[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

CORRELATIVE AND CAUSITIVE SCIENCE WHEN DEALING WITH EXTINCTION SCENARIOS



This is my one and only post on dinosaur extinctions in the last 2 years or
so.  To tell you the truth, I really don't give a damn about dinosaur
extinction, but there are a few things that just irk me when people are so
sure of the rock from the sky explanation.

George Olshevsky wrote:
<<We have a hole in the ground, we have lots of missing animals, and, most
important, we have extremely good information on the timing of these two
events. As far as we can tell, within the bounds of error, they occur
simultaneously.>>

Yes, yes, blah.  They happened at roughly the same time: so what?  I brush my
teeth at roughly thr same time I take a shower.  That doesn't mean I brush my
teeth while I'm in the shower.  You have a correlation, and that's just it.

What you need is a positive cause of the extinctions that would have come from
rocks falling from the sky.  So far all I have seen are either rediculous,
ludicrus, or ignorant explanations.

They either pose a scenario which wouldn't have killed ANYTHING because the
nuclear winter or whatever would have lasted about a week and would have just
yellowed the figurative grass.

Or, they propose scenarios that would have killed everything on the planet.
Decades of freezing or baking temperatures that would have either burnt,
killed or froze every single plant, seed or spore on the planet, not to
mention phytoplankton, and the starving animals that fed on them (and those
that fed on them).  Point is: everything would have died.

The ecosystem would not have been devistated, it would have been destroyed.

Completely.

Nothing would survive.

There is no way that you could have killed off one group of organisms without
killing everything.

Any in-between scenario would have to explain why the extinction was SOOOO
selective when the agent of destruction was so all encompassing.  Counter to
George's claim to the contrary the rock from the sky supporters DO have to
explain why some things survived with no problems.  Why did nautiloids go on
with no problems, while ammonites didn't.  Why did neornithine birds live and
enantiornithines die?

Another thing I would like to point out to everyone is the size of the rock
that fell from the sky.  Get a globe, your standard American 12" diameter
globe will be fine for my example.  I have heard estimates of the size of this
rock from between 6 and 10 miles across.  That means that with the 12" globe
the rock that killed the dinosaurs would be between 1/110 and 1/66 of an
inch!!!  This is bordering on microscopic.

And this tiny partical of dust is supposed to kick up enough dust and rock to
cloud up the atmosphere, block out the sun, then bake the earth enough to
cause massive firestorms!?  Give me a break!  Am the only one that thinks that
this is just slightly absurd?

Peter Buchholz
Tetanurae@aol.com

Chee's da'ling