Advertisement

Archive for Saturday, April 12, 2008

Dino-killing asteroid downsized

April 12, 2008

Advertisement

The asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs may not have been the whopper scientists thought.

An analysis of the chemical remains of the asteroid that can still be found in sediments under the sea today shows the rock was about 2.5 miles wide, according to Francois Paquay, a geology graduate student at the University of Hawaii.

That's significantly less than the up-to-12-mile-wide space boulder that past researchers have suggested was the dinosaur-killer, according to the research published Friday in the journal Science.

The dinosaurs, which ruled Earth for 160 million years, went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period about 65 million years ago. Scientists have studied a number of scenarios to explain the event, including global climate change.

The killer asteroid theory was bolstered two decades ago, when scientists found in rocks dating from the Cretaceous period a band of iridium, a metal rare on Earth but common in meteorites. The later discovery of the 110-mile-wide Chicxulub crater off Mexico's Yucatan peninsula seemingly clinched the debate.

Paquay said he and his research team took a different approach to the problem of determining the size of the asteroid. Instead of focusing on iridium, he looked at sediments containing a form of the super-dense metal osmium.

Paquay measured the distribution of an osmium isotope found in meteorites. Because the percentage of osmium in meteorites is known, he could then calculate the overall size of the object.

Comments

supertrampofkansas 5 years, 12 months ago

The one thing western science has proven to be consistent in over the past 500 years is that it is constantly wrong. - RationalAnimalThat must mean that the scientific method is working very well. Science has never claimed to be about absolute truths. In fact science is all about trial and error and falsification. Science, then, requires the same or actually greater level of faith than religion does. - RationalCome on now Rational, do you really think that our lives would have been the same had we not had science? The advances in medical science alone demonstates the value of science. Had we relied on religion for such "truths" (which is exactly what you are trying to equate or imply here) do you think we would be living on average to our 70s and 80s? Do you really think you would have less "faith" in science when you get on an airplane, go to the doctor's office, watch your tv, or look up at the stars in the sky? Sorry rational but I find your statements to be decidedly irrational.

0

acoupstick 6 years ago

Here's a great series of articles addressing the radical skepticism in modern science. http://www.slate.com/id/2189178/entry/2189179/If the shoe fits......................................

0

Rationalanimal 6 years ago

The one thing western science has proven to be consistent in over the past 500 years is that it is constantly wrong. That doesn't mean we should scrap it. What it means is that if one looks to science for every answer you can only expect "truth" to constantly shift. Science, then, requires the same or actually greater level of faith than religion does.

0

Mariann 6 years ago

Both of us have our own faith and belief systemsYeah- but religion is and old way to scare the people into following a sheep master.SCience is real and is based upon facts....I guess that proves that I am superior to you.

0

gr 6 years ago

"There are billions of people who share beliefs and many of those beliefs are different from yours. How do you know yours are correct?"So we are in agreement. Both of us have our own faith and belief systems.

0

FatTony 6 years ago

I think this is the same group that originally estimated the parade crowd at 100,000 only to later be downsized to 80,000.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

gr,My belief system is based on the belief that God would not jack us around by changing the laws of physics. What I'm gathering from you is that you don't understand what other people are telling you about how the natural world works; so, you are placing your belief on what other people are telling you about the supernatural. Our knowledge of the natural world is known to be imperfect; what makes you think our knowledge of the supernatural is any better? There are billions of people who share beliefs and many of those beliefs are different from yours. How do you know yours are correct? Since you've already started quoting from The Bible, I'm guessing you will respond with The Bible was written by God or God inspired those who wrote The Bible. Really? God directed the work on the hundreds of different and often directly contradictory versions of The Bible? And, he had nothing to do with other religious texts?

0

gr 6 years ago

"In my opinion, God can created the universe and can easily flood the earth."I wouldn't say it just quite like that. I would say that God created the universe and created an ideal environment for Earth's inhabitants. The inhabitants said: we don't need God, it's only a fairy tale, our people who study such things says God doesn't keep that water up in the sky nor below the earth as there are physical principles which do that - so, 'God, get out of our lives and leave us alone'. He tried for 120 years to convince them otherwise, but they still insisted that they could do just fine on their own and to get the h___ out of their lives.So, the one who created a protective environment for the inhabitants, stopped protecting that environment from the forces that be and got out of their lives. He did continue to provide protection for those who wanted it. They were not removed from the experience, and went through it, but did receive His protection during it.Matthew 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.Genesis 1:2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.Genesis 1:9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.The water covered the earth at the beginning. God made it so there was dry land. He could easily let His creation go back to what it was before.God didn't flood the earth - He only stopped preventing it from being flooded.

0

Mariann 6 years ago

Yeah- no intelligence allowed...the mantra of the far right wing. Ban evolution.....ban this ban that....how about fu@k you and your bible!!

0

bondmen 6 years ago

It's movie time everyone! Don't forget to go see Expelled, The Movie - No Intelligence Allowed this Friday and Saturday. IDers and Creationists must see it for the pure joy humor can bring to a closed minded, fairy tales only please, academy; and atheists and evolutionists can mischievously buy up all the seats otherwise friendly and happy people would need in order to view the film. http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?z=66045&mid=1809995068&date=20080418http://www.expelledthemovie.com/

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years ago

"And probably would have sunk an ark." Bwahahahaha!!! Dude, it was in the garage.

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years ago

yeah_right says,"The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water."And probably would have sunk an ark.

0

gr 6 years ago

"So, you're OK with the prospect of you or your children living through, or not, a mass extinction event; I'm not."Ahhh! So you are against evolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What if your T-rexes stopped evolution at themselves? Where would you be? If evolution says you need to cease to exist, why are you fighting it?Selfishness."A species wouldn't have a much of a chance to evolve if all the members were dead"Some have gone extint. However, has there ever been any time where all the species have gone extint? Has there been any evidence where recorded climate change has caused any to go extinct? That's what you don't know about."Why aren't there Ponderosa Pine in Louisiana or alligators in Montana?"Speaking of not knowing:http://www.montana.edu/cpa/news/nwview.php?article=5732http://fwp.mt.gov/news/article_4738.aspxhttp://commerce.mt.gov/energy/geothermal.asp"What we could be facing is major shifts in climate zones; same effect."That has not been established. And YOU for sure have failed to give evidence of any such going to happen.That's why for YOU, it is nothing but a belief system. And you are trying to force your beliefs upon others for their harm.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

"Now, what will happen to the animals which were dependent on that tree for food and/or shelter?"The few that survive will have offspring that will have more offspring that will eventually not need the tree to sustain them. Voila! Evolution!andcg22165 : "OK, let's say you have a species of trees that has evolved in a cold climate, like Canada. There exists to the south, certain pests which would eat the trees, but can't live where it is that cold."You make the assumption that trees and animals don't exist in the south. You also assume, as Yeti pointed out, that none would survive in the north. It appears that you don't know much about genetics and evolution.cg: A species wouldn't have a much of a chance to evolve if all the members were dead, or rendered unable to reproduce. Why aren't there Ponderosa Pine in Louisiana or alligators in Montana? Because the local climate will not support them. If you could transplant every single one from one zone to the other, they would all die and the species would go extinct. What we could be facing is major shifts in climate zones; same effect. What is it about genetics and evolution that I need to know to understand these things? "I don't object to evolution, but I doubt that the last T-rexes thought the earth was a very pleasant place to live."But that's what evolution is about - dying.cg: So, you're OK with the prospect of you or your children living through, or not, a mass extinction event; I'm not.

0

yeah_right 6 years ago

Could this explain the large amounts of water for the flood:The first two sources of water for the flood mentioned were "the fountains of the great deep" and "the windows of heaven." Science has discovered large underwater springs [2], so it is easy to imagine "fountains of the great deep" being opened by God, allowing the pressurized water to contribute to the flood. It has also been proposed that the Earth used to have much denser clouds than it has now. Such a "canopy" would create a greenhouse effect, making the climate of the entire world very temperate. Fossil finds indicate that not just the dinosaurs, but all animals, plants, and insects were much larger at one time-indicating a superior climate. At the time of the flood, it would have been easy for God to allow this canopy (or a large percentage of it) to fall as water. If almost everything fell at once, it would not have been like rain, it would have been like opening "the windows of heaven." The crushing splash of water would have quickly drowned all people and animals that found themselves suddenly and unexpectedly immersed in water.Although "off the subject," this could explain the thousands of woolly mammoths that have been found perfectly preserved in polar areas-some with food still in their mouths. Once the protective canopy and its greenhouse effect was gone, the world would have turned cold on the poles, freezing the mammoths in the water that killed them.I took this from www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creati... my opinion, God can created the universe and can easily flood the earth.

0

gr 6 years ago

"one who believes Earth is as little as 5,000 years old, based on a reading of the Bible"Well, that wouldn't really be based on reading the Bible.Genesis 1:2 (KJV) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. Since the geneology suggests 5-7000 years, then that would mean the earth is older than that. Nothing more is said other than God created it - just not during the period of Genesis.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

I'll pick just a few:"Hence, there is very little 14C left in fossil fuels; it is almost all 12C."Double Fascinating! Aren't fossil fuels "millions of years" old? Why would there be any C14 that's measurable past about 50,000 years?cg: It's called a half-life function. After so much time, half is gone; after the same time again, half of what was left is gone, and so on. There's no guarantee that the last traces are ever gone; though, they can fall below measurable limits. I never said what was left was measurable. Also, I left off mentioning details of 13C for simplicity."Humans have taken many gigatons of fossil fuels and dumped the carbon into the atmosphere, in the form of CO2."And are those "many gigatons" significant? How does it compare to the CO2 that's out there?cg: Yes, if you estimate how much fossil fuel has been burned by people and compare that with the rise in CO2 levels and the volume of the atmosphere, about half of what we've burnt is still in the atmosphere. Here's a primer:http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html"Besides, if there were enough water to cover all the earth, where would it drain to?"Cute. Ever been to the ocean?cg: Yes, I have. Have you ever learned that water has a constant volume? How much water do you think it would take to flood all the land? It would take hundreds of feet to cover most of the plains and thousands if you really wanted to cover the highlands and the mountains. The great flood was supposedly a result of rain. How much water do you think the atmosphere can hold? It can't hold that much; even a hurricane can only generate inches of rain, not hundreds of feet. You kind of have to assume that the rain fell very quickly; else the water would drain away and you'd only get valley flooding. And so, most of it would have had to be held in the atmosphere until the rain event started. Given the height of the atmosphere and the saturation point of H2O, the atmosphere can only hold so much water, and what it can hold is not nearly enough to cover the high points.It just isn't possible for air to evaporate, lift, and precipitate water so fast that it covers all the mountains. It can fill the bottoms of valleys, sure, but it can't overtop the hills. In 1993 it rained across the midwest hard most days for, let's say almost 40 days. How close did Well's Overlook come to being flooded? How tall is the overlook compared to real mountains?Santa Claus has a better chance of visiting a couple billion households in one night than rain has of flooding all the land.

0

Mariann 6 years ago

I hope the earth gets hit again.........

0

max1 6 years ago

"Why would there be any C14 that's measurable past about 50,000 years?" -grWhat are you talking about? 50,000 years? There was nothing back then. Don't you read your Republican manuals?http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/05/13/kansas/index.html [Former Republican Gubernatorial candidate, and former Kansas State School Board chairman Steve] Abrams himself still publicly admits he is a so-called young-Earth creationist - one who believes Earth is as little as 5,000 years old, based on a reading of the Bible.

0

gr 6 years ago

cg22165 : "OK, let's say you have a species of trees that has evolved in a cold climate, like Canada. There exists to the south, certain pests which would eat the trees, but can't live where it is that cold."You make the assumption that trees and animals don't exist in the south. You also assume, as Yeti pointed out, that none would survive in the north. It appears that you don't know much about genetics and evolution."I don't object to evolution, but I doubt that the last T-rexes thought the earth was a very pleasant place to live."But that's what evolution is about - dying. "The problem with climate change is the period of unpredictable fluctuations in the arrival of spring, rain, etc. that comes between on period of relative stability to the next."Boy, you alarmists make up things as you go along!"14C levels only go up and down a little in the record prior to our use of fossil fuels."Fascinating! And how do you know that? By inspecting the amounts in dead things? What makes you think the atmosphere wasn't different? And even if you were right about there being an increase now, you failed to answer how that proves we caused it. Are you perhaps thinking of fun with correlations? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/fun-with-correlations/#more-433"Hence, there is very little 14C left in fossil fuels; it is almost all 12C."Double Fascinating! Aren't fossil fuels "millions of years" old? Why would there be any C14 that's measurable past about 50,000 years? "Humans have taken many gigatons of fossil fuels and dumped the carbon into the atmosphere, in the form of CO2."And are those "many gigatons" significant? How does it compare to the CO2 that's out there?"Besides, if there were enough water to cover all the earth, where would it drain to?"Cute. Ever been to the ocean?

0

notajayhawk 6 years ago

I've said this before, I'll probably say it again, too.If there were a supreme being that could create the universe out of nothing with just a thought, you don't think that supreme being could create fossils, too?Why would that supreme being do such a thing, one might ask. Well, when one considers the sense of humor required to sprinkle the planet with such things as the giraffe and the platypus, putting a huge crater at the bottom of the ocean filled with traces of iridium would be the equivalent of making giant "bigfoot" tracks in the woods for your camping companions to find. She's probably up there laughing her rear end off watching us try to figure this one out. ;)

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

Boy, this place sure cleared out when I began posting. Not sure if that is coincidence or what, but it seems to happen quite a lot. Maybe I just arrive late on the scene.I'd like to see a giant ice age beaver cloned. Imagine, a 500 pound beaver...

0

Mariann 6 years ago

I heard the Mammoths are tyring to clone japs.....:)

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

The Japanese are tring to clone Mammoths and I think that is cool.

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

We've learned quite a lot about the past through studying all the dust and mud spread out over the ocean floor. I always wonder why people like to judge without knowing or really being educated about a subject. When I don't understand, I ask people to please explain.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080411160239.htm

0

situveux1 6 years ago

Looking at dust spread out over the ocean floor can tell you how wide the asteroid was? And they say creationists are living in lala land.

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

By the way, there is a recently introduced theory that a comet struck the Laurentide ice sheet 11,000 years ago and killed off all of the Pleistocene megafauna. This will be largely debunked within a few years, if current concensus about the idea remains the same.Climate change did result in the eventual demise of the Pleistocene megafauna, and humans were likely the straw that broke the camel's back. It was rapid climate change due to extensive melting of glaciers, which altered the plant communities that existed at the time. Many animals were no longer able to find the variety of plants they needed to survive.

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

Bondmen, sorry, but your post essentially backs up what I said about Darwin not being racist. He believed that every "race" was equally evolved to exist in its particular environment. Darwin's ideas were actually heresy for the racists of his day. There were generally two ways in which people interpreted the diversity of species in the world and the different "races."First was monogenism, the theory for which was first pushed extensively by Johann Blumenbach. Basically, his scheme said that people originated in the Caucasus Mountains region in the 'original biblical creation.' From that point, peoples dispersed across the Earth and 'degenerated' to their current 'races.' It was based upon the idea of essentialism; that every living creature has an unchanging essence that was created in the beginning.In the 19th century, people began rejecting monogenism in favor of polygenism. The paleontological and zoological discoveries of the time began conflicting with the Young Earth Hypothesis. In response, they claimed that there must have been multiple creations. The creation event that created Caucasians was obviously the Biblical Creation. All other 'races' were created separately during different events. This is the thinking that dominated slave-era thinking in the US. The idea of race and how to view them actually came into being in the early days of the US, since we had Africans, Native Americans, and EuroAmericans living side-by-side.When Darwin came along, his ideas did not catch on right away. The polygenists threw up all over the Descent of Man, as it not only said that there likely was no Biblical creation, but it also said that every living organism is equally evolved for its specific environment. They were essentialists, thinking that organisms did not change over time. Darwin's idea contradicted nearly every aspect of contemporary polygenist thought.Darwin's thinking about 'savages' comes from the evolutionist thinking of Henry Morgan, who devised an evolutionary scheme in which humans progress from lower, middle, and upper states of 1) savagery, 2) barbarism, and 3) civilization. It was this evolutionary taxonomy in which Darwin was likely thinking. Biologically, the Tierra del Fuegians were equal in Darwin's eyes, but in terms of civilization and culture, they were much inferior. Thus, Darwin was more Eurocentric than he was racist.Things remained this way until Franz Boas came on the scene and founded the four-field approach of American Anthropology.

0

max1 6 years ago

Bondmen, don't let all those naysayers discourage you. There's plenty of evidence supporting your views. As a matter of fact, I think I read somewhere that Noah's loading chute was sighted on Mt. Ararat in Turkey.http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/dinos_on_ark.aspSo, were dinosaurs on the Ark?In Genesis 6:1920, the Bible says that two of every sort of land vertebrate (seven of the "clean" animals) were brought by God to the Ark. Therefore, dinosaurs (land vertebrates) were represented on the Ark. How did those huge dinosaurs fit on the Ark?Although there are about 668 names of dinosaurs, there are perhaps only 55 different "kinds" of dinosaurs. Furthermore, not all dinosaurs were huge like the Brachiosaurus, and even those dinosaurs on the Ark were probably "teenagers" or young adults. Creationist researcher John Woodmorappe has calculated that Noah had on board with him representatives from about 8,000 animal genera (including some now-extinct animals), or around 16,000 individual animals.

0

Erin Parmelee 6 years ago

gr (Anonymous) says: HodgePodge: "As I have mentioned to one of my creationist friends, I always find it interesting to hear evolution challenged as "just" a theory-not proven. Why isn't anyone challenging gravity??"Could it be, we can observe the effects of gravity every day and repeat experiments on it?That is a good question. If gravity and a round earth (versus flat) is easily defended, why cannot evolution be so easily defended? One must admit there must be a drastic difference. There are few who disbelieve in gravity and a round earth.------------------------------------------------------------------------You also "observe" the effects of evolution everyday, you're just unwilling to accept it. Gravity is "easily defended" as you say, because it doesn't conflict with your spiritual beliefs. If the Bible commented on gravity, and claimed it to be something other than what is has been shown to be, no doubt the rallying cry of "it's just a theory" would be heard about that as well. That was my point--there is no "drastic difference" beyond the one in your head.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years ago

"Now, what will happen to the animals which were dependent on that tree for food and/or shelter?" The few that survive will have offspring that will have more offspring that will eventually not need the tree to sustain them. Voila! Evolution!

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

JJE007 (Anonymous) says: Newsflash!West coast scientist shows that apes are able to believe anything they can imagine but not capable of believing anything that totally contradicts what they imagine!"Marion writes:Those d*amned dirty apes, anyway!

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

So what if Darwin was a racist? How does that argue against evolution?Fuhrman was a racist; does that mean that OJ was innocent?

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

What does a species need to survive? It needs to have an environment where the offspring get pretty much the same conditions that the parent had, or the offspring have to be able to relocate to such an environment. The problem with climate change is the period of unpredictable fluctuations in the arrival of spring, rain, etc. that comes between on period of relative stability to the next."How do you determine if there is an "imbalance" and if we are causing it? Can you intelligently defend such an idea or are you just a "believer"?"Yeah, I can. There are good links out there, but in a nutshell, 14C levels only go up and down a little in the record prior to our use of fossil fuels. 14C makes a pretty good clock (if you believe in the theory of nuclear physics) because it is generated in the atmosphere and decays over time, in the thousands of years. Hence, there is very little 14C left in fossil fuels; it is almost all 12C. Humans have taken many gigatons of fossil fuels and dumped the carbon into the atmosphere, in the form of CO2. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen in the last 150 years and the ratio of 14C to 12C has gone down in a pattern that fits well with the idea that the extra 12C has come from someplace that hasn't seen sunshine for millions of years. Next, if you study on EM wavelengths, you will learn that CO2 does not block certain wavelengths that come from the sun, but it does block the (lower?) wavelengths emitted by the earth. EM waves are energy; hence, more energy is retained by the earth when its atmosphere contains more CO2. The extra energy makes itself known as a rise in temperature.Oh, there most certainly is a buffering, but like adding acid to a flask that also has a buffer, not much happens until you exceed the buffer's capacity, then things start to happen quickly. If you've ever done this, you would appreciate the analogy that it's easy to add too much acid and ruin your experiment."or are some shown in wide and extensive layers for miles?" Well, I've personally witnessed floods that were miles across. I have no doubt that there are floods worse than I've seen. But there is no geologic record of a global flood. Besides, if there were enough water to cover all the earth, where would it drain to?

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

Oh goody, I get to respond."Besides??? How does climate change cause mass extinction? ... As could disease and plague."OK, let's say you have a species of trees that has evolved in a cold climate, like Canada. There exists to the south, certain pests which would eat the trees, but can't live where it is that cold. Now let's imagine that the climate gets warmer and the pest is able to survive where the trees are. There will be a population explosion of the pest and a population crash of the trees. Now, what will happen to the animals which were dependent on that tree for food and/or shelter? Do you get the picture? This effect will not be limited to one species (like the american elm); it will be multiplied across many species and many regions.As for disease (or plague, what is the difference?) There are none that I know of that hit more than one or few species at the same time. They can be bad, but I don't believe they have been known to wipe out an entire ecosystem. Mass extinctions are characterized by periods where many diverse species go extinct."Fast"? What is fast? How does one determine if it is fast or slow? Have you? Has it happened before? If "fast" climate change wiped out the dinos, look what happened - mammals! Do you object to evolution? Do you want to hold back evolution and hinder the next great organism?:-) speed is relative. Slow would be if the change were gradual enough for natural selection to encourage the trees which randomly were bad-tasting to the pest to produce enough offspring to enable a sustainable population. Fast would be if the climate change occurred rapidly enough that the pests were able to inhabit the entire region that had previously been fit for the trees and kill them below a sustainable population level.Bug populations can shift rapidly; trees take a while longer. So, if the pests migrate north faster than the trees can, and they overtake the northernmost trees, all the trees die. That is "too fast".I don't object to evolution, but I doubt that the last T-rexes thought the earth was a very pleasant place to live.

0

JJE007 6 years ago

Newsflash!West coast scientist shows that apes are able to believe anything they can imagine but not capable of believing anything that totally contradicts what they imagine!East coast scientist shows that apes able to teach other apes to believe in their imagination.Midwest scientist shows that apes learn not to trust scientiest that are not from their region!Monkey minds found to contain human cancer prison cells!~)

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

bondmen wrote:"Sorry to pop your happy little evolutionist bubble but your Pastor Darwin was a racist."Marion writes:By contemporary standards, everyone who was alive in the 19th Century was a "racist".Surprise, surprise!Let's juts throw out the entire body of knowledge from the 19th Century because it was developed by "racists".You will be growing your own food, you will be riding in a buggy, you will read by candlelight and sleep in an uninsulated, drafty log cabin.

0

gr 6 years ago

"Do you not think that a flood covering the earth is and could cause a dramatic climate change that could cause extinction to dinosaurs?"In addition, which is more believable in creating fossils: Animals die, don't decay, aren't eaten by scavengers as they are today, and dust and dirt gradually settles over them over decades to preserve them.-or-some quick and sudden event, such as a flood, washes sediment over them and preserves them.Which idea is more supported in the fossil record? And which is promoted by some saying that the animals got buried near a river and covered up? Does the fossil record show fossils only near rivers? or are some shown in wide and extensive layers for miles?

0

gr 6 years ago

vinividivici: "but it's my understanding that many, if not all or most, inbreed species (including purebreds) are prone to some pretty severe developmental and health issues. "And do humans have some pretty severe developmental and health issues? Contrastingly, have endangered species been able to survive quite well through breeding efforts? When a new breed of animal is attempted, are there severe developmental and health issues at the beginning? Have you considered all those purebreds "WITHOUT" severe developmental and health issues? Hint: self pollinated crops."Also, categorizing bacteria, a single cell organism, with finches and purebred breeds really makes you look misinformed and uneducated."Please explain. It kind of makes you look uninformed of how genetics work. Which is why you probably are confused on the previous statement.cg22165: "Climate change happens; it's when the rate of change is too fast that things get really bad.""Fast"? What is fast? How does one determine if it is fast or slow? Have you? Has it happened before? If "fast" climate change wiped out the dinos, look what happened - mammals! Do you object to evolution? Do you want to hold back evolution and hinder the next great organism?"A major impact can cause cause a rapid change; so can changing the chemical balance of the biosphere, which is what we are doing by burning fossil fuels. "How do you determine if there is an "imbalance" and if we are causing it? Can you intelligently defend such an idea or are you just a "believer"?"It isn't really a question of if we are changing the climate; you don't make significant changes to a system and expect its behavior to go unchanged. "Has there been "significant" changes? Are we "making" significant changes? How does one determine such? Have you thought this all out or again, are you just a "believer"?"It's just a question of how quickly it will transition to a new state and what that state will be."Have you determined there is no buffering capability as opposed in myriads of other natural systems? How does one determine there will be a "transition"? Or do you just "believe"?HodgePodge: "As I have mentioned to one of my creationist friends, I always find it interesting to hear evolution challenged as "just" a theory-not proven. Why isn't anyone challenging gravity??"Could it be, we can observe the effects of gravity every day and repeat experiments on it? That is a good question. If gravity and a round earth (versus flat) is easily defended, why cannot evolution be so easily defended? One must admit there must be a drastic difference. There are few who disbelieve in gravity and a round earth.

0

bondmen 6 years ago

Darwin's "second book left little question about his personal views. Titled The Descent of Man, one entire chapter was dedicated to "The Races of Man." In that book, Darwin wrote: At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla (1874, p. 178). While some have argued that Darwin was simply "predicting the future," the chapter on human races makes painfully clear his beliefs on the subject. For instance, a few pages later in chapter seven, he noted: Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties. Everyone who has had the opportunity of comparison must have been struck with the contrast between the taciturn, even morose, aborigines of S. America and the light-hearted, talkative negroes."Sorry to pop your happy little evolutionist bubble but your Pastor Darwin was a racist.

0

yeah_right 6 years ago

Audi, I probably shouldn't, but I do take slight offense to you assuming that I am uneducated since I believe that the earth, actually the universe is no more than 10,000 years old. This is a topic that has intrigued me since I started learning about evolution in elementary school. Through reseaerch, I find no more proof that the age of the universe is billions of years old than 10,000 years old. In fact, I strongly believe the latter. Do you not think that a flood covering the earth is and could cause a dramatic climate change that could cause extinction to dinosaurs? Do you think that is more far-fetched than a 2.5 mile wide meteor hitting the earth? They both seem surreal, but the theory that I choose to believe is documented. To reply to your comment about not believing in evolution. I never stated that and although macroevolution is absurd, microevolution is very much real.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years ago

"OK, let's switch this around; name something besides (rapid) climate change that has the ability to cause a mass extinction."Besides??? How does climate change cause mass extinction? Humans were born in the once fertile areas of the Middle East and Northern Africa, lands now mostly desert. The first Americans traveled across a land/ice bridge across the Bering Sea. Climate change does not cause extinction, it causes change...period. By rapid climate change, I assume you mean catastrophic events, such as a meteor strike or a supervolcanic eruption, which would spew ash into the atmosphere and effect climate planetwide, and yes, cause possible mass extinction. As could disease and plague.

0

duplenty 6 years ago

":..but thats it folks, there is no "proof" one way or another"Kinda like the creation story?

0

RedwoodCoast 6 years ago

So let's clarify some things about this Darwin character. First, Darwin's contribution to evolutionary thought (Darwin did not introduce evolution) was evolution through the mechanism of natural selection. Since Darwin was not familiar with genetics, evolution has been expanded upon since his time. Things like genetic drift, gene flow, and the founder effect have greatly increased our understanding of how evolution works. I'm not sure how Darwin's theories have been disproven. I'd like to see some evidence.Also, Darwin was not a racist. By virtue of his theory of evolution by natural selection, he realized that all animals are equally adapted to function within their specific environments. There is no more or less evolved. He did, however, think that some peoples might not be capable of living like Europeans, but this has a lot to do with lack of prior exposure to what were called "savages" at the time.As for mastodons, mammoths, and ground sloths, the evidence is pointing towards a weakening of populations through rapid climate change and subsequent predation by humans. It seems to have been a two-cause extintion. Not all of the Pleistocene animals went extinct; all extant native animals of North and South America survived the extinction. Although 35 genera of animals went extinct, this event wasn't even a major extinction in the larger picture.

0

Erin Parmelee 6 years ago

ksdivakat (Anonymous) says: :..because we dont know:..the scientist can hypothesize:..but thats it folks, there is no "proof" one way or another.-------------------------------------------------------------------------Well, technically, the Theory of Evolution is not a hypothesis. It's a theory. So is gravity. As I have mentioned to one of my creationist friends, I always find it interesting to hear evolution challenged as "just" a theory--not proven. Why isn't anyone challenging gravity?? I mean, that's just a theory too, right?

0

a_flock_of_jayhawks 6 years ago

bondmen says,"skeptical that matter can organize itself, by itself!"Yeah, into this big, bad thunderstorm & tornado that'll take you out. Pretty smart, that matter.Seriously, dude, you must be having some big time hallucinations.

0

Erin Parmelee 6 years ago

gr (Anonymous) says: "managed to populate the earth through incest"Why does that crack you up?----------------------------------------------------------------------You misunderstood. What cracks me up is not incest, but rather calling scientific theory a "fairy tale" and Genesis is..."fact"? That was the amusing part.

0

ksdivakat 6 years ago

This is the funniest blog Ive read in quite some time. Everyone so anxious to be heard and rule with an iron opinion. I believe that Darwins theory was just that....a theory, as is the theory of creationism. You either believe or you dont, but one way or another we all got here......its way bigger than any rocket scientist can figure out because the facts are just not the same. The emotions are, the ones who have brewed over this argument since the beginning of time probably, so thats the only thing that has remained consistant, the emotions behind it, the fact is, Darwin isnt here, cavemen arent here, scientist who were around back in the times arent here, so to make such a blatent statement that you know for sure that it was evolution or that you know for sure that there is no supreme being is just stupid.....because we dont know.....the scientist can hypothesize.....but thats it folks, there is no "proof" one way or another.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

Well, I can't resist one more comment. "The climate changes all the time and has usually NOT led to mass extinctions."OK, let's switch this around; name something besides (rapid) climate change that has the ability to cause a mass extinction.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

jabotb,Maybe on the evolution and mastodons, but I'm subscribing to the idea that there was a certain bipedal predator who figured out it was easier for him and his buddies to bring down one mastodon than, say, 200 gazelle or maybe 2,000 rabbits.

0

autie 6 years ago

maybe a flood wiped them out.< Yeah, right. Maybe a huge global forest fire blocked out the sun. Maybe a comet hit the earth. Maybe. How can an educated person argue the age of the earth? How can one argue that species don't change over time? Does the wealth of evidence for cladistics not exsist? Change has happened, is happening and it had nothing to do with a supreme being.

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years ago

"It wasn't all that long ago that there were Mastadons and Sabertooth tigers and giant sloths runnng(sic) around not far from here, but they aren't anywhere to be seen. Do you suppose climate change had anything to with that?" Nah, I'm going to go with evolution.

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

Incidently, what this article doesn't mention is that iridium and osmium are both really heavy. So, I'm not sure that the main idea of the research was captured in this article. Here's a refhttp://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/077/index.htmlMarion, thanks, that brought a smile and some memories. :-)

0

Chris Golledge 6 years ago

Can we back up a minute? This is one scientist who takes some samples, does some math, and comes up with a different size for the object that created the Chicxulub crater than some other scientists have come up with. Do you think there is no debate amongst scientists? I can well imagine that there are some others right now scratching their heads and wondering/questioning if his estimate is right. Does it really matter exactly how big it was? I don't think so. One scientist questions another and there are those who assume neither knows anything, but that is far from the truth. That's a big crater and no doubt it was caused by a big object, but I don't imagine that the impact itself directly caused the deaths of so many creatures and the end of their species around the whole planet. Climate change brought on by the debris cast into the atmosphere probably caused the bulk of the extinctions across species. That's the simplest, best answer. In which case, it doesn't really matter if the object was really dense and was 2.5 miles across or relatively light and 10-12 miles across, or if it's speed was relatively high or relatively low. It's interesting from an academic standpoint, but those variables don't bring into question whether it happened or not.Climate change happens; it's when the rate of change is too fast that things get really bad. A major impact can cause cause a rapid change; so can changing the chemical balance of the biosphere, which is what we are doing by burning fossil fuels. It isn't really a question of if we are changing the climate; you don't make significant changes to a system and expect its behavior to go unchanged. It's just a question of how quickly it will transition to a new state and what that state will be.

0

vinividivici 6 years ago

gr: Explain to me PLEASE why incest would have anything besides a negative connotation. I'd prefer you not follow the lead of some in this forum and use articles from creationsafari to explain your thoughts on this. Also, now don't quote me here, but it's my understanding that many, if not all or most, inbreed species (including purebreds) are prone to some pretty severe developmental and health issues. Also, categorizing bacteria, a SINGLE CELL ORGANISM, with finches and purebred breeds really makes you look misinformed and uneducated. This forum is a zoo today!

0

Marion Lynn 6 years ago

"Alley Oop"The Hollywood Argyles[The Hollywood Argyles is really just Gary Paxton]Lyrics in (parentheses) sung by backup group only(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)There's a man in the funny papers we all know(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)He lives 'way back a long time ago(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)He don't eat nothin' but a bear cat stew(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Well, this cat's name is-a Alley-Oop(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)He got a chauffeur that's a genuwine dinosawruh(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)And he can knuckle your head before you count to fawruh(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)He got a big ugly club and a head fulla hairuh(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Like great big lions and grizzly bearuhs(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)(Alley-Oop) He's the toughest man there is alive(Alley-Oop) Wearin' clothes from a wildcat's hide(Alley-Oop) He's the king of the jungle jive(Look at that cave man go!!) (SCREAM)He rides thru the jungle tearin' limbs offa trees(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Knockin' great big monstahs dead on their knees(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)The cats don't bug him cuz they know bettah(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Cuz he's a mean motah scootah and a bad go-gettah(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)(Alley-Oop) He's the toughest man there is alive(Alley-Oop) Wears clothes from a wildcat's hide(Alley-Oop) He's the king of the jungle jive(Look at that cave man go!!) (SCREAM)Thair he goes,(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Look at that cave man go(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)He sure is hip ain't he(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Like what's happening(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)He's too much(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Ride, Daddy, ride(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Hi-yo dinosawruh(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Ride, Daddy, ride(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Get 'em, man(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)Like--hipsville(Alley-Oop, oop, oop, oop-oop)

0

yeah_right 6 years ago

I don't consider myself old or evil, but I strongly believe that the world is much younger than you would imply. Perhaps a flood wiped them out?

0

gr 6 years ago

"managed to populate the earth through incest"Why does that crack you up? Incest has a negative connotation, and so does inbreeding. But, how about purebred lines? Or bacteria, or finches, and an endless list.

0

bondmen 6 years ago

The most damning quotes questioning the underlying assumptions of and consequently undermining evolution, come from the most important believers in evolution itself. It couldn't be any better for those of us who are skeptical that matter can organize itself, by itself!Read the most recent quotes in Darwinism and Logic: How Strong a Grip? 04/14/2008 http://creationsafaris.com/crev200804.htmMichael Ruse even quoted the bearded budda himself "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or are at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"

0

JJE007 6 years ago

Dang. I guess I was wrong and bondmen is right. I am told this is an undoctored photograph.http://www.sirlin.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/jesus_dinosaur.JPGKeep on keeping men in bonds, dude.

0

The_Original_Bob 6 years ago

Good gracious. Thanks for the link to www.creationsafaris.com/news. I haven't seen a parody website constructed that well in a long time.

0

autie 6 years ago

I looked at the creation/safari thing. Then read it with an open mind. Mostly hogwash. I don't understand why some good scientist delve into easter bunny science.

0

salad 6 years ago

I think the larger question for creationists is: Why do feel that science and faith are incompatible? I mean...how puny do really think your god is? I'd like to think she's alot bigger and smarter than ya'll give her credit for. just sayin'...

0

Mariann 6 years ago

Isn't about time we fade out the old and evil thinkers who preach that the world is 6000 years old? They have no place umong good free people. Ban them from breeding, voting and owning property and that will help out....:)

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

Well, that all depends on what how you define climate change, and extinction, for that matter. It wasn't all that long ago that there were Mastadons and Sabertooth tigers and giant sloths runnng around not far from here, but they aren't anywhere to be seen. Do you suppose climate change had anything to with that? Or was it a large meteor?

0

TheYetiSpeaks 6 years ago

""You mean there may have been climate changes in the past?!!!Yes, and they usually led to mass extinctions."Wrong, wrong, wrong. The climate changes all the time and has usually NOT led to mass extinctions. Your fear-mongering for Global Warminomics gets more ridiculous by the day. The correct phrase would be: The impact of large meteors into the Earth usually led to mass extinctions...but thanks for playing.

0

moo 6 years ago

Maybe Darwin was a racist, don't know the man personally, so I have no idea. His theories were not racist. They were, however, completely misunderstood and severely misused by racists. Basically anything called "Darwinism" has very little to do with Darwin and would probably not have been supported by him. Yes Darwin is dead. Considering he was born in 1809, I'd be pretty surprised if he weren't.

0

Erin Parmelee 6 years ago

bondmen (Anonymous) says: No, it is truly the adult fairy tale called evolution (self organization of matter) which is bogus.------------------------------------------------------------------------It always cracks me up when people who believe that an unseen and unheard "God" created one man and one woman who, after eating from a scary and poisionous tree with a talking snake, managed to populate the earth through incest, call scientific theory a "Fairy Tale." Do you even know what a fairy tale is?

0

autie 6 years ago

My question would be: If an asteroid that size indeed hit and created this crater 65 million years ago, wouldn't the images from remote sensing not look so perfectly round and "crater shaped? Given the continental plates would have moved and altered it over that time period. I think I have seen pictures of this on some show. Maybe I'm wrong. Or my time frames are off. They tell me Cuba was in the pacific ocean at one time..someone is moving significantly.

0

JJE007 6 years ago

Fairytale Debunked by Fairytale!News at 11...th prophecy of rapture...

0

Agnostick 6 years ago

I find it hard to believe that one single event, like an asteroid impact, killed off all the dinosaurs in a short time period.We know at least some of the dinosaurs lasted for quite a while... so Adam & Eve could ride 'em to church on Sundays.

0

jumpin_catfish 6 years ago

I thought George W. Bush killed the dinos!?

0

duplenty 6 years ago

If you get your news from www.creationsafaris.com/news, let me suggest that you keep that little nugget to yourself, as all of your credibility was gone, and with your first post!

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

The role of Dick Cheney in the PermianTriassic extinction event has never been fully investigated.

0

sueyoass_for_damages 6 years ago

yeah and the next killer asteroid is going to hit square on the KU campus.....gonesville...

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"You mean there may have been climate changes in the past?!!!"Yes, and they usually led to mass extinctions. Is there a point you're trying to make?

0

gr 6 years ago

"Scientists have studied a number of scenarios to explain the event, including global climate change."You mean there may have been climate changes in the past?!!!You mean one 2.5 mile rock could completely invalidate any futile and pitiful efforts made by the inhabitants?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"Darwin is dead"That's the only thing in your post with any basis in reality.

0

bondmen 6 years ago

Darwin is dead and his major ideas are dead too but for the ancients nestled and safely tenured in academia. Darwin was a racist and his strongest adherents who came to great political power were mass murderers of their fellow human beings. No, it is truly the adult fairy tale called evolution (self organization of matter) which is bogus.Open minded thinkers who are curious read atricles like:Dinosaur Expert Criticizes Uber-Darwinists More than Biblical Creationists 4/13/08Not Even Wrong: Darwin's Tree Suffers Base Blow 04/11/2008 Darwin and Complexity: Another Genetic Solution? 04/02/2008 Explaining Two Billion Years Without Evolution 03/28/2008at www.creationsafaris.com/news

>
0

Kathy Getto 6 years ago

www.creationsafaris.com/news===Fascinating, but bogus. Darwin was right, and most work since his revelation has supported descent by common origin. Modern technology, particularly in genetics, confirms this every day in research magazines. Do scientists fight, fuss and feud over what they are learning? Of course they do. In a nutshell, this is what science has always been about.

0

Paul R Getto 6 years ago

When we get whacked by the next large rock, we'll get a chance to see what it's like. It's just a matter of time.

0

Multidisciplinary 6 years ago

I'm fairly science oriented, but I still think they are grasping a thought and trying to run with it.

0

bondmen 6 years ago

Fairy tales parading in the name of science are debunked daily by a real world scientist at:www.creationsafaris.com/news

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.