Posted on 03/04/2010 1:37:39 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
LONDON (Reuters) - A giant asteroid smashing into Earth is the only plausible explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs, a global scientific team said on Thursday, hoping to settle a row that has divided experts for decades.
A panel of 41 scientists from across the world reviewed 20 years' worth of research to try to confirm the cause of the so-called Cretaceous-Tertiary (KT) extinction, which created a "hellish environment" around 65 million years ago and wiped out more than half of all species on the planet.
Scientific opinion was split over whether the extinction was caused by an asteroid or by volcanic activity in the Deccan Traps in what is now India, where there were a series of super volcanic eruptions that lasted around 1.5 million years.
The new study, conducted by scientists from Europe, the United States, Mexico, Canada and Japan and published in the journal Science, found that a 15-kilometre (9 miles) wide asteroid slamming into Earth at Chicxulub in what is now Mexico was the culprit.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
The skeletal structure of a dinosaur is quite sufficient to support itself without some magical mysterious “reduction in gravity”.
But this is typical of creationists. They think any old speculation, no matter how outlandish, involving however many unobserved phenomena, is equivalent to a well reasoned hypothesis with data that supports it involving a well observed and understood phenomena.
You state that dinos bone structure is sufficient to support there weight in todays gravity environment. Question, why are they no land animals greater in size than elephants today? (note: elephants are mammals and have mammalian bone structures while dinos had bird/reptile bone structures and were 10x the size of elephants). If todays gravity is the same throughout time why don’t we see larger and heavier animals? Why is human physiology capped at around 7’ and a functional maximum weight at around 250 - 300 lbs? My answer would be this is what our physiological system (circulation, bone structure and muscle density) can achieve against current conditions of gravity. Change gravity then you can change these physiological dimensions. Seems reasonable, no?
“But this is typical of creationists. They think any old speculation, no matter how outlandish, involving however many unobserved phenomena, is equivalent to a well reasoned hypothesis with data that supports it involving a well observed and understood phenomena.”
Don’t know how I became a “Creationist” to you while citing string theory, but okay lets play. A creationist posits that God/Gods/Intelligent Design created something (matter, life and conciousness) from nothing (empty space). Physicists posit matter existed at all times, but time only began when extremely dense matter comprising our universe exploded creating our current growing universe. Notice here, that science can’t explain the nothing to something phenomena because they can’t study/measure the state of nothing. So what science is saying is matter has always existed, but time is strictly relative to an expanding universe. (this is short hand for science has no idea how matter was created) Not sure this is true, either time is an absolute or its relative, but current physics state both are true. If you step back and realize that science does not attempt to answer the “creation” question but merely shuffles the shells and declares all matter existed at all times (thus no creation), that matter takes many forms through time (matter’s form can be explained through time), but time, as an absolute, is relative to the expansion of matter, while matter’s reduction to a super dense state via black holes and its superdense lifespan is free of time, it can get a mite confusing. You will notice that science sidestepped the original question of how it all started by explaining away the “creation” of matter by saying it always existed.
So my questions to you is (1) how did matter come into being? (2)how can time (as a constant force) create life out of matter? and (3)given the Darwinian model, why did homo sapiens ever need a 3lb brain to do nothing more than chase food and screw?
You have called me a name because you intimated that I have questions regarding the certainty of science. The name “Creationist” could easily have be replaced by “Skeptic”. I would ask whether you consider Einstein a “Creationist” or for that matter Newton? OBTW, even Darwin went to Church every Sunday. So are they all “Creationists”? Personnally, I am like a lot of other people, I wonder how it all could have happened, I study what is known, knowable, and theorized, and then I ask myself what it all means. To me, there is an intelligence within the universe. Its language is math. It can be discovered because the intelligence gave homo sapiens the tool with which to discover the patterns (both linear and non-linear). This I “believe” because of what I “know” (or think I know) about things. Bottom line, we were given a big brain to do things beyond chasing food and screwing. We are a post Darwinian species, we have choice, imagination and spirit. If we did not have these things, then the concept of “time” would not exist. So am I a creationist? Yes, I truly believe there was nothing before there was something. I don’t believe you answer the creation question honestly by saying it never happened, because matter has always existed. I have absolutely no idea how you can create something out of nothing, but my gut tells me it occurred at some point. Just sayin.
There is one maxim concerning science that you should embrace; what you think you know is often times wrong. Or said another way, “you don’t know, what you don’t know”. Stay thirsty my friend.
The current state of scientific theory in no way insists that matter “has always existed”. Maybe you have heard of the “Big Bang” theory?
Your gravity change inanity recalls to me exactly the same permutations of physical laws that Creationists engage in to explain why light from an object one hundred million light years away couldn't POSSIBLY mean that the light took one hundred million years to travel the distance; and they don't care how much they have to manipulate physical laws willie nilly to fit the square peg of the data into the round hole of their theological expectations.
The current state of scientific theory in no way insists that matter “has always existed”. Maybe you have heard of the “Big Bang” theory?
The Big Bang theory states that matter took the form of super density until it wet itself and exploded. The entire matter of the universe was compressed then exploded. Big bang does not posit the something from nothing phenomena, but rather posits matters was extremely dense and then exploded phenomena. This is when time began accoding to them. The creation of super density is explained by Hawking through the phenomena of the Black Hole. Taken together, science is describing an unending cycle of birth, death, and rebirth of universes. No way is it describing the creation of matter/energy/life and conciousness, but rather a cyclic view of universal change and renewal. This is an explanation of the mechanisms that change the form of matter.
Moreover what happened before the Big Bang (a previous Big Bang and Big Crunch?), or where the energy came from, are not questions that science is equipped to answer; and the supporting evidence for the Big Bang doesn't necessitate that it be a cyclical state. Physicists and Astronomers do not agree on if the current state of the universal expansion will continue indefinitely, or if there will indeed be a universal contraction some time in the future.
What you think you know is wrong. What you attempt to speculate about is ludicrous. Answering your “skepticism” by invention of outlandish ad hoc explanations that are not supported any evidence is they type of “scholarship” that Creationists routinely engage in; much as they have to play around with the physical constants of reality in order to explain how light from a hundred million light years away somehow took less than 7 thousand or so years to traverse the distance.
Your gravity change inanity recalls to me exactly the same permutations of physical laws that Creationists engage in to explain why light from an object one hundred million light years away couldn’t POSSIBLY mean that the light took one hundred million years to travel the distance; and they don’t care how much they have to manipulate physical laws willie nilly to fit the square peg of the data into the round hole of their theological expectations.
Theories are just that, theories. Your certainty that gravity has been constant through time is interesting but far too linear in concept. Again, visit fibonacci and chaos theory and get back to me. Things don’t grow in a straight line. Consider the possibility of other dimensions beyond our 3 dimensions. Ask yourself do these other dimensions communicate with one another via energy transfers? They are by definition of the same universe, why wouldn’t they? Recognize that steady state is one of the most preposterous assumptions man can make about his universe. Everything changes, but the probabilities that all change is linear is rediculous (you argue that change for dinosaurs was an immediate one time deal). To aid you, imagine of all the snowflakes that have fallen to earth, then recognize that no two are identical. They are all similar, but each different. Recognize this is true of all life and matter on earth. Then tell me about steady state linear assumptions while questioning my ability to reason. Shoosh, who is being foolish here?
Recommend you revisit Big Bang, String Theory, Super Synchronisty, Black Hole Theory, and Chaos Theory. After that take a run at Jung’s Archetypes with special emphasis on Chaos Theory’s “strange attractors”. Then get back to me on your scientific certainty. I may be inane, but I am well read. Maybe you should do the same? Remember, “you don’t know, what you don’t know”. Also, there are things you will never know (i.e., something from nothing). Certainty is a fools trap.
The Big Bang theory is well supported by the evidence.
The K-T asteroid hypothesis is well on its way to being a theory.
Your unsubstantiated “gravity change” supposition explains nothing, you have not detailed how a dinosaur couldn't survive under current gravity so the necessity for your explanation is completely lacking right from the beginning. Your proposed ‘mechanism’ for this change in gravity is pure fantasy. And the consequences on planetary orbits and such has obviously not been well thought out.
Typical.
Only if you insist that energy = matter does the Big Bang theory insist that “matter always existed”.
Moreover what happened before the Big Bang (a previous Big Bang and Big Crunch?), or where the energy came from, are not questions that science is equipped to answer; and the supporting evidence for the Big Bang doesn’t necessitate that it be a cyclical state.
Geez, after how many posts, do you finally agree with my first post: science is not equipped to explain creation. Further, science purposely avoids the question. Nobody wants to look like a fool, even scientists. Shoosh.
You are correct that science currently does not declare cyclicality of big bangs and black hole crunches relative to universal renewal, but it sure as hell insinuates it. We will have to wait for some smart physicists to build that equation (BTW, thats what they are trying to do at present).
Why are you angry towards “creationism” and the “intelligent design” concepts? Science can only discover repeatable patterns and then attempt to explain them. Is the universe full of repeatable patterns or full of random noise? If it is full of repeatable and understandable patterns then is this proof of intelligent design or proof of random natural behavior? This is the question we have been dancing with. So, which side of the equation do you fall on?
I dislike creationism because it fosters an anti-science attitude the often manifests itself in idiots making unsubstantiated off the wall claims and declaring them the equivalent of well supported scientific theories.
The K-T asteroid hypothesis is well on its way to being a theory.
Your unsubstantiated “gravity change” supposition explains nothing, you have not detailed how a dinosaur couldn’t survive under current gravity so the necessity for your explanation is completely lacking right from the beginning.
When your astroid came and killed all the dinos, why didn’t it kill all life? Why just certain species known as dinos (very large birdlike/reptilelike animals)? Why did it kill dino sea and land creatures? Was this a temperature thingy or a food source thingy. Clearly it had to effect the entire globe simultaneously. Another question, why did your asteroid cause giant birds/reptiles known as dinos to schrink in size? The dino prodginy still exists among us, but in much smaller form. Why can’t they grow in size like their granddaddy? Have no problem with asteroids hitting earth and causing hate and discontent, its just the selectivity of the event I find unanswerable.
I dislike creationism because it fosters an anti-science attitude the often manifests itself in idiots making unsubstantiated off the wall claims and declaring them the equivalent of well supported scientific theories.
Do you sense that I have a anti-science attitude? My real philosophy is that science (objective stuff) and religion (subjective stuff) are all a piece of one universe or cosmos. The distinguishing characteristic of a fundamentalist is their personal degree of certainty in their beliefs. Both science and religion can breed this characteristic. In either case it stops all foward learning and takes the fun out of life. I guess you could call me a homo sapien supremist in that I think we are specially selected and equipped for some bigger purpose. We are post Darwinian creatures with a mission. We have the capacity to reason and feel. We are unique.
Man does not live by bread alone, means live your life in all dimensions; horizontal = the objective, and vertical = the subjective. If you press on all planes you will become a bigger self.
I find science fascinating, but every theory requires a really good tire kicking session before you incorporate into your history of the universe. Just sayin.
And your ‘skepticism’ of the K-T asteroid in no way shores up your unsubstantiated nonsense about the skeletal structure of a dinosaur being insufficient to support its weight without some reduction in gravity.
For you to gain any acceptance for your outlandish idea you would first need to establish that gravity had to be reduced on the Earth for dinosaurs to attain their size. Secondly it would help if you had a mechanism that explained this increased/decreased gravitational attraction. What would ‘seal the deal’ would be observations in Astronomy that would be the result of this gravity change during the K-T transition period.
As it is you have nothing. That you think your big ball of nothing is equivalent to a scientific theory shows what a blind alley of ignorance creationist thought leads one to.
As it is you have nothing. That you think your big ball of nothing is equivalent to a scientific theory shows what a blind alley of ignorance creationist thought leads one to.
Who is being the fundamentalist here? Theories are plausible answers, not final answers. Like I said, the astroid thing is plausible. Once someone demonstrates that gravity can fluctuate in our 3 dimensions, so is mine. Gravity is a constant force that determines the dimensions that different life forms can take. Vary the G, and you can vary size. Nothing I have put forward is all that bizarre. Matter of fact, its pretty pedestrian.
Finally, gravity is one of four energies released at the big bang, the question String Theory tried to answer was why is gravity so weak on earth relative to the strength of the other three energies. Their answer was that there are 11 dimensions with eight of them absorbing a greater portion of the original gravitational energy. This disproportionate sharing of gravity allowed life forms to inhabit our earth. If our 3 dimensions got an equal share of original gravitational energy we would not exist - we would be crushed if it happen today. With this posited, do you see my interest in the ability of dimensions to communicate energy? What if gravity was not constant (a very likely position to take as I have explained before), what would happen? What would happen to particularly large animals? Simple question, with a likely answer - gravity in our 3 dimensions changes over time. This would explain why a lot of very large animals no longer exist. It would also explain the evident downsizing of animal and plant life throughout time. If you are a large cat that feeds on extremely large beasts, and these extremely large beasts cease to exist, will you remain a large cat when you now feed on smaller prey?
So, according to you, I am inane and hate science, but to a reasonable man, these are very plausible questions to ask. I am not a scientist working toward tenure, so I am very free to take unaccepted theories and run with them. The terror of tenure has handicapped some very bright minds pursuing some very original thought. Its always best to stick to the consensus if you need a paycheck.
What you have put forward is bizarre and unsubstantiated by any sort of mechanism or observation that would be consistent with the universal constant of gravity changing during the K-T transition period.
But once again, it is all too typical of Creationists to think that such unsubstantiated substance pulled from their backside is equivalent to an actual scientific theory.
It is not an “unaccepted theory”, it is the unsubstantiated off the wall speculation of someone who doesn’t understand what a theory is.
Okey dokey - From what I am told by “serious scientists” is that man is heating his planet by releasing CO2. Its so bad, that we might not exist in a century or two. These reputable sources have told me that they have achieved concensus by reading each others papers. We call this settled science AGW. Do you belive it?
What I do know, is CO2 has next to no absorptive capacity. It can not hold heat. It also comprises less than 1% of the atmoshpere. I also know that the largest source of heat on earth comes from the sun and secondarily from deep star radiation. I also know that 75% of our earth is covered by water. When water is heated it gases out CO2 as well as H20. When these gases cool they fall to earth as liquids and repeat the cycle. So knowing these things you would argue that I should accept the serious consensus opinion of AGW scientist that man is heating his planet and do everything possible to reduce man released C02?
I don’t believe AGW. I don’t believe their computer models can represent a scintilla of the natural atmospheric reality anymore that I believe their models are comprehensively reflective of atmospheric reality. I do know from Lorenz, that a very small rounding error or transpositional error within a deterministic computer model can cause a rediculously disproportionate results. Given what I know, I call the consensus of AGW nothing more than garbage. By doing so, have I exhibited a “creationist” fundamentalism to you or have I displayed informed skeptism? Or more to the point have I, a layman, been able to burst their ego driven “science” and reveal them as hucksters?
Consensus is a lot like pure democracy. Four men and two women decide to vote on whether rape is to be outlawed. How do you think the vote will go? Is the answer right? If not, why?
There are plausible theories that contradict one another (in the case at hand the theories may compliment one another) and can be held simultaneously until further information and experience reveals a clearer path. You seem pretty fired up that an asteroid killed all the dinos, but not all life. I have heard the theory and still wonder whether one rock would wipe out selected species, based largely on size of the species. I can’t prove my theory, but neither can you. You point to evidence that may or may not prove your theory more plausible than mine. So what?
From a practical point of view, what does your theory teach, and what further research is required. Lesson learned, avoid asteroids. My theory opens a lot of new doors and may point to a deeper understanding to how the universe grows by displacing energy from one dimension to another. My overall theory states that the expanding universe grows in spurts (see Fibonacci and Mandlebroit). During growth spurts energy is siphoned from different dimensions to reinforce the pushing dimensions, thus lowering the donors dimensions gravitational environment. Once the universe growth spurt recedes the energy is returned to the donor dimensions again causing an increase in gravitational energy in that dimension. This ebb and flowing of energy between dimensions would cause all sorts of changing effects on life and matter within the dimension affected. If energy shifts occurred quickly with a marked degree of G energy being transferred, a mass extinction of gravitationally sensitive life forms would be expected. Fast transitions of gravitational energy between dimensions could also cause a lot of space rocks to loose their orbit and come cascading down on planets. Contradicting and complimenting theories held simultaneously. Can’t prove it, but I feel my theory explans a lot more of the evidence than your individual asteroid.
Your unsubstantiated speculation is not a theory.
Once again you show that you have no earthly idea what a theory actually is. No theory is ever “proven”, so your statement that I cannot prove the K-T asteroid theory further substantiates that you have no idea how science operates or what a theory is.
Liquid CO2 falls to the Earth? Wow are you delusional.
And the unsubstantiated (and fraudulent)nature of the AGW hypothesis in no way props up your own unsubstantiated speculation.
Your unsubstantiated speculation is not a theory.
Okay, I attempt a broader “speculation” than a rock fell and killed everything but what it did’nt kill and I am a fool.
You cite consensus as support for your theory. I point out the futility of consensus, and you remain convinced of the killer rock theory based on consensus.
If I understand you, all enery in the universe is constant at all times, all matter is identical within its periodic table taxonomy, all life procedes linearly, and rocks randomly fall from orbit killing specific species, but don’t do so in a linear predictable fashion. Who has the problem with their theory or speculation? Why do you insist on linear reasoning then cite non-linearity as the cause of your theory for disappearing dinos?
CO2 does not liquify, correct. It falls to earth via gravitation. I am delusional.
Now once again, explain the selectivity of your killer space rock.
And the entire reason behind tenure is that, once it is granted, the professor is free to follow any idea they think has merit, so once again you have everything bass ackwards.
No, to gain tenure you need to be seen as productive within the accepted and funded world of science. Once you receive tenure your career is based on those funding your research. Its a bit like asking who decides the editorial position of a newspaper. The correct answer is the editor unless directed otherwise by the owner.
“all life proceeds linearly”? Ignoramus say what?
Killing the vast majority of species, the second most comprehensive mass extinction in Earth history; is hardly “selectivity”.
Killing the vast majority of species, the second most comprehensive mass extinction in Earth history; is hardly “selectivity”.
Your words were killing “almost” all major life. Why not all? Why the survivers - what was different for them? Does size matter?
“the second most comprehensive mass extinction in Earth history; is hardly “selectivity”.” Selectivity means by definition some, but not all.
“all life proceeds linearly”? Ignoramus say what? So do I assume from your response that life does not proceed linearly? Would this include the growth/expasion of the universe? Would this growth procede non-linearly? Be clear. I feel as though I am wrestling with a greased pig. Yes and no answers would suffice. Finally, is energy constant in every dimension through time or does it change its distribution between dimensions? Once again, simple yes or no would be appropriate. If you answered yes to the last question, what would that look like if it affected our 3 dimensions?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.