Scientists hard at work!

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[SteveC]

From what I understand... I believe the reason some scientist don't follow the asteroid version is th.
ere is too much iridium around the suggested area of impact.  The picture that better fits the iridium found there is volcanic activity since volcanoes not only produce iridium but actually spread it too. 

Scientifically speaking asteroid don't spread iridium.

(Personally speaking and definitely IMO) - I think the impact would have done more to the earth than just the crater that was found.

Some people would disagree with your iridium statement:

The asteroid theory is far from new. The idea was first proposed by the father-son duo of Luis and Walter Alvarez three decades ago, when they found high levels of iridium in geological samples around the world. The element iridium is rare in the Earth’s crust but is common in asteroids, and can be found at asteroid impact sites. The current panel analyzed soil samples to find that immediately after the iridium layer, there is a dramatic decline in fossil abundance and species, indicating that the KT extinction followed very soon after the asteroid hit [Science Daily News].

The fact that we are alive today proves that the asteroid was not capable of moving the Earth to the extremes you suggest.

Again, you talk as if it is a given fact.  It isn't established as fact, that I know of, and remains as a theory among other theories.

Not that it is a big deal either way.  If we were both scientist, you would line up with the asteroid theory and I would line up with the volcanic theory as to why there is the abundance of iridium. 

I've never given it any thought, and I could care less. Why do you care if iridium is deposited by volcanos or asteroids?

Now usually, when you're buckiing traditional scientific thought, you have a biblical motive to do so. What is it this time? Why does the Bible require you to believe that volcanos deposit iridium?

[kwd111]

From what I understand... I believe the reason some scientist don't follow the asteroid version is th.
ere is too much iridium around the suggested area of impact.  The picture that better fits the iridium found there is volcanic activity since volcanoes not only produce iridium but actually spread it too. 

Scientifically speaking asteroid don't spread iridium.

(Personally speaking and definitely IMO) - I think the impact would have done more to the earth than just the crater that was found.

Some people would disagree with your iridium statement:

The asteroid theory is far from new. The idea was first proposed by the father-son duo of Luis and Walter Alvarez three decades ago, when they found high levels of iridium in geological samples around the world. The element iridium is rare in the Earth’s crust but is common in asteroids, and can be found at asteroid impact sites. The current panel analyzed soil samples to find that immediately after the iridium layer, there is a dramatic decline in fossil abundance and species, indicating that the KT extinction followed very soon after the asteroid hit [Science Daily News].

The fact that we are alive today proves that the asteroid was not capable of moving the Earth to the extremes you suggest.

Again, you talk as if it is a given fact.  It isn't established as fact, that I know of, and remains as a theory among other theories.

Not that it is a big deal either way.  If we were both scientist, you would line up with the asteroid theory and I would line up with the volcanic theory as to why there is the abundance of iridium. 

I've never given it any thought, and I could care less. Why do you care if iridium is deposited by volcanos or asteroids?

You did it again, Steve.  Let me quote what I said...

Not that it is a big deal either way.

Please notice what I said and your response...

Why do you care

  'Not a big deal' and 'why do you care' are in-congruent.

Now usually, when you're buckiing traditional scientific thought, you have a biblical motive to do so. What is it this time? Why does the Bible require you to believe that volcanos deposit iridium?

Godophobia again.  Wasn't even thinking biblical.

[SteveC]

From what I understand... I believe the reason some scientist don't follow the asteroid version is th.
ere is too much iridium around the suggested area of impact.  The picture that better fits the iridium found there is volcanic activity since volcanoes not only produce iridium but actually spread it too. 

Scientifically speaking asteroid don't spread iridium.

(Personally speaking and definitely IMO) - I think the impact would have done more to the earth than just the crater that was found.

Some people would disagree with your iridium statement:

The asteroid theory is far from new. The idea was first proposed by the father-son duo of Luis and Walter Alvarez three decades ago, when they found high levels of iridium in geological samples around the world. The element iridium is rare in the Earth’s crust but is common in asteroids, and can be found at asteroid impact sites. The current panel analyzed soil samples to find that immediately after the iridium layer, there is a dramatic decline in fossil abundance and species, indicating that the KT extinction followed very soon after the asteroid hit [Science Daily News].

The fact that we are alive today proves that the asteroid was not capable of moving the Earth to the extremes you suggest.

Again, you talk as if it is a given fact.  It isn't established as fact, that I know of, and remains as a theory among other theories.

Not that it is a big deal either way.  If we were both scientist, you would line up with the asteroid theory and I would line up with the volcanic theory as to why there is the abundance of iridium. 

I've never given it any thought, and I could care less. Why do you care if iridium is deposited by volcanos or asteroids?

You did it again, Steve.  Let me quote what I said...

Not that it is a big deal either way.

Please notice what I said and your response...

Why do you care

  'Not a big deal' and 'why do you care' are in-congruent.

Now usually, when you're buckiing traditional scientific thought, you have a biblical motive to do so. What is it this time? Why does the Bible require you to believe that volcanos deposit iridium?

Godophobia again.  Wasn't even thinking biblical.

Okay, are you saying that the crater, we were discussing near Central America, is the remains of volcano?

[kwd111]

From what I understand... I believe the reason some scientist don't follow the asteroid version is th.
ere is too much iridium around the suggested area of impact.  The picture that better fits the iridium found there is volcanic activity since volcanoes not only produce iridium but actually spread it too.  

Scientifically speaking asteroid don't spread iridium.

(Personally speaking and definitely IMO) - I think the impact would have done more to the earth than just the crater that was found.

Some people would disagree with your iridium statement:

The asteroid theory is far from new. The idea was first proposed by the father-son duo of Luis and Walter Alvarez three decades ago, when they found high levels of iridium in geological samples around the world. The element iridium is rare in the Earth’s crust but is common in asteroids, and can be found at asteroid impact sites. The current panel analyzed soil samples to find that immediately after the iridium layer, there is a dramatic decline in fossil abundance and species, indicating that the KT extinction followed very soon after the asteroid hit [Science Daily News].

The fact that we are alive today proves that the asteroid was not capable of moving the Earth to the extremes you suggest.

Again, you talk as if it is a given fact.  It isn't established as fact, that I know of, and remains as a theory among other theories.

Not that it is a big deal either way.  If we were both scientist, you would line up with the asteroid theory and I would line up with the volcanic theory as to why there is the abundance of iridium.  

I've never given it any thought, and I could care less. Why do you care if iridium is deposited by volcanos or asteroids?

You did it again, Steve.  Let me quote what I said...

Not that it is a big deal either way.

Please notice what I said and your response...

Why do you care

 'Not a big deal' and 'why do you care' are in-congruent.

Now usually, when you're buckiing traditional scientific thought, you have a biblical motive to do so. What is it this time? Why does the Bible require you to believe that volcanos deposit iridium?

Godophobia again.  Wasn't even thinking biblical.

Okay, are you saying that the crater, we were discussing near Central America, is the remains of volcano?

Steve... it has been so long that you have made me actually think, that it is a welcomed experience.  

After searching the internet, meditation and consideration of all the facts that are available, I would say it actually was a asteroid.

However, with the same information at hand, I would also have to conclude that the K-T boundary was not caused by said asteroid.

Even the dating of the ground around it shows that the asteroid would have hit 300,000 years AFTER the K-T boundary and the amount of iridium in that areas does not substantiate that that hypothesis.

Additionally, the ice cores extracted from Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate and abundance of volcanic acids and particles that are in line with the Ice Age.  So, for me, volcanic activity was a major contributor the the destruction of the dinosaurs during the K-T time frame and not an asteroid that hit 300,00 years later.

Of course, as we had previously mentioned, neither of our positions along with the divergence of opinions by current scientists is going to change today's world and won't amount to a hill of beans for the future.

I remain...

sincerely yours,

Ken

[SteveC]

From what I understand... I believe the reason some scientist don't follow the asteroid version is th.
ere is too much iridium around the suggested area of impact.  The picture that better fits the iridium found there is volcanic activity since volcanoes not only produce iridium but actually spread it too.  

Scientifically speaking asteroid don't spread iridium.

(Personally speaking and definitely IMO) - I think the impact would have done more to the earth than just the crater that was found.

Some people would disagree with your iridium statement:

The asteroid theory is far from new. The idea was first proposed by the father-son duo of Luis and Walter Alvarez three decades ago, when they found high levels of iridium in geological samples around the world. The element iridium is rare in the Earth’s crust but is common in asteroids, and can be found at asteroid impact sites. The current panel analyzed soil samples to find that immediately after the iridium layer, there is a dramatic decline in fossil abundance and species, indicating that the KT extinction followed very soon after the asteroid hit [Science Daily News].

The fact that we are alive today proves that the asteroid was not capable of moving the Earth to the extremes you suggest.

Again, you talk as if it is a given fact.  It isn't established as fact, that I know of, and remains as a theory among other theories.

Not that it is a big deal either way.  If we were both scientist, you would line up with the asteroid theory and I would line up with the volcanic theory as to why there is the abundance of iridium.  

I've never given it any thought, and I could care less. Why do you care if iridium is deposited by volcanos or asteroids?

You did it again, Steve.  Let me quote what I said...

Not that it is a big deal either way.

Please notice what I said and your response...

Why do you care

 'Not a big deal' and 'why do you care' are in-congruent.

Now usually, when you're buckiing traditional scientific thought, you have a biblical motive to do so. What is it this time? Why does the Bible require you to believe that volcanos deposit iridium?

Godophobia again.  Wasn't even thinking biblical.

Okay, are you saying that the crater, we were discussing near Central America, is the remains of volcano?

Steve... it has been so long that you have made me actually think, that it is a welcomed experience.  

After searching the internet, meditation and consideration of all the facts that are available, I would say it actually was a asteroid.

However, with the same information at hand, I would also have to conclude that the K-T boundary was not caused by said asteroid.

Even the dating of the ground around it shows that the asteroid would have hit 300,000 years AFTER the K-T boundary and the amount of iridium in that areas does not substantiate that that hypothesis.

Additionally, the ice cores extracted from Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate and abundance of volcanic acids and particles that are in line with the Ice Age.  So, for me, volcanic activity was a major contributor the the destruction of the dinosaurs during the K-T time frame and not an asteroid that hit 300,00 years later.

Of course, as we had previously mentioned, neither of our positions along with the divergence of opinions by current scientists is going to change today's world and won't amount to a hill of beans for the future.

I remain...

sincerely yours,

Ken

Forgetting the dinosaurs for the moment, can we agree that an asteroid, 9 miles wide, hit the planet 65 million ago, and we are here to talk about it? 

[kwd111]

From what I understand... I believe the reason some scientist don't follow the asteroid version is th.
ere is too much iridium around the suggested area of impact.  The picture that better fits the iridium found there is volcanic activity since volcanoes not only produce iridium but actually spread it too.  

Scientifically speaking asteroid don't spread iridium.

(Personally speaking and definitely IMO) - I think the impact would have done more to the earth than just the crater that was found.

Some people would disagree with your iridium statement:

The asteroid theory is far from new. The idea was first proposed by the father-son duo of Luis and Walter Alvarez three decades ago, when they found high levels of iridium in geological samples around the world. The element iridium is rare in the Earth’s crust but is common in asteroids, and can be found at asteroid impact sites. The current panel analyzed soil samples to find that immediately after the iridium layer, there is a dramatic decline in fossil abundance and species, indicating that the KT extinction followed very soon after the asteroid hit [Science Daily News].

The fact that we are alive today proves that the asteroid was not capable of moving the Earth to the extremes you suggest.

Again, you talk as if it is a given fact.  It isn't established as fact, that I know of, and remains as a theory among other theories.

Not that it is a big deal either way.  If we were both scientist, you would line up with the asteroid theory and I would line up with the volcanic theory as to why there is the abundance of iridium.  

I've never given it any thought, and I could care less. Why do you care if iridium is deposited by volcanos or asteroids?

You did it again, Steve.  Let me quote what I said...

Not that it is a big deal either way.

Please notice what I said and your response...

Why do you care

 'Not a big deal' and 'why do you care' are in-congruent.

Now usually, when you're buckiing traditional scientific thought, you have a biblical motive to do so. What is it this time? Why does the Bible require you to believe that volcanos deposit iridium?

Godophobia again.  Wasn't even thinking biblical.

Okay, are you saying that the crater, we were discussing near Central America, is the remains of volcano?

Steve... it has been so long that you have made me actually think, that it is a welcomed experience.  

After searching the internet, meditation and consideration of all the facts that are available, I would say it actually was a asteroid.

However, with the same information at hand, I would also have to conclude that the K-T boundary was not caused by said asteroid.

Even the dating of the ground around it shows that the asteroid would have hit 300,000 years AFTER the K-T boundary and the amount of iridium in that areas does not substantiate that that hypothesis.

Additionally, the ice cores extracted from Greenland and Antarctica demonstrate and abundance of volcanic acids and particles that are in line with the Ice Age.  So, for me, volcanic activity was a major contributor the the destruction of the dinosaurs during the K-T time frame and not an asteroid that hit 300,00 years later.

Of course, as we had previously mentioned, neither of our positions along with the divergence of opinions by current scientists is going to change today's world and won't amount to a hill of beans for the future.

I remain...

sincerely yours,

Ken

Forgetting the dinosaurs for the moment, can we agree that an asteroid, 9 miles wide, hit the planet 65 million ago, and we are here to talk about it? 

I'm not sure why we forget the dinosaurs since it is the very scientists that agree on the asteroids that are proposing that it was this event that killed the dinosaurs.

Can you explain why you want to separate the two?

And I think we can agree on principle that an asteroid hit the earth with an estimated size of 9 miles wide.  Time frame... negotiable.  There are contradicting evidences (iridium)

[SteveC]

Forgetting the dinosaurs for the moment, can we agree that an asteroid, 9 miles wide, hit the planet 65 million ago, and we are here to talk about it? 

I'm not sure why we forget the dinosaurs since it is the very scientists that agree on the asteroids that are proposing that it was this event that killed the dinosaurs.

Can you explain why you want to separate the two?

And I think we can agree on principle that an asteroid hit the earth with an estimated size of 9 miles wide.  Time frame... negotiable.  There are contradicting evidences (iridium)

I don't care about the dinosaurs. You said that 9 mi. wide asteriod would have moved the Earth out of its habitabable zone.
 

[kwd111]

Forgetting CHOMP  CHOMP r the moment, can we a  CHOMP  CHOMP  the planet 65 milCHOMP  CHOMPto talk about it?  

I'm nCHOMP  CHOMPosaurs since it is the very scCHOMP  CHOMPed the dinosaurs.

Can you explain why CHOMP  CHOMPte the two?

And I think we can agree on CHOMP  CHOMP eroid hit the earth with an estimated size of 9 miles wide.  Time frame... negotiable.  The CHOMP  CHOMP vidences (iridium)

I don't care about the dinosaurs. You said that 9 mi. wide asteriod would have moved the Earth out of its habitabable zone.
 

And after careful consideration, intensive reading and much critical thinking....  I think I will eat my words.     CHOMP  CHOMP

[SteveC]

Forgetting CHOMP  CHOMP r the moment, can we a  CHOMP  CHOMP  the planet 65 milCHOMP  CHOMPto talk about it?  

I'm nCHOMP  CHOMPosaurs since it is the very scCHOMP  CHOMPed the dinosaurs.

Can you explain why CHOMP  CHOMPte the two?

And I think we can agree on CHOMP  CHOMP eroid hit the earth with an estimated size of 9 miles wide.  Time frame... negotiable.  The CHOMP  CHOMP vidences (iridium)

I don't care about the dinosaurs. You said that 9 mi. wide asteriod would have moved the Earth out of its habitabable zone.
 

And after careful consideration, intensive reading and much critical thinking....  I think I will eat my words.    CHOMP  CHOMP

Asteroids - god - it's all the same.

Would you like CHOMP  CHOMP  

[SteveC]

Everybody wins - Asteroid and volcanic activity wiped out the dinosaurs!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326124654.htm

[Ed.W]

I doubt it was a comet OR volcano that did the deed.  But scientists just have to be so apocalyptic.  145,000,000 years.  They had a good run.  We should be so lucky.

[SteveC]

I doubt it was a comet OR volcano that did the deed.  But scientists just have to be so apocalyptic.  145,000,000 years.  They had a good run.  We should be so lucky.

I've also heard that it could have been disease.

[Ed.W]

I've also heard that it could have been disease.

Yes disease too.  

Also the Rockies heaved up about that time, draining large areas, changing the availability of food.  Dinosaurs were quite at home in the swamps.  

Also, mammals came about eating eggs and young.

This process of extinction may have taken 10 to 20 million years.  

As bad as an asteroid strike may be, I'm not sure it would obliterate all life.  

• Children's Prayer.... unc... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 11:08:14 PM]
• Riot against Messianic Je... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:43:30 PM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:25:51 PM]
• The Kids Are All Right. by SteveC [July 30, 2010, 09:08:19 PM]
• Honduras... here we come!... by SquirleyWurley [July 30, 2010, 06:23:50 PM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [July 29, 2010, 03:56:49 PM]
• 77'7" Kerrville Cross Rai... by SteveC [July 28, 2010, 01:54:13 PM]
• That Darling of Creationi... by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 05:51:56 PM]
• Segmentation & Evolution by SteveC [July 27, 2010, 10:56:42 AM]
• I must have overslept on ... by SteveC [July 26, 2010, 11:12:09 PM]
• 'Little Brown Balls' Tie ... by charliejohn [July 25, 2010, 07:34:39 PM]
• Whales Descended From Tin... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:23:50 PM]
• South Pacific Plant May B... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 07:05:31 PM]
• Transitional Species Exis... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 05:09:41 PM]
• Fundamentalist's Peppered... by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 02:32:03 PM]
• Haeckel and his Embryos by SteveC [July 25, 2010, 10:36:39 AM]
• Flagellum,"poster child" ... by SteveC [July 24, 2010, 11:10:12 PM]
• Evo's Fundamentalist Posi... by Ed.W [July 22, 2010, 10:44:19 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 558
• Latest: Messedumbessy

Stats

• Total Posts: 86510
• Total Topics: 2615
• Online Today: 19
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 1
Guests: 20
Total: 21

SteveC