found the actual crater. It's possible that this event may have triggered the astonishing series of volcanic eruptions that produced the Deccan basalts:

The Chicxulub impact conspired with the Deccan Flood Basalt eruptions in India, a period of prolonged and intense volcanic activity, to nudge species towards the brink, said Dr Keller.
Vast amounts of greenhouse gas were pumped into the atmosphere by the Deccan volcanism over a period of more than a million years. By the time Chicxulub struck, land temperatures were seven to eight degrees Celsius warmer than they had been 20,000 earlier.

Weakened by these events, species were finally killed off by the second impact.


I'd like to read the papers to see if the data supports this hypothesis at this point, but my initial reaction is that it seems a more likely scenario than the Alvarez hypothesis by itself

scienceblogs.com...

First of all, the earth is only a little under 6,000 years old. Second of all, the great flood of Noah spoken about in almost every culture's history books is what killed the dinosaurs.

Originally posted by JohnSmithers
First of all, the earth is only a little under 6,000 years old. Second of all, the great flood of Noah spoken about in almost every culture's history books is what killed the dinosaurs.

Evidence please. To make a claim you must back it with some kind of proof. Saying that the earth is under 6000 years old does not make it fact.

Originally posted by iamcamouflage

Originally posted by JohnSmithers
First of all, the earth is only a little under 6,000 years old. Second of all, the great flood of Noah spoken about in almost every culture's history books is what killed the dinosaurs.

Evidence please. To make a claim you must back it with some kind of proof. Saying that the earth is under 6000 years old does not make it fact.

JS - as a Christian on this one i'm with iamcamouflage, your assumption does not agree with the latest geologic dating of the earth's age - it's around 4B years not 6K - see my earlier post.

Originally posted by Brotherman
Did any one hear that the alternate theory that it was actually 2 asteroids that destroyed the dinosaurs

You forgot the external source tags my friend, please add them www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well if there were two impacts, there would be two impact craters, right? Where's the 2nd impact crater? Or is the theory that 2 major impacts 300,000 years apart both hit the exact same spot? Not exactly occam's razor at work, I suspect one impact along with all the volcanic activity was enough, but nobody will believe there were 2 impacts if there aren't 2 craters, the odds of 2 major meteors 300,000 years apart hitting the exact same spot are small.

Arbitrageur

I apologize I am really new here and I thought I did provide the correct attributation for my linked source. Didnt mean to break anyrules I'm trying to figure it all out as soon as I can.
and point taken I'll think about it for awhile and see if I can't learn anything new to argue

reply to post by SilentShadow


This is wild because, the Dinosaurs were able to evolve for hundreds of millions of years before this occurred... perhaps this generation of life on earth will also have that long to evolve before another such extinction event occurs...


This gives me hope that if Yellow Stone blows, it won't necessarily be as cataclysmic as KT, however bad it is...