Posted on 06/01/2006 2:26:58 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Whoops! sorry about the double post...
I was looking for the THING reference, and I found it! LOL!
There is no telling how big the Snake River collider would have been since the ensuing vulcanism would pretty much erase all traces of the crater. To cause impact volcanism a smaller high speed iron meteorite traveling at high speed and striking at a high angle could do the job nicely.
This impact theory is very controversial but there really isn't another explanation as to how a hot spot could have appeared out of nowhere.
Your post #219 reminded me of a TV program, I saw a few months ago, about all the volcanic activity and this hotspot that you speak of, lying under the whole of the geologically active Yellowstone area...it was really quite scarey to watch this program, with the experts surmising what may happen to that area in the future....its truly a place to watch...
Obviously, to some, it was Bush's fault.
Hey, I hate to burst your bubble, but it ain't happening.
Besides Mars, and the moon, I mean. ~ aNYCguy
IOW, this generation isn't clever enough to figure out a way.
Therefore it can never be done....
An Antarctic Bone BedW. Zinsmeister was accustomed to scoff at the idea that the Age of Dinosaurs ended violently with the impact of a giant asteroid some 65 million years ago. He always asked: "Where's the layer of burnt and twisted dinosaur bones?" His certainty was shaken, however, when he began mapping fossil deposits on Seymour Island, Antarctica. He didn't find the dinosaur bones but rather a giant bed of fish bones at least 50 square kilometers in area. Some sort of catastrophe must have annihilated untold millions of fish. And guess what? This great bone bed was deposited directly on top of that layer of extraterrestrial iridium that marks the 65-million-year-old Cretaceous Tertiary boundary at many sites around the world.
William R. Corliss
Science Frontiers
No. 104: Mar-Apr 1996
"'New Scientist' article from 2002 discussing the link between impact events and volcanism."
It is nice to see that science has endorsed the proposal about boloids and the Traps that I made in comment #168.
When you're hot, you're hot...
"Some sort of catastrophe must have annihilated untold millions of fish."
In a book by (I think) the younger Alvarez, he describes visiting a 65mya site in Denmark (?) where there were also signs of of many dead fish. His impression was that something very catastrophic and nasty had happened there. He commented on the fact that this layer smelled bad, and I think there was also iridium found. I wish I could find the darn book in one of my piles.
"I suppose for truth you'd prefer to invent pleasing axioms out of whole cloth and deduce pleasing conclusions from them. That's fine for you, I suppose. It's a nice exercise and inconvenient observations won't rain on your parade.
Myself, I prefer the provisional, inductive truth of the scientific method."
If you define truth as provisional and inductive, how do you define opinion? How can you call it truth if it can change at any time? You have demonstrated the problem with scientism, it mocks (by assertion without argument) any source of truth outside the scientific method but then must, in the end, admit that the truth of scientism is provisional and inductive, in other words, just the latest opinion waiting to be supplanted by the next big idea. Ever learning but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Science is operational not cognitive.
:')
Nah, I really think the crater evolved over millions of years.
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.