[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
On Tue, 21 Mar 2000, Larry Dunn wrote:
> I'm having a hard time seeing the circularity in the
> statement of George's that you cited:
> >> It probably >did< kill frogs and turtles and
> >and birds. It just
> >>didn't kill >all< of them.
Try this: We're arguing whether or not the bolide killed all
dinosaurs. Joao questions this because he feels such an event should also
kill all the frogs. This may or may not be true. But George says the
event did kill the dinosaurs because it killed most, but not all, the
frogs. Yet he cites no evidence of frogs whatsoever. Instead, he uses
the supposed fact of bolide-caused dinosaur extinction and frog survival,
to validate the claim that most but not all frogs were killed. This is
circular, I think. I'm getting giddy, at least!
> 1) Frog survival may very well be a challenge to the
> idea that it was an exploding bolide that terminated
> all species of non-avian dinosaurs.
> 2) Nonetheless, if a bolide hit, and apparently one
> quite definitely did, there were a lot of unlucky
> frogs on that day.
But there is _no_ evidence of this. How can you say ot happened if you
have no evidence. You can say it happened because you know it
happened. Or you can say it happened because alot of other things became
extinct and so did many frogs. But this assumes the very thing we're
> 3) Perhaps the bolide killed all of the dinosaurs but
> not all of the frogs. This is not, as far as I can
> tell, a physical impossibility.
I certainly agree with this. But there is no evidence for it.