Posted on 06/01/2006 2:26:58 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
I enjoyed reading Worlds in Collision years ago.
Pre-Cambrian life was unicellular. There was no need for an extinction event as the ecological niches were unfilled.
Here's a link you might like Eons of Earth Geological History
I normally do not care for Wikipedia but it seems to be fairly accurate on the pure sciences.
You might like to track down this: http://www.knowledge.co.uk/velikovsky/earth.htm
I read that as the 30 mile wide inpactor left a 300 mile wide hole.
that must have had an exponentially greater climate impact than the C-T (alvarez) impact. ~ WoofDog123
We have two data points:
6 mile Ø bolide=65% wipe out
30 mile wide bolide=95% wipe out
We can now draw a line...
"Everybody be nice."
Okay. I think it's nice they found the
former site of Michael Moore's outhouse.
Capital Mr Jeeves! I can hear Fat Boy calling out the stations as of a thousand open graves of Danforth.."Kendal!
Central! HAAAAAAAVAAAAAAHD!!!!
Mud Puppies turning their lives around!
The problem is that you are trying to graph something that has exponential yield increases with linear size increases. Looks like a good science project in the making
"He was really thought of as a kook and a fool for decades by (ahem) serious scientists."
He WAS a kook and a fool.
(Engineering managers can do it with one point)...
That's my tattoo! "Determined to Ruin!" Not sure if I had that done on the Plains of Yith, or a funny little shop on the outskirts of Salem, NH, but in the scheme of things, no matter.
More logarithmic looking.
(I cheated, I used the third data point: 0 mile Ø bolide=0% wipe out)
Thanks for your link in #84 below (I am psychic...;) )
Some scientists tried to supress the publication of Worlds in the 50s and many dissed his works ever since. He was vindicated to some degree in terms of the chaotic nature and rapidity of cosmological change. He was brilliant in many areas. I read Worlds in Collision in high school and compared to my textbooks, the books were a flight of fantasy and possibilities.
"He WAS a kook and a fool."
Well, gee, golly, I guess you and I need to move on and get a life, WorkingClassFilth.
The scientific case against Craterism
1. Meteor craters have not been observed to happen, now or in the past.
2. Meteor craters have never been reproduced in the lab, and are thus not scientific.
3. Thomas Jefferson said: "Gentlemen, I would rather believe that two Yankee professors would lie than believe that stones fall from heaven."
4. The odds against a random rock falling from the sky, striking the earth, and making a crater are astronomical.
5. The second law of thermodynamics prohibits meteor craters.
6. Meteor craters are not mentioned in the bible, nor are "rocks from the sky."
7. Craterism is a product of materialism and a Godless, naturalistic worldview.
8. Belief that rocks can fall from the sky promotes hedonism and amoral, animalistic behavior.
9. Craterism makes no predictions and is untestable; it is therefore not scientific.
10. Craterists can produce micro-craters, but have no evidence of macro-cratering.
11. Aristotle didn't believe in Craterism. Nor did Galileo, Newton, or Einstein.
12. Einstein even said: "God does not play dice!" Are you smarter than Einstein?
13. Scientists are abandoning craterism because they know it is not supported by evidence.
14. Anyone who thinks there are rocks in the sky has rocks in his head.
15. It takes more faith to believe in Craterism than it does to believe in the Tooth Fairy.
16. More and more scientists are turning to "Intelligent Crater" theory (IC). Craterism is a theory in crisis!
"Well, gee, golly, I guess you and I need to move on and get a life, WorkingClassFilth."
Perhaps.
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.