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

Re: Response I



On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 11:35:13PM -0400, KELL00BELL@aol.com scripsit:
>        Concerning the claim that K-T iridium can only be of ET origin: The 
> Pacific Ocean, and the moon, were formed when a Mars-sized body impacted into 
> Earth and sank deep into its core.

Well, no; when a Mars-sized body and the proto-earth impacted and
*produced* the Earth and the Moon; that one involved total remelting.
Didn't produce the Pacific, which is a product of plate tectonics.

> Inasmuch as the amount of iridium it contained would've been
> considerable (!) and other events of this kind may have occurred, is
> it really possible to distinguish between "Earthly" and "ET" iridium?  

Yes, it is; the isotope ratios are different, and the isotope ratios of
the iridium at the K/T boundary match those found in meteorites.

> As for the other K-T impact evidence: A TREMENDOUS number of impacts
> occurred 4 Ga or earlier, producing a tremendous amount of
> microtektites, etc., most of which wound up deep beneath the surface
> as Earth became larger from material from more impacts...  It
> certainly seems possible that volcanic eruptions could've spewed out
> impact debris from the distant past, giving the false impression of an
> impact at the time of eruption e.g. at K-T time.  Have these
> possibilities been taken into consideration?

It is extremely unlikely that multi-billion year old subducted impact
evidence would be emitted from a volcano in recognizable form; it would
have been entirely melted.

The K/T impact debris evidence is really extremely good and from
multiple lines of evidence.

-- 
                           graydon@dsl.ca
               To maintain the end is to uphold the means.