but But BUT... SETTLED SCIENCE!!!Although Keller’s father enlisted his brood to tend the land—working them so hard that a neighbor once reported him—the family constantly teetered on the brink of bankruptcy. To put meat on the table, Keller’s mother once stewed up one of the cats the family kept on the farm. Another time, she gave an older daughter some fresh “mutton” as a gift—in actuality, Keller’s butchered pet dog.
...
That family should rightfully be cursed.
Interesting, but CAGW seems to be WAY more controversial.
Maybe settled science isn’t settled science.
I wonder if they have such fights about the Permian extinction.
It's like that scene in Blazing Saddles where they let a jet contrail be visible in the distant blue sky. Turns the whole thing into a joke.
Could they both be right?
The above link was posted in a thread stating that earthquakes on one side of the planet could trigger earthquakes on the other side: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3677932/posts
but But BUT... SETTLED SCIENCE!!!I read the piece. What I saw were two groups of arrogant atheists yelling at each other and being More-Scientist-Than-Thou. I think BOTH of them are full of s#!t.
Whatever we do, we must not let these maniacs rule over us. They’ll drive us to extinction with their egos.
Extinction theories about dinosaurs tend to claim that environmental changes wrecked the food supply and the big beasts starved to death.
One problem is that many dinosaurs were no bigger than chickens. So why would they die out while larger reptiles survived?
Also, the dinosaurs may have died out quickly on a geological scale, but it still took thousands of years at least. It was not overnight by any means.
Need new theories that fit the data. Not reliance on flawed theories that are simply attractive.
My grandson asked what happened to the dinosaurs...
Told him they were all killed by Henry Ford to make into seat-covers for Model T Fords.
I know what killed off the dinosaurs. Saw it in an ad -
“Bad Eggs, Kid, Bad Eggs”. /sarc re bad ads
Seems to me Bob Bakker has been making similar arguments for many years:
The lady has an alternate explanation for the extinction of dinosaurs. It seems possible. But why do the establishment "scientists" have to destroy someone with another viewpoint?
It reminds me of all the phony "global warming scientists" who smear and malign anyone who doubts their hypothesis. There is a lesson in this story.
bttt
And polar bears don't eat penguins.
Two things stand out from this long and interesting article. First, both sides are violating an important aspect of science which is to be unbiased when interpreting data. Both sides are so personally invested in their argument that they will not accept opposing data. They also are working to prove their own pet theory rather than looking for or considering data that might disprove it. Second, both sides have been working feverishly for decades to answer a question that essentially has NO VALUE. Other than satisfying idle curiosity what benefit is there to knowing what killed the dinosaurs a hundred million years ago? Does it make any difference whether it was an impact or volcanism? It is interesting but not important.
I’m old enough that I was taught that we weren’t sure why the dinosaurs went extinct. The meteor was in the list of contributing possibilities, but changing weather (global cooling, through not anthropogenic), emergence of new species competing for food, other species eating vulnerable dinosaur eggs, etc.
Anyone ever read a book titled THE BONE PEDDLERS by William Fix? A rather interesting look at how certain “scientists” rule the roost on what and how various fossil finds are presented.
However, Fix’s own ideas on “evolution” are also strange.