Just watched a show on Science Channel this past weekend.
The Planets were all formed by a disk of dust that kept getting bigger. Then the big parts kept getting bigger, then gravity of the big ones made them bigger.
According to the Scientists on the subject Pluto and Venus Proved this theory.
Yet when it comes to Uranas and Neptune the quote is:
"No matter how many times we tired we could get no computer model to create these two planets. It just didn't work. We put in all the data and still came to nothing. I think the science is not yet perfect."
And as to the big extinction, there is one "respected archeologist, he looks like a hippie wears a hat all the time, (name escapes me) He said that there is a little tree frog in S. America and if you change his surrounding temp by a degree it DIES. He does not believe in the Asteroid but says what killed the Dinos was the little critters, Disease.
Land bridges afforded at time migration and some had immmunities others did not. ???
If Science was always right then scienctist would always agree. Either evidence says planets were formed one way or another. But then 2 PLanets do not fit into the mix at all.
As Stephen Hawking said, "The big bang happened, but can we say that a supreme being did not use that method to "create" the universe?" It is something that must not be left out.
Lisa Simpson - "So a screamapillar has decided to inhabit your area. Things you need to know: 1) without constant reassurance it will die 2) it is sexually attracted to fire.
Homer - "Are you sure God didn't want this thing to be extinct!"
Science is a process of discovery and refinement. Earlier in our history, people believed that the Earth-centered model for our solar system was accurate. Continued observation and modeling proved that the Heliocentric model to be correct. Hypotheses are brought forward and investigated, few stand the test of time...and aren't you glad of this? Else we would still be using beads, chants and rattles as a first line of defense against disease.
And of course two planets don't fit with our current hypotheses. Actually, I'm surprised more doesn't "fit" with our level of understanding. Did you know how to ride a bicycle the first time you tried? It took numerous falls and scrapes before you learned to keep the thing upright. So it is with Science.
As Stephen Hawking said, "The big bang happened, but can we say that a supreme being did not use that method to "create" the universe?" It is something that must not be left out.
I do not rule out the efforts of a Creator, but I do think He used His own natural laws to bring all into being.
You are probably referring to Prof Robert Bakker. He is a vertebrate paleontologist. (Archeologists study historic and pre-historic people and culture.) Bakker is one of the leading researchers who has not jumped on the killer comet/asteroid bandwagon.
Bakker?
It is statements like this that give me pause about Bob Bakker's sanity.
Where in South America, does the atmospheric temperature NOT vary by at least ONE degree? Even at night? Can't happen.
An amphibian moves between water and land. The difference in temperature between the two would vary by at least one degree.