Bush proves he's not the brightest -- again.

[Sinkster 0]

Agreed. There is no evidence to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and no legitimate reason that it must be such to be compatible with the creation story in Genesis.

[billvon 3,120]

>There is no evidence to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and no
> legitimate reason that it must be such to be compatible with the creation story
> in Genesis.
Yep. Apparently how long it really was depends upon how strict your interpretation of the bible is - seven days referring to seven epochs, etc. Interestingly, religions tend to have creation myths that depict the creation of what was important to them. The Egyptians believed that in the beginning there was only water, and one of their gods caused the land to rise from the waters - very understandable considering that their lives revolved around the flooding of the Nile. The Norse legend holds that the "first world" was full of fire and light and heat, perhaps understandable from a people who lived in the northern latitudes.
-bill von

[quade 4]

Quote

Agreed. There is no evidence to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and no legitimate reason that it must be such to be compatible with the creation story in Genesis.

The only problem with that is if Genesis is supposed to be the inspired word of God, but it doesn't have it exactly correct, then what are we supposed to make of it?
I find it incredibly difficult to reconcile what I believe to be scientific facts regarding certain aspects of physics (speed of light, radioactive decay, et. al) with even the most liberal interpretations of both Gen 1 and Gen 2.
quade
http://futurecam.com

[Zennie 0]

I think this thread is getting close to "Epic" status.
"Zero Tolerance: the politically correct term for zero thought, zero common sense."

[Iflyme 0]

Quote

By "young earth advocate" James means that he believes that the Earth was formed more or less as stated in Genesis.

Thanks, Quade... I know that -- but I was just leading James into the next phase of our discussion! A man who could have been elected leader of my country shares James' belief on the matter. I never had the opportunity to talk to the candidate about it, but I am looking foward to hearing James' point of view, then presenting mine!
"There's nothing new under the sun"

[james1010 0]

Scientific support for the dinosaur-collision hypothesis is not unanimous. Evolutionary paleontologists, especially, question the sudden loss of so many varied species. Most prefer a gradual extinction of life from climatic changes, sea-level variations, or volcanism. Three basic questions will be raised here that are considered within the old-earth time scales.
First, why did the alleged impact kill off the dinosaurs while many other forms of life remained healthy? Some of the least mobile creatures (tortoises, snakes, crocodiles) and also the most sensitive to climatic change (birds, fish) are still with us today. Some shallow marine bottom-dwelling invertebrates survived, while others became extinct. Plants also survived the cataclysm in great abundance.
Second, the fossil record does not show an instantaneous demise of the dinosaurs. Some dinosaurs died out within the Cretaceous period while others apparently survived well into the Tertiary period, millions of years later in evolutionary thinking (Rigby, et al., 1987; Sloan, et al., 1986). Another major problem is in determining where the K-T boundary itselfactually lies. In certain locations, the shocked quartz grains appear to cover a sedimentary thickness or time span of at least 500,000 years (Courtillot, 1990). Also, in fossil-rich eastern Montana, the iridium layer is found two-three meters above the highest in situ dinosaur remains (Archibold, 1982). In this location, it thus appears that dinosaurs disappeared long before any collision event.
Third, it is not certain that Chicxulub is an actual impact site. Practically all the data in support of a collision have alternative explanations. For example, the iridium concentration in the K-T layer could have resulted from volcanic processes. Igneous material includes traces of iridium, especially when derived from the deep mantle (Ganter, 1986). A large region in western India (called the Deccan Traps) experienced massive volcanism at a similar relative time in history. Some experts attribute dinosaur death to climatic events related to this massive outpouring of lava in India.
I wish I had been at work yesterday, missed some good debate, hopefully I can respark some of you. James

[james1010 0]

Quote

There is no evidence to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and no legitimate reason that it must be such to be compatible with the creation story in Genesis.

There is actually quite a bit of evidence to support a young Earth. I believe wholeheartedly in the Genesis account of origin. But beyond that, it's wonderful to know that there is real scientific data that supports a young earth, and rightly so, for as I said before, if the Bible is the Word of God then scientific processes will support it.
I could attempt to paraphrase these evidences, but I'm sure I'd mess it up, besides I'm at work at it would take too long so here is a copy/paste for you to enjoy:
Receding Moon
It takes but one proof of a young age for the moon or the earth to completely refute the doctrine of evolution. Based upon reasonable postulates, great scope of observational data, and fundamental laws of physics there is proof that the moon and the earth are too young for the presumed evolution to havetaken place.
There is an easily understood physical proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolutionary age. From the laws of physics one can show that the moon should be receding from the earth. From the same laws one can show that the moon would have never survived a nearness to the earth of less than 11,500 miles. That distance is known as the Roche limit.1 The tidal forces of the earth on a satellite of the moon's dimensions would break up the satellite into something like the rings of Saturn. Hence the receding moon was never that close to the earth.
The present speed of recession of the moon is known. If one multiplies this recession speed by the presumed evolutionary age, the moon would be much farther away from the earth than it is, even if it had started from the earth. It could not have been receding for anything like the age demanded by the doctrine of evolution. There is as yet no tenable alternative explanation that will yield an evolutionary age of 4 billion years or more for the moon. Here is as simple a proof as science can provide that the moon is not as old as claimed.
How does an evolutionist reconcile this proof that the moon is too young for the presumed evolution to have taken place? This known dynamical limit in the earth-moon system is a great problem to knowledgeable evolutionists. Robert C. Humes in his book Introduction to Space Science (John Wiley, 1971) acknowledges the problem and states that "The whole subject of the origin of the moon must be regarded as highly speculative." Dr. Louis B. Slichter, Professor of Geophysics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology treats this problem in great detail and concludes that "the time scale of the earth-moon system still presents a major problem."2
It turns out that the earth-moon tidal friction causes the earth's spin rate to be slowing down. Lord Kelvin used that changing spin rate, assumed an initial molten earth, and proved that the earth could not be a billion years old, or the earth's present shape would be different.3
Hence from theoretical and observational considerations there are two proofs that the earth-moon system can not be as old as a billion years.
1) The earth-moon spacing and recession rate refutes that long age.
2) The shape of the earth refutes that long age.
Lunar Dust Depth
The prelunar landing predictions of evolutionary scientists gave great concern to the astronauts. Their predictions were that due to a presumed 4.5 billion year age of the moon and the rate of influx of dust and the lunar physical processes of rock break-up, the astronauts might be lost in a great depth of dust on the moon.4 Fortunately the evolutionary predictions of great dust depth were wrong. Our astronauts were not lost in the predicted "quicksand" of age-accumulated dust on the moon. The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.
This false prediction from evolutionary scientists lends support to the author's contention that the doctrine of evolution is a barrier to progress in science. Additional support for that contention can be found in the continual negative results of the evolutionary experiments to detect the presumed "evolved life forms" in space. Apparently one of the astronauts considered the lunar receiving laboratory to be a waste of time and money. To disprove the notion of evolved bacteria on the moon he offered to eat some of that dust. One should carefully note that the great successes of the NASA space program, of which we are all proud, were made possible by the tremendous advances in technology, not by evolutionary science. That technology is founded upon the proven laws of physics and chemistry and ingenious developments from the various fields of engineering.
Radiometric Evidence of Rapid Creation
Dr. Robert V. Gentry has radiometric evidence that the basement rock of the earth was formed in a cool state, not in a molten condition. A cool initial state of the earth gives support to a young age for the earth. His research involves the study of pleochroic halos (colored spheres) produced by the radioactive decay of Polonium 218. He analyzed over one hundred thousand of these halos in granitic rocks which had been taken from considerable depths below land surface and in all parts of the world.
Two very important conclusions were drawn from this research 1) The Polonium 218 was primordial, that is to say, this radioactive element was in the original granite. 2) Because the halos can only be formed in the crystals of the granite, and the Polonium 218 half-life is only 3 minutes, the granite had to be cool and crystallized originally. The Polonium 218 would have been gone before molten granite could have cooled. It would take a very long time for a molten earth to cool.
The final conclusion can be summarized in this brief quote from one of Gentry’s technical papers: "The simple evidence of the halos is that the basement rocks of the earth were formed solid." "Halos in other minerals can be shown to give equally startling evidence of a young earth."5 One needs to read some of Gentry's technical articles to see how clearly he established his conclusion that the Polonium 218 was primordial. That in itself presents problems to conventional radiometric dating. The conventional radiometric dating postulates would not jibe with this initial state which Gentry has identified.
Magnetic Evidence of a Young Earth
The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion of its energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's magnetic field. A Department of Commerce publication lists evaluations of the strength of the earth's dipole magnet (its main magnet) since Karl Gauss made the first evaluation in the 1830's. It states that the rate of decrease is about 5% per hundred years. It then states that if the decay continues the magnetic field will "vanish in A.D. 3391."6
This decay has some harmful environmental effects. The earth's magnetic field extends into the space around the earth. This provides a protective shield against cosmic rays and solar wind. The half-life of this decaying magnetic field is 1400 years (meaning that every 1400 years its strength is cut in half). The field strength is now only about one third as strong as it was at the time of Christ. More harmful radiation is penetrating down to the surface of the earth. This is an irreversible degradation of our environment.
Horace Lamb predicted this decay in an 1883 theoretical paper on the source of the earth's magnetic field. Looking backward in time, in the light of his theory and the present known decay rate, and assuming the maximum plausible initial strength, puts an age limit on the earth's magnet of only a few thousand years.7
Evolutionary geologists assume that there 'is some type of dynamo mechanism sustaining the earth's magnet. No one has yet come up with an acceptable theory for such a dynamo. That mechanism is supposed to be able to reverse the direction of the earth's magnet. They assume that this magnet has not been decaying continually but has reversed back and forth many times for billions of years. They must hold to a long age or it is the death knell for the whole theory of evolution. Reversal phenomena are "read" into the magnetization of accessible rocks in the crust of the earth. The literature shows real problems and some self-contradictions with those interpretations.8
Conclusion
The age of the earth and moon can not be as old as required in the doctrine of evolution, as has been shown when the great laws of physics are applied toobserved large scale phenomena such as:
1) The recession rate of the moon and the Roche limit.
2) The faster earth spin rate in the past.
3) The rate of lunar dust build-up.
4) The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
5) The pleochroic halos in the earth's basement rock.
James

[skreamer 1]

Dude, I had to break the dictionary out when I got half way through your FIRST sentence!!!
"Look before you jump, don't die until you're dead"

[Scratch 0]

Years ago I read a brilliant short story by Issac Asimov about the creation of the world. It was only a page and a bit long.
I will reiterrate the gist of it.
It starts with two men discussing writing a history of the creation of the world. A narrator and a scribe.
The narrator starts by saying.
"In the beginning, around 6 billion years ago"
Scribe: "Whoa, how long is this going to take?"
Narrator: "I must tell the truth, I am inspired"
Scribe: "Have you any idea of how much papyrus and ink we are going to need. Not to mention that neither of us are getting any younger"
Narrator: "Well have you got any suggestions?"
Scribe: "Why don't you cut it down a bit and focus on the highlights"
Narrator: "Mmmm I get your point. I suppose I could cram it into a thousand years or so"
Scribe, checking his supplies of materials: "Not good enough"
Narrator: "Well seeing that you are so full of it, what do you suggest? A century, a decade?"
Scribe: "Seven days"
Narrator: "You are kidding right"
Scribe: "No I am being very serious Moses"
Narrator: "Ok then Aaron, I'll trust you, seven days it is."

My deepest apologies to Issac.
Every day above ground is a good day.

[james1010 0]

In regards To Asimov, here is a couple of interesting quotes from this great?? mind:
"The cosmic egg may be structureless (as far as we know), but it apparently represented a very orderly conglomeration of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since, the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing."
Is it just me, or is he stating that since the BANG, everything has been moving toward disorder? How then do we arrive at the very complex systems around us and in us? Well, here is what he says about it:
"The existence of the cosmic egg is, however, itself something of an anomaly. If the general movement of the universe is from order to disorder, how did the order (which presumable existed in the cosmic egg) originate? Where did it come from?
I have a hunch that the 'missing mass' required to raise the density to the proper figure will yet be found and that the universe will yet be discovered to oscillate."
Asimovs hunch, therefore solves it ALL . . . what great faith people place on this mans hunch.
James

[Scratch 0]

Lighten up dude. It is a funny tale.

Quote

what great faith people place on this mans hunch

What faith??? Who cares???
Personally I don't give a damn whether the universe was created in a big bang, in seven days, or came out of Gods nose when he sneezed during an attack of cosmic hayfever.
It does not have any bearing on how I conduct my life.
Asimov is an author who writes 'stories'.
These stories, like all stories, are generated with the sole purpose of soliciting a response from those who read them.
If you thought about his cosmic egg story and then disagreed Asimov has achived his primary function as a story teller, to get a response. I don't really think he concerns himself with the details.

Every day above ground is a good day.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I think this thread is getting close to "Epic" status"
Zennie, this is the 4th 'most epic' thred in terms of views, and 3rd in trems of replies, and it shows no signs of abating.
Great discussions folks, I'm impressed by everyone's civility, and respect each others opinions and beliefs here.
I think it was the Dalai Lama that once said:-
To the non believer, no explanation is possible.
To the true believer, no explanation is necessary.
Now back to the boobies.......
Cya
D

[james1010 0]

Quote

Lighten up dude. It is a funny tale.

Sorry, dude, thought we were debating on this thread. Maybe you didn't notice, dude.

Quote

Asimov is an author who writes 'stories'.

If you believe Asimov was merely a storyteller, then you do him a great disservice. He was also President of the American Humanist Society, as well as an ardent anti-creationist. His storytelling has done more for humanistic evolutionism than Hawking, Gould and Sagan combined.
BTW, his stories were written for the purpose of soliciting his belief, inasmuch as a response from his readers.
James

[Scratch 0]

No disservice at all. I pay good money for his books.
BTW I have read L Ron Hubbard as well. That does not make me a Scientologest.
As for the rest we are in agreement then. The aim of writing is to make people think about and react to what was written. To convince them you are right is a preferred secondary by product.
WRT the Asimov "Moses" story the aim was to make me laugh....which it did.
As for his secondary by-product. Nope not important to me<>
Every day above ground is a good day.

[james1010 0]

Fair enough . . although, I disagree as to which purpose of his writing was the actual by-product. I believe it's the other way around.

[Scratch 0]

I read the newspaper on the toilet now and then as well.
I wonder which is the primary aim and which is the by-product
Ok ok I know this is a debate of some importance.
I will go away now
Every day above ground is a good day.

[james1010 0]

c ya

[billvon 3,120]

>First, why did the alleged impact kill off the dinosaurs while many other forms of
>life remained healthy? Some of the least mobile creatures (tortoises, snakes,
> crocodiles) and also the most sensitive to climatic change (birds, fish) are still
> with us today.
For the same reason that any life survives cataclysms - some adapts, some does not. In England, for example, coal soot changed the environment dramatically, and many birds died off because they asphyxiated. Moths, oddly, adapted - they all turned black and grey, and thus maintained their camouflage on the new soot-covered landscape.
The larger forms of cold blooded life died off during the K-T because they were at the top of the food chain, and those forms of life go first when the food chain is disturbed. Oddly, large warm-blooded animals would have things for and against them - their homeostasis could better survive the cold, but their caloric requirements are much greater, which is a problem when food becomes scarce.
>Some shallow marine bottom-dwelling invertebrates survived, while others
> became extinct. Plants also survived the cataclysm in great abundance.
Correct. Only 60-70% went extinct, and there was plenty remaining to fit into the niches vacated by the less-adaptable species.
>Second, the fossil record does not show an instantaneous demise of the
> dinosaurs. Some dinosaurs died out within the Cretaceous period while others
> apparently survived well into the Tertiary period, millions of years later in
> evolutionary thinking (Rigby, et al., 1987; Sloan, et al., 1986).
Of course. Heck, some survive today - you'd be hard pressed to not say that a monitor lizard is not very much like a dinosaur, and birds (more or less direct descendants of dinosaurs) are all over. The coelacanth is pretty much a living fossil that hasn't changed much in 400 million years.
Again, the K-T event caused over half of all species to go extinct - not all of them, even in any one order of life. This was pretty fortunate for us, since our ancestors obviously survived.
>Third, it is not certain that Chicxulub is an actual impact site. Practically all the
> data in support of a collision have alternative explanations. For example, the
> iridium concentration in the K-T layer could have resulted from volcanic
> processes.
That would explain an increase in the amout of iridium, not an increase in the _concentration_ of iridium - unless you postulate a natural refining process, which unlikely unless there's some sort of mass-spectroscopy process going on.
>Some experts attribute dinosaur death to climatic events related to this massive
> outpouring of lava in India.
Could be, although world-altering massive volcanic eruptions are pretty rare. We're talking about something that completely changed the climate for years.
-bill von

[billvon 3,120]

"The cosmic egg may be structureless (as far as we know), but it apparently represented a very orderly conglomeration of matter. Its explosion represented a vast shift in the direction of disorder, and ever since, the amount of disorder in the Universe has been increasing."
>Is it just me, or is he stating that since the BANG, everything has been moving
> toward disorder? How then do we arrive at the very complex systems around us
> and in us? Well, here is what he says about it:
Well, you're talking about three different things in the same two sentences:
1. total entropy
2. local disorder
3. broken symmetry
Let's not talk about 3 for a moment - it refers to why the universe is not a spherical blob of perfectly uniform subatomic particles, and that's a whole other argument.
Entropy is not decreasing on every scale. Every time a quartz crystal forms, or a snowflake accretes in a cloud, entrophy decreases. Life is the ultimate example of an anti-entropic process. The _overall_ trend is towards entropy - horses are very ordered, but must convert other highly-ordered organisms (grass) into very disordered waste to survive.
Plus, of course, the horse is going to die, returning to a disordered state. The one thing it has going for it is that it can create a _new_ horse, which is why life seems to violate the tendency towards entropy for a short time.
--------------------------------------------------------
"The existence of the cosmic egg is, however, itself something of an anomaly. If the general movement of the universe is from order to disorder, how did the order (which presumable existed in the cosmic egg) originate? Where did it come from?
I have a hunch that the 'missing mass' required to raise the density to the proper figure will yet be found and that the universe will yet be discovered to oscillate."
>Asimovs hunch, therefore solves it ALL . . . what great faith people place on this
> mans hunch.
Again, I think he's talking about two different things. Missing mass (dark matter, vacuum energy et al) is a separate issue from broken symmetry.
-bill von

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

you'd be hard pressed to not say that a monitor lizard is not very much like a dinosaur

Actually, you wouldn't be hard pressed, since it really isn't related to dinosaurs. The hip structure is wrong to put it in that class, the overwhelming majority of dinosaurs had a different hip structure then lizards, they were like modern birds. A human cannonball, I rise above it all
Up higher then a trapeze, I can fly

[billvon 3,120]

>Actually, you wouldn't be hard pressed, since it really isn't related to dinosaurs.
Oh, agreed, they are not related at all. But they _look_ like dinosaurs, and if our understanding of some species of dinosaurs are correct, they fill a similar spot in the food chain - a large, cold blooded reptilian carnivore.
-bill von

[billvon 3,120]

>There is an easily understood physical proof that the moon is too young for the
> presumed evolutionary age. From the laws of physics one can show that the
> moon should be receding from the earth.
Which law would this be? I can show three other laws (interaction with the earth's magnetosphere, friction from the exosphere and tidal effects) that should cause the moon to come _closer_ to the earth over time. They are not the only effects by a long shot, but may partially or completely negate the effects that cause the moon to recede.
>Lord Kelvin used that changing spin rate, assumed an initial molten earth, and
> proved that the earth could not be a billion years old, or the earth's present
> shape would be different.
This one is really silly. The earth is still a thin crust floating over a plastic mantle and molten core. It doesn't hold its shape, and in many ways, is no more stable than a thick ice sheet on an ocean. Even mountains (tiny on a planetary scale) slowly sink into the earth due to their weight, unless some tectonic process is pushing back.
>The creationist predictions of only a thin layer of dust were correct.
Or lunar scientists who believed:
1. dust would accrete to regolith over time
2. there is no atmosphere on the moon, hence no erosion, no new creation of dust from processes we see here on earth
3. Meteor impacts fuse as much dust as they create
were correct. I tend to believe the scientists.
>"The simple evidence of the halos is that the basement rocks of the earth were
>formed solid."
This is sorta silly. Subduction zones suck rock and dirt back under the crust, and volcanoes spew it back out. Sometimes it's compressed and spewed out without melting (metamorphic rock) sometimes it's melted and spewed (igneous.) Sometimes the rock thus formed is eroded and recompacted (sedimentary.) All terrerstrial rock ever seen conforms to these three types of rock. We haven't seen evidence of a fourth kind of rock (god rock?) that cannot be explained by these processes.
Again, it's possible that there's a cosmic trickster who tries his best to fool us with clever fossils and false igneous rock, and is only detected by diligent creationist scientists. I'm afraid I have to go with Occam on that one.
>The known decay in the earth's magnetic field and the inexorable depletion of its
>energy clearly point to an imminent and inevitable end of the earth's magnetic
> field.
Agreed. The magnetic field periodically changes polarity, shape and intensity.
>Reversal phenomena are "read" into the magnetization of accessible rocks in
>the crust of the earth. The literature shows real problems and some self
>contradictions with those interpretations.
No self contradictions, and a few reasonable explanations. My favorite theory is that radioactive materials in the earth's core cause the liquid iron there to convect. The convection is pretty random, but at present, there's a net circulation around the poles. The iron is conductive, and as it moves past the weak residual magnetic fields of the mantle, it generates a current. This current is magnified by the motion of the iron. The resulting strong current produces a magnetic field.
The interior of the earth is molten and always changing, and so the magnetic field strengthens and weakens and moves with time. Records of magnetite orientation in rock all over the world confirms this.
--------------------------
1) The recession rate of the moon and the Roche limit.
2) The faster earth spin rate in the past.
3) The rate of lunar dust build-up.
4) The decay of the earth's magnetic field.
5) The pleochroic halos in the earth's basement rock.
-------------------------
1, 2, 3 and 4 all have good explanations that, while not proven, are pretty reasonable. I don't know anything about 5, but would suggest that not knowing why something is is nothing new to me (or humanity at large either.) I would hope that any definition of god be butressed by something more than proof of our ignorance.
-bill von

[james1010 0]

Quote

The coelacanth is pretty much a living fossil that hasn't changed much in 400 million years.

Interesting that you brought up the coelacanth, this type of fish, previously known only from fossils, had certain structures in its fins, and for years was thought to have been the ancestor of the amphibians and later all other land animals. Until, ofcourse, in 1938 a living specimen was found off the coast of Africa and others have been found since. Evolutionists' joy turned to consternation when it was seen that soft anatomy was not at all like an amphibian, nor did it live in shallow areas about to crawl out on land. It lives in the deep ocean and uses its stronger fins to navigate in unusual ways, but never to "walk" along the bottom. Today few evolutionists still hold to the coelacanth as an ancestor to land animals. That's a sidetrack, though.

Quote

Again, the K-T event caused over half of all species to go extinct - not all of them, even in any one order of life. This was pretty fortunate for us, since our ancestors obviously survived.

Here is how scientist HYPOTHESIZE the supposed event:
The colliding object, probably a comet or asteroid, was about 10 km in diameter and weighed 6 x 1014 kg, or nearly a trillion tons. The generic name for such a large impactor from space is a bolide. If this bolide contained 500 ppb (.5 parts per million) of iridium, the total iridium later dispersed around the world would be 300 million kilograms. The object was traveling at a typical space velocity of 20 km/sec (12 miles/sec), several times faster than a bullet. Its total kinetic energy then was dissipated as heat and rock displacement at the point of impact. The release amounted to about 1023 joules, or 108 megatons of TNT. This energy is 10,000 times greater than the world's total arsenal of nuclear weapons at the height of the Cold War (Cowen, 1996). The figure is also the approximate total energy released when fragments of comet Shoemaker-Leuy struck the planet Jupiter in 1994. Billions of tons of pulverized theoritically rocks were blown skyward by the Chicxulub impact for miles. As the larger pieces fell back, they heated to incandescence and ignited firestorms on the ground across entire continents. Soot and dust circled the earth, darkening the sun for months or years. Global cooling may have lasted for decades. Photosynthesis ceased and food chains collapsed. Sulfur was injected into the stratosphere, forming sulfuric acid rain. The ozone layer was temporarily destroyed by atmospheric turbulence.
Actually, of course, these supposed climatic effects from such a hypothesized collision are very uncertain. Regardless, the scenario sees the dinosaurs, marine reptiles, flying reptiles, and much other life extinguished in a mere instant of geologic time . . . again, you have to ask, why just those species?
James

[james1010 0]

Bill,
You should find this to be an interesting read, a bit lengthy, however:
Igneous Cooling
Let me know what you think.

[christopherm 0]

Only 14 more posts and this thread will become the most replied to (legitimate as in an actual conversation) thread here.
-So, how hard is the ground?!