![Bravo Company BCM](/images/2016/banners/sticky/BCM_StickyBarAd_225x40.gif)
![Login](/images/2016/spacer.gif)
Quoted: I don't doubt a meteor hit the earth and destroyed stuff. But I do not believe the times are accurate because science has an agenda to try and force people to believe God is not real. The meteor may have been used during the great flood to assist with the flood waters cleansing the world of evil. I don't know and neither do you because you and I can't easily prove or disprove any of this without taking the accounts and information of others. We either believe godless scientists with an agenda to attempt to prove God doesn't exist or we can believe that God does exist and what the words in the Bible are true. Furthermore there is "science" to support both sides. One side of the argument denies the other and around and around we go. We can argue this for the rest of our lives but I don't think you or I will change our minds on it. Which is fine we don't have to agree. :) View Quote I have no issue believing in God or that science is our best way of explaining God's creation. Evolution is God's handwork. Science makes no claim about the existence or non-existence of God, it simply explains things from a naturalistic perspective, which allows any and all religions to insert their deity of choice. |
|
Ahh, the classic science vs religion debate. Here's the deal. Science can easily tolerate religion. All you have to do is show evidence. There's serious research into multiple universes, us being a simulation, etc. Plenty of room for a divine creator, you just need to show your work. The problem is all existing major religions require faith without evidence, which means those religions can not tolerate science.
Science is not attacking religion, it is attacking anti-science. Religion attacks science because current religion is unable to show evidence. As for the Yucatan vs deep ocean impact, we don't have enough data to say for sure. One thing we do know is that under physics a tsunami on land can't be taller than the water depth it started in. The Gulf of Mexico is relatively shallow so the Chicxulub wave was "small", yet still reached the American midwest. An ocean impact would be vastly greater. Huge swaths of land would be scoured clean. Due to the size of the rock it would still hit the seafloor and throw up ejecta, although not as bad. I'm not sure we can say where the crossover point is, just that all options are catastrophic. |
|
|
|
Quoted: I have no issue believing in God or that science is our best way of explaining God's creation. Evolution is God's handwork. Science makes no claim about the existence or non-existence of God, it simply explains things from a naturalistic perspective, which allows any and all religions to insert their deity of choice. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I don't doubt a meteor hit the earth and destroyed stuff. But I do not believe the times are accurate because science has an agenda to try and force people to believe God is not real. The meteor may have been used during the great flood to assist with the flood waters cleansing the world of evil. I don't know and neither do you because you and I can't easily prove or disprove any of this without taking the accounts and information of others. We either believe godless scientists with an agenda to attempt to prove God doesn't exist or we can believe that God does exist and what the words in the Bible are true. Furthermore there is "science" to support both sides. One side of the argument denies the other and around and around we go. We can argue this for the rest of our lives but I don't think you or I will change our minds on it. Which is fine we don't have to agree. :) I have no issue believing in God or that science is our best way of explaining God's creation. Evolution is God's handwork. Science makes no claim about the existence or non-existence of God, it simply explains things from a naturalistic perspective, which allows any and all religions to insert their deity of choice. But - there's no science to support a 6000 year old Earth, and has never been. Even the primitive sciences of 2000 years ago were more advanced than the mythology of the day. |
|
Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif View Quote I's plainly obvious to me, then again i know how to read a Topo map. ![]() |
|
Imagine how bad it was when the moon hit us?
Well at least it turned into the moon as we know it afterwards. |
|
Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif View Quote Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. ![]() |
|
Quoted: I's plainly obvious to me, then again i know how to read a Topo map. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif I's plainly obvious to me, then again i know how to read a Topo map. ![]() I'm wondering if you can. You can see a faint, very shallow ring, that is maybe 9 ft (3 meters) shallower at the deepest point than the area next to it, but that's it. in the video it said these outer ring walls were taller than Mt. Everest. I guess it all just disappeared! And don't get me started on the "fiery bullets" that heated the entire planet to 450° where all vegetation died, while small ground nesting reptiles were capable of surviving it. At another point he said all life was dead. Which is it? Or like the part where India and Madagascar, which both supposedly sat right off of Africa's coast at that time, didn't freeze, while Africa did. Along with Indonesia, which was basically attached to Asia, which also froze. Also, the Yucatan peninsula's shape is completely different than it was then. It's supposedly been stretched and distorted over millions of years, but this ring is still perfectly round. Pretty amazing! So amazing it sounds like utter hogwash to speak so confidently about it. And not one single person on Earth can say any of this happened with undeniable proof, yet educated idiots can't fathom that a single part can't be true. https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/maps/5hsn/Mexico-City/ ![]() ![]() https://dinosaurpictures.org/ancient-earth/#66 |
|
Quoted: Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. |
|
Quoted: You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. Le sigh. Start reading. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/ https://habitability.utexas.edu/cores-from-chicxulub-crater-reveal-details-about-first-days-after-asteroid-strike-that-doomed-the-dinosaurs/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20994 https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/09/rocks-at-asteroid-impact-site-record-first-day-of-dinosaur-extinction/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chicxulub+scholar+papers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart |
|
Quoted: 2 issues with Video in the first minute, narrator says a few things that grinds my gears. Says "we all know killed the dinosaurs" and a few moments later, says "wiped out all life on earth." No, not everyone believes this and it is the most popular hypothesis at this moment, but certainly not universally accepted. Also, if it wiped out all life, there would be no life on earth today, unless you believe that God re-created all life on earth after impact (assuming a religious person) or, another spontaneous life generation from the primordial soup again (for the non-religious evolutionist.) I stopped watching. View Quote ![]() |
|
Quoted: Le sigh. Start reading. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/ https://habitability.utexas.edu/cores-from-chicxulub-crater-reveal-details-about-first-days-after-asteroid-strike-that-doomed-the-dinosaurs/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20994 https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/09/rocks-at-asteroid-impact-site-record-first-day-of-dinosaur-extinction/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chicxulub+scholar+papers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. Le sigh. Start reading. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/ https://habitability.utexas.edu/cores-from-chicxulub-crater-reveal-details-about-first-days-after-asteroid-strike-that-doomed-the-dinosaurs/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20994 https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/09/rocks-at-asteroid-impact-site-record-first-day-of-dinosaur-extinction/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chicxulub+scholar+papers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several dozen articles throughout my life. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: Rocks deposited during the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period are separated by a thin clay layer that is visible at several sites around the world. You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. |
|
|
Quoted: Yea. Imagine a grain of sand and imagine a bowling ball. That's roughly the scale we are talking about. It was a trivial event from the standpoint of Earth as a rocky planet but it was rather catastrophic from the standpoint of the biosphere on the surface of that rocky planet. View Quote I think your analogy is off a bit.. Wouldn't said grain of sand have to have some serious speed and kinetic energy, plus the density of a baseball or similar? Aren't meteors full of dense metals? |
|
Quoted: I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several articles. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. Le sigh. Start reading. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/ https://habitability.utexas.edu/cores-from-chicxulub-crater-reveal-details-about-first-days-after-asteroid-strike-that-doomed-the-dinosaurs/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20994 https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/09/rocks-at-asteroid-impact-site-record-first-day-of-dinosaur-extinction/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chicxulub+scholar+papers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several articles. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: Rocks deposited during the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period are separated by a thin clay layer that is visible at several sites around the world. You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. So you spent 5 mins reading papers that were decades in the making. Got it. I understand why our resident rock people don't post much in these threads. ![]() DARWIN - Section 8.15: What Is A Theory? |
|
Quoted: So you spent 5 mins reading papers that were decades in the making. Got it. I understand why our resident rock people don't post much in these threads. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. Le sigh. Start reading. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/ https://habitability.utexas.edu/cores-from-chicxulub-crater-reveal-details-about-first-days-after-asteroid-strike-that-doomed-the-dinosaurs/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20994 https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/09/rocks-at-asteroid-impact-site-record-first-day-of-dinosaur-extinction/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chicxulub+scholar+papers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several articles. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: Rocks deposited during the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period are separated by a thin clay layer that is visible at several sites around the world. You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. So you spent 5 mins reading papers that were decades in the making. Got it. I understand why our resident rock people don't post much in these threads. ![]() And you provide a 1.5 minute video to prove your point. Do you see the irony? I'm here claiming none of us really know and point out that theories are not facts. You are the one claiming you know and mocking me while doing it, while providing zero proof. For someone who holds himself in high regard of scientific methods, you fucking suck at it. |
|
Quoted: And you provide a 1.5 minute video to prove your point. Do you see the irony? I'm here claiming none of us really know and point out that theories are not facts. You are the one claiming you know and mocking me while doing it, while providing zero proof. For someone who holds himself in high regard of scientific methods, you fucking suck at it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. Le sigh. Start reading. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/ https://habitability.utexas.edu/cores-from-chicxulub-crater-reveal-details-about-first-days-after-asteroid-strike-that-doomed-the-dinosaurs/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20994 https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/09/rocks-at-asteroid-impact-site-record-first-day-of-dinosaur-extinction/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chicxulub+scholar+papers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several articles. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: Rocks deposited during the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period are separated by a thin clay layer that is visible at several sites around the world. You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. So you spent 5 mins reading papers that were decades in the making. Got it. I understand why our resident rock people don't post much in these threads. ![]() And you provide a 1.5 minute video to prove your point. Do you see the irony? I'm here claiming none of us really know and point out that theories are not facts. You are the one claiming you know and mocking me while doing it, while providing zero proof. For someone who holds himself in high regard of scientific methods, you fucking suck at it. I'm not sorry I understand what a theory is. You're the one trying to cast doubt and misrepresent actual scientist by calling their work "theories." If you want to have a conversation in good faith, we can do that. But so far, most everything you've typed out so far indicates you don't want to do that. ![]() |
|
Quoted: I have no issue believing in God or that science is our best way of explaining God's creation. Evolution is God's handwork. Science makes no claim about the existence or non-existence of God, it simply explains things from a naturalistic perspective, which allows any and all religions to insert their deity of choice. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I don't doubt a meteor hit the earth and destroyed stuff. But I do not believe the times are accurate because science has an agenda to try and force people to believe God is not real. The meteor may have been used during the great flood to assist with the flood waters cleansing the world of evil. I don't know and neither do you because you and I can't easily prove or disprove any of this without taking the accounts and information of others. We either believe godless scientists with an agenda to attempt to prove God doesn't exist or we can believe that God does exist and what the words in the Bible are true. Furthermore there is "science" to support both sides. One side of the argument denies the other and around and around we go. We can argue this for the rest of our lives but I don't think you or I will change our minds on it. Which is fine we don't have to agree. :) I have no issue believing in God or that science is our best way of explaining God's creation. Evolution is God's handwork. Science makes no claim about the existence or non-existence of God, it simply explains things from a naturalistic perspective, which allows any and all religions to insert their deity of choice. Someone didn't take his 4th booster shot...he must go to gulag. |
|
|
Quoted: I'm not sorry I understand what a theory is. You're the one trying to cast doubt and misrepresent actual scientist by calling their work "theories." If you want to have a conversation in good faith, we can do that. But so far, most everything you've typed out so far indicates you don't want to do that. https://i.imgur.com/vZdlqoO.jpg View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: All of this destruction and supposedly huge crater, deeper than Mt. Everest and walls reaching out to the atmosphere.... but you can barely even see any evidence of it on a topo map. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Jennifer-Lawrence-ok-thumbs-up_zps5c0357b9_GIF-103.gif Humans are lucky to live to 100.... This shit happened 66,000,000 years ago. Try harder next time. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/Goose-call-426.gif You just strengthened my case, not yours. You mock me because I question this theory over legitimate questions and lack of evidence, but like you said, we are lucky to live for 100 years while this happened millions of years ago, yet you act like you know it's true. Le sigh. Start reading. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/kring/Chicxulub/ https://habitability.utexas.edu/cores-from-chicxulub-crater-reveal-details-about-first-days-after-asteroid-strike-that-doomed-the-dinosaurs/ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2016.20994 https://www.jsg.utexas.edu/news/2019/09/rocks-at-asteroid-impact-site-record-first-day-of-dinosaur-extinction/ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=chicxulub+scholar+papers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several articles. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: Rocks deposited during the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period are separated by a thin clay layer that is visible at several sites around the world. You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. So you spent 5 mins reading papers that were decades in the making. Got it. I understand why our resident rock people don't post much in these threads. ![]() And you provide a 1.5 minute video to prove your point. Do you see the irony? I'm here claiming none of us really know and point out that theories are not facts. You are the one claiming you know and mocking me while doing it, while providing zero proof. For someone who holds himself in high regard of scientific methods, you fucking suck at it. I'm not sorry I understand what a theory is. You're the one trying to cast doubt and misrepresent actual scientist by calling their work "theories." If you want to have a conversation in good faith, we can do that. But so far, most everything you've typed out so far indicates you don't want to do that. https://i.imgur.com/vZdlqoO.jpg That's rich coming from someone that uses mockery. ![]() |
|
Quoted: My god... This video is worth the watch. I can't believe it didn't just break the planet in half ![]() View Quote |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I just spent a couple months working close to the site where the impact happened, Merida mx. The burnt layers of rock are clearly evident in the road cuts there. Like 10-15' of just burnt pink limestone. That's cool! Got pics? i wanted to stop and grab a piece of that layer so bad to bring home and get X-ray fluorescence tested. |
|
Quoted: I caught that too, doesn't match up with oil being decayed dinosaurs very well. View Quote Oil being decayed dinosaurs is the joke, not the theory. The dinosaurs ended about 66 million years ago, around the time of the crater. 180 million years of dinosaurs didn't produce trillions of barrels of oil. To produce massive quantities of oil, coal, natural gas, you need massive quantities of carbon and that requires massive amounts of life. Life in the quantity that is produced by plants, algae, plankton, bacteria, massive forests living and dying for hundreds of millions of years and even billions of years. Life in the volume required to change the atmosphere from one with no oxygen and full of methane and carbon dioxide to one that contains 21% oxygen. It took 100's of millions of years for released oxygen to finally stop being absorbed by reactive minerals before any free oxygen could exist. |
|
Quoted: I'm more interested in the "reality" that's being "denied" in this case --- Dinos didn't really exist..... they were wiped out in a 40 day flood because that jerk Noah didn't bring them on the boat.... they all migrated to Hollow Earth.... what's the story? View Quote Where'd all the water go? I got questions. |
|
Quoted: i honestly can't tell if this quote chain is a science person arguing with a religion person, or an alternative science person arguing with a science person who is also a religion person. ![]() View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Life Always Finds A Way Religions worldwide all agree on more than one Historical Extinction Level Event and some say parts of The Bible are instruction Manual of sorts for how to restart civilization instead of needing to completely evolve again. Some of those records can stretch back to a hundred thousand years ago. How do you store that information where it is sure to last a million years though every type of event? Some place that some survivors from a quirk area of Earth survived and grew enough into hunter gatherers until they found The Rules, perhaps saved in a few dozen places so it could be found before humans fight themselves back into extinction? 100 thousand year old records? Need to see that citation No citation you would "accept" has that information. Once any geology, archaeology, or other science career topic drifts into those areas, the people are quickly removed from their scholarly work and become "para-" doctors and scientists. Same way people believing in ESP and UFOs were "para-science" but now that the .gov is out in the open discussing these "para-scientists" proofs and results, things are being said more and papers are actually being published instead of kept on the down low. Archeologists are the worse. Their version of history changes by centuries every 10 years and not always in the same direction even for the same location. In short, "Official Sources" or "Valid Sources" are restricted sources since too much information in the hands of people who didn't get a doctorate is dangerous, same way a president who wasn't part of the club was "Dangerous". There is plenty of evidence around especially in Mayan calendars and their shared ancestors back to the Inca Gods where the number of "cycles" is disputed but argued at a low of 4-6 and more, and those cycles are 26000 years each. Similar calendars are in India and Sumaria. They don't match up numerically due to different lengths of measurement units of day/month/year/etc, but on celestial events and other records of major geological or meteorological change, some approximation to the current definition of years can be made. However, this is all "para-science" since nothing existed prior to 50,000 years ago that resembled modern humans, and people refuse to accept existence of other extinct creatures being our ancestors, not in the Darwinian profile, but the dinosaurs were the king of their age, smaller and smarter beings became kings after peaks of intelligence causing wasteful things settled down again (depending on how you call genocide as peaceful or not). Inuit tribes kept records, they've all kept and shared records and they've all managed to save some information in a safe place, as their history includes the disaster and reborn events so attempts are made to try and secure something for the future survivors of whatever lies next. Were doing it now with the Seed Vault in Norway and Clock of the Long Now in Nevada (temporarily paused at the moment, IIRC), as well as other places not publicized but rumored, lots of nuclear defense bunkers and constructions to hold tens of thousands for a while with everything needed to come out and kickstart life once safe again, or until they run out of some resource, anyway. TL;DR - There is none other than supposition and doing piecewise match ups of known celestial events, Magnetic Creep of North Pole and possible rotation changes from asteroid strikes, and other indicators can be copied and pasted together to create many alternative histories, each as valid as our own mainstream history held so dear by The Professionals. So no “100,000” year old records. Got it Writing wasn't invented until about 5000 years ago but human civilization is most definitely older than that. Oral traditions are basically not possible to date. Plenty of art pieces dated to 30-40k years ago. If you're trying to make a point spit it out. i honestly can't tell if this quote chain is a science person arguing with a religion person, or an alternative science person arguing with a science person who is also a religion person. ![]() This thread is on the spectrum. All the way down. ![]() |
|
Quoted: I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several dozen articles throughout my life. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several dozen articles throughout my life. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized That's exactly how the whole of science doesn't work. Congratulations on fixating on the inverse of a fundamental of the scientific method and proclaiming it nullifies EVERYTHING. All science starts with ideas, a hypothesis, as in the hypothetical. Then there's the test of the hypothesis, can existing knowledge and understanding be used to nullify (disprove) the hypothesis? If not the hypothesis stands until it's disproved or supplanted with a better explanation. Sometimes parallel contradictory explanations exist, like the shrinking earth theory used to explain the structure found in the earth's crust. This was eventually replaced with plate tectonics as a better explanation. Continental drift can be observed and measured. It took satellites and GPS data to both show that the Earth isn't shrinking, and that the plates are moving in the directions they appeared to be. Therefore plate tectonics is accepted as a fact because the explanations that preceded it have been disproved, and no evidence exists that disproves plate tectonics. In the past, ideas that weathered all scrutiny and every attempt to disprove were known as Laws, like Newtons law of motion, or the Newtons law of universal gravitation, or the law of thermodynamics. As understanding expanded it became apparent that science was based on the uncertainty that new information may disprove any idea currently accepted as fact, so the use of the term "law" fell out of fashion and basically nothing more was elevated above "theory", this is why we argue about the "theory" of evolution and not the law of evolution, even though as far as science is concerned evolution (the idea that natural selection favors the most successful and shifts populations characteristics to more reflect the successful traits) is every bit as proven as gravity or thermodynamics. |
|
This thread illustrates one of the primary reasons people have issues with the modern science community. Far too often things that should be presented as “here is our current best guess” are presented as “this is absolutely what happened”. To many extrapolations based on modeling of relatively small data sets or comparatively brief observations. It looks too much like a hard sell.
|
|
Quoted: Wait. Dear God. Oil isn't actually dinosaurs. Oil being decayed dinosaurs is the joke, not the theory. The dinosaurs ended about 66 million years ago, around the time of the crater. 180 million years of dinosaurs didn't produce trillions of barrels of oil. To produce massive quantities of oil, coal, natural gas, you need massive quantities of carbon and that requires massive amounts of life. Life in the quantity that is produced by plants, algae, plankton, bacteria, massive forests living and dying for hundreds of millions of years and even billions of years. Life in the volume required to change the atmosphere from one with no oxygen and full of methane and carbon dioxide to one that contains 21% oxygen. It took 100's of millions of years for released oxygen to finally stop being absorbed by reactive minerals before any free oxygen could exist. View Quote Mrs Becky taught me in fourth grade that oil was made of dinosaurs and she was the smartest person in the county and now you're besmirching her honor with your technopsychobabble. Who sent you to slide this forum with your woke radical ideology? Soros? WEF? The Masons? |
|
Quoted: That's exactly how the whole of science doesn't work. Congratulations on fixating on the inverse of a fundamental of the scientific method and proclaiming it nullifies EVERYTHING. All science starts with ideas, a hypothesis, as in the hypothetical. Then there's the test of the hypothesis, can existing knowledge and understanding be used to nullify (disprove) the hypothesis? If not the hypothesis stands until it's disproved or supplanted with a better explanation. Sometimes parallel contradictory explanations exist, like the shrinking earth theory used to explain the structure found in the earth's crust. This was eventually replaced with plate tectonics as a better explanation. Continental drift can be observed and measured. It took satellites and GPS data to both show that the Earth isn't shrinking, and that the plates are moving in the directions they appeared to be. Therefore plate tectonics is accepted as a fact because the explanations that preceded it have been disproved, and no evidence exists that disproves plate tectonics. In the past, ideas that weathered all scrutiny and every attempt to disprove were known as Laws, like Newtons law of motion, or the Newtons law of universal gravitation, or the law of thermodynamics. As understanding expanded it became apparent that science was based on the uncertainty that new information may disprove any idea currently accepted as fact, so the use of the term "law" fell out of fashion and basically nothing more was elevated above "theory", this is why we argue about the "theory" of evolution and not the law of evolution, even though as far as science is concerned evolution (the idea that natural selection favors the most successful and shifts populations characteristics to more reflect the successful traits) is every bit as proven as gravity or thermodynamics. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several dozen articles throughout my life. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized That's exactly how the whole of science doesn't work. Congratulations on fixating on the inverse of a fundamental of the scientific method and proclaiming it nullifies EVERYTHING. All science starts with ideas, a hypothesis, as in the hypothetical. Then there's the test of the hypothesis, can existing knowledge and understanding be used to nullify (disprove) the hypothesis? If not the hypothesis stands until it's disproved or supplanted with a better explanation. Sometimes parallel contradictory explanations exist, like the shrinking earth theory used to explain the structure found in the earth's crust. This was eventually replaced with plate tectonics as a better explanation. Continental drift can be observed and measured. It took satellites and GPS data to both show that the Earth isn't shrinking, and that the plates are moving in the directions they appeared to be. Therefore plate tectonics is accepted as a fact because the explanations that preceded it have been disproved, and no evidence exists that disproves plate tectonics. In the past, ideas that weathered all scrutiny and every attempt to disprove were known as Laws, like Newtons law of motion, or the Newtons law of universal gravitation, or the law of thermodynamics. As understanding expanded it became apparent that science was based on the uncertainty that new information may disprove any idea currently accepted as fact, so the use of the term "law" fell out of fashion and basically nothing more was elevated above "theory", this is why we argue about the "theory" of evolution and not the law of evolution, even though as far as science is concerned evolution (the idea that natural selection favors the most successful and shifts populations characteristics to more reflect the successful traits) is every bit as proven as gravity or thermodynamics. So all of that just to say that some of the "scientific community" mostly agrees on a hypothesis right? And they still don't know absolutely 100%, correct? What about scientists that don't agree with what you are saying, are they wrong? |
|
Quoted: This thread illustrates one of the primary reasons people have issues with the modern science community. Far too often things that should be presented as “here is our current best guess” are presented as “this is absolutely what happened”. To many extrapolations based on modeling of relatively small data sets or comparatively brief observations. It looks too much like a hard sell. View Quote Thank you for writing it in a way that explains exactly the point I'm trying to convey. |
|
Quoted: So all of that just to say that some of the "scientific community" mostly agrees on a hypothesis right? And they still don't know absolutely 100%, correct? What about scientists that don't agree with what you are saying, are they wrong? View Quote Almost nothing is known absolutely 100%. If how gravity works can't be explained absolutely 100% does that mean noting we know about gravity is correct? And scientific disagreement being "wrong" depends on the reasoning for disagreement, if it's based on a preconceived bias that whatever is said is obviously wrong, then it's disingenuous. If there's a competing set of reasoning then it's not settled. |
|
Quoted: Almost nothing is known absolutely 100%. If how gravity works can't be explained absolutely 100% does that mean noting we know about gravity is correct? And scientific disagreement being "wrong" depends on the reasoning for disagreement, if it's based on a preconceived bias that whatever is said is obviously wrong, then it's disingenuous. If there's a competing set of reasoning then it's not settled. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So all of that just to say that some of the "scientific community" mostly agrees on a hypothesis right? And they still don't know absolutely 100%, correct? What about scientists that don't agree with what you are saying, are they wrong? Almost nothing is known absolutely 100%. If how gravity works can't be explained absolutely 100% does that mean noting we know about gravity is correct? And scientific disagreement being "wrong" depends on the reasoning for disagreement, if it's based on a preconceived bias that whatever is said is obviously wrong, then it's disingenuous. If there's a competing set of reasoning then it's not settled. Your comparison to gravity is disingenuous because humans are here to experience gravity and learn about it directly. Nobody was here to experience any of these events that supposedly happened millions of years ago. So it's not a valid comparison at all. So are you saying you know for sure that a huge asteroid crashed in this area and spread clay over the entire globe? You can say that for certain? Can you explain why the crater is a very shallow depression around the crash site? We've seen other asteroid craters, even on the moon and other planets... are there any that caused a shallow groove instead of high walls? Can you explain why this circular groove is still almost perfectly round after what you say was 66 millions years of plates moving and continents shifting? Are you saying the Earth deformed so dramatically that it inverted the crater yet maintained almost perfect symmetry? I'm at least giving examples and facts to question these claims. What have you provided to prove that these things happened as you say they did? I'm not saying they are wrong, but more importantly, I'm not trying to say I know what happened. I'm only questioning things that make absolutely no sense to the facts presented. Everyone that has tried to counter me has just given me complicated explanations of what a theory or hypothesis is, in an attempt to say they are pretty much fact. And that's bullshit. Here are pictures of 11 of the most fascinating craters on Earth. Every single one has lifted walls with a depressed inner area. None are inverted like the supposed Chicxulub crater. Even the images used in articles for Chicxulub look NOTHING like the topo map of this area. I'll post it again for reference. https://www.touropia.com/impact-craters-on-earth/ ![]() ![]() |
|
Quoted: Your comparison to gravity is disingenuous because humans are here to experience gravity and learn about it directly. Nobody was here to experience any of these events that supposedly happened millions of years ago. So it's not a valid comparison at all. So are you saying you know for sure that a huge asteroid crashed in this area and spread clay over the entire globe? You can say that for certain? Can you explain why the crater is a very shallow depression around the crash site? We've seen other asteroid craters, even on the moon and other planets... are there any that caused a shallow groove instead of high walls? Can you explain why this circular groove is still almost perfectly round after what you say was 66 millions years of plates moving and continents shifting? Are you saying the Earth deformed so dramatically that it inverted the crater yet maintained almost perfect symmetry? I'm at least giving examples and facts to question these claims. What have you provided to prove that these things happened as you say they did? I'm not saying they are wrong, but more importantly, I'm not trying to say I know what happened. I'm only questioning things that make absolutely no sense to the facts presented. Everyone that has tried to counter me has just given me complicated explanations of what a theory or hypothesis is, in an attempt to say they are pretty much fact. And that's bullshit. Here are pictures of 11 of the most fascinating craters on Earth. Every single one has lifted walls with a depressed inner area. None are inverted like the supposed Chicxulub crater. Even the images used in articles for Chicxulub look NOTHING like the topo map of this area. I'll post it again for reference. https://www.touropia.com/impact-craters-on-earth/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_39_52-Window-2387294.png https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_45_49-Clipboard-2387306.png View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Your comparison to gravity is disingenuous because humans are here to experience gravity and learn about it directly. Nobody was here to experience any of these events that supposedly happened millions of years ago. So it's not a valid comparison at all. So are you saying you know for sure that a huge asteroid crashed in this area and spread clay over the entire globe? You can say that for certain? Can you explain why the crater is a very shallow depression around the crash site? We've seen other asteroid craters, even on the moon and other planets... are there any that caused a shallow groove instead of high walls? Can you explain why this circular groove is still almost perfectly round after what you say was 66 millions years of plates moving and continents shifting? Are you saying the Earth deformed so dramatically that it inverted the crater yet maintained almost perfect symmetry? I'm at least giving examples and facts to question these claims. What have you provided to prove that these things happened as you say they did? I'm not saying they are wrong, but more importantly, I'm not trying to say I know what happened. I'm only questioning things that make absolutely no sense to the facts presented. Everyone that has tried to counter me has just given me complicated explanations of what a theory or hypothesis is, in an attempt to say they are pretty much fact. And that's bullshit. Here are pictures of 11 of the most fascinating craters on Earth. Every single one has lifted walls with a depressed inner area. None are inverted like the supposed Chicxulub crater. Even the images used in articles for Chicxulub look NOTHING like the topo map of this area. I'll post it again for reference. https://www.touropia.com/impact-craters-on-earth/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_39_52-Window-2387294.png https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_45_49-Clipboard-2387306.png So are you saying you know for sure that a huge asteroid crashed in this area and spread clay over the entire globe? You can say that for certain? Given the considerable evidence that exists I can say with the same certainty that 12,000 years ago on any random Thursday (before the concept of Thursday even existed) that at the equator the sun rose in the east and set in the west that day. That is how overwhelming the support is for the Chicxulub crater to have been a large rock from space that hit what is the current day Yucatan peninsula. As for the "clay all over the globe" everywhere that the K-T boundary is preserved as a depositional contact, a place where there wasn't a period of erosion that would result in an uncomformity, there is iridium enrichment, that does in fact occur with a thin clay deposit that occurs everywhere on the planet that the contact can be observed intact. Iridium is exceedingly rare in the earths crust and this thin layer is enriched about 100 times the typical concentration. There is no better explanation than the source of the iridium enriched clay was ash that spread world wide. The clay also contains shocked quartz (quartz grains that have a fractured texture that only occurs if the crystals have been subjected to a shock force), there's also tektites within the clay layer at some localities, tektites are basically made of tiny droplets of molten rock that cools in the air. Iridium enrichment doesn't occur with volcanic ash, and shocked quartz also doesn't occur with volcanic eruptions, sometimes scoria and ejecta can look like tektites but the nature of formation generally means that similar volcanic material has more bubbles in it. ![]() Shocked quartz grains from K-T boundary deposits. Here's a classic example of a far smaller and much younger crater, first thought to be volcanic in origin until some of the above commented features (shockedquartz, tecktites) were observed around the crater. The steeper walls are better preserved because this crater is only 50,000 years old, not 65 Million, so there is 1,300 times less erosion to flatten the boundaries. The other main reason that the geometry is different is that larger impact craters have a more significant melted portion and the crust plastically deforms and rebounds in the same way that throwing a small rock in mud makes a crater, but a large rock makes a splash in the mud and some of the mud flows back into the hole. Here's an example of a similar feature on the moon where there is no erosion to obscure the detail. ![]() I would like to go on but have to get back to some data collection. |
|
Quoted: Your comparison to gravity is disingenuous because humans are here to experience gravity and learn about it directly. Nobody was here to experience any of these events that supposedly happened millions of years ago. So it's not a valid comparison at all. So are you saying you know for sure that a huge asteroid crashed in this area and spread clay over the entire globe? You can say that for certain? Can you explain why the crater is a very shallow depression around the crash site? We've seen other asteroid craters, even on the moon and other planets... are there any that caused a shallow groove instead of high walls? Can you explain why this circular groove is still almost perfectly round after what you say was 66 millions years of plates moving and continents shifting? Are you saying the Earth deformed so dramatically that it inverted the crater yet maintained almost perfect symmetry? I'm at least giving examples and facts to question these claims. What have you provided to prove that these things happened as you say they did? I'm not saying they are wrong, but more importantly, I'm not trying to say I know what happened. I'm only questioning things that make absolutely no sense to the facts presented. Everyone that has tried to counter me has just given me complicated explanations of what a theory or hypothesis is, in an attempt to say they are pretty much fact. And that's bullshit. Here are pictures of 11 of the most fascinating craters on Earth. Every single one has lifted walls with a depressed inner area. None are inverted like the supposed Chicxulub crater. Even the images used in articles for Chicxulub look NOTHING like the topo map of this area. I'll post it again for reference. https://www.touropia.com/impact-craters-on-earth/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_39_52-Window-2387294.png https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_45_49-Clipboard-2387306.png View Quote Whether the impact crater caused a major extinction by itself or in part or even if the crater is THE crater has room for arguments and refinements. However, impact craters are well understood and we have more tools to investigate and evaluate them than ever before even if the results are completely not understood by you. You lack the ability and curiosity to question yourself first. The nearest tectonic plate boundary is well to the south of the southern side of the Yucatan peninsula. You posted pics of 11 craters and most of them were nowhere near as old as the 66 million year old crater except for # six which is 142 million years old. You have no problem accepting that crater and it's roundness despite being more than twice as old. You are not able to understand the concepts of sedimentation, rebound and erosion even after posting the 11 craters where each of those effects are described. You talk about clay while completely missing the significance of abnormally high amounts of iridium in the layer being discussed. |
|
Quoted: Given the considerable evidence that exists I can say with the same certainty that 12,000 years ago on any random Thursday (before the concept of Thursday even existed) that at the equator the sun rose in the east and set in the west that day. That is how overwhelming the support is for the Chicxulub crater to have been a large rock from space that hit what is the current day Yucatan peninsula. As for the "clay all over the globe" everywhere that the K-T boundary is preserved as a depositional contact, a place where there wasn't a period of erosion that would result in an uncomformity, there is iridium enrichment, that does in fact occur with a thin clay deposit that occurs everywhere on the planet that the contact can be observed intact. Iridium is exceedingly rare in the earths crust and this thin layer is enriched about 100 times the typical concentration. There is no better explanation than the source of the iridium enriched clay was ash that spread world wide. The clay also contains shocked quartz (quartz grains that have a fractured texture that only occurs if the crystals have been subjected to a shock force), there's also tektites within the clay layer at some localities, tektites are basically made of tiny droplets of molten rock that cools in the air. Iridium enrichment doesn't occur with volcanic ash, and shocked quartz also doesn't occur with volcanic eruptions, sometimes scoria and ejecta can look like tektites but the nature of formation generally means that similar volcanic material has more bubbles in it. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/training/illustrations/chicxulub-crater/preview/21.jpg Shocked quartz grains from K-T boundary deposits. Here's a classic example of a far smaller and much younger crater, first thought to be volcanic in origin until some of the above commented features (shockedquartz, tecktites) were observed around the crater. https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/38136210.cms?resizemode=75&width=1200&height=900 The steeper walls are better preserved because this crater is only 50,000 years old, not 65 Million, so there is 1,300 times less erosion to flatten the boundaries. The other main reason that the geometry is different is that larger impact craters have a more significant melted portion and the crust plastically deforms and rebounds in the same way that throwing a small rock in mud makes a crater, but a large rock makes a splash in the mud and some of the mud flows back into the hole. Here's an example of a similar feature on the moon where there is no erosion to obscure the detail. https://www.lpi.usra.edu/exploration/training/illustrations/chicxulub-crater/preview/17.jpg I would like to go on but have to get back to some data collection. View Quote Nu uh. |
|
Quoted: Your comparison to gravity is disingenuous because humans are here to experience gravity and learn about it directly. Nobody was here to experience any of these events that supposedly happened millions of years ago. So it's not a valid comparison at all. So are you saying you know for sure that a huge asteroid crashed in this area and spread clay over the entire globe? You can say that for certain? Can you explain why the crater is a very shallow depression around the crash site? We've seen other asteroid craters, even on the moon and other planets... are there any that caused a shallow groove instead of high walls? Can you explain why this circular groove is still almost perfectly round after what you say was 66 millions years of plates moving and continents shifting? Are you saying the Earth deformed so dramatically that it inverted the crater yet maintained almost perfect symmetry? I'm at least giving examples and facts to question these claims. What have you provided to prove that these things happened as you say they did? I'm not saying they are wrong, but more importantly, I'm not trying to say I know what happened. I'm only questioning things that make absolutely no sense to the facts presented. Everyone that has tried to counter me has just given me complicated explanations of what a theory or hypothesis is, in an attempt to say they are pretty much fact. And that's bullshit. Here are pictures of 11 of the most fascinating craters on Earth. Every single one has lifted walls with a depressed inner area. None are inverted like the supposed Chicxulub crater. Even the images used in articles for Chicxulub look NOTHING like the topo map of this area. I'll post it again for reference. https://www.touropia.com/impact-craters-on-earth/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_39_52-Window-2387294.png https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_45_49-Clipboard-2387306.png View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So all of that just to say that some of the "scientific community" mostly agrees on a hypothesis right? And they still don't know absolutely 100%, correct? What about scientists that don't agree with what you are saying, are they wrong? Almost nothing is known absolutely 100%. If how gravity works can't be explained absolutely 100% does that mean noting we know about gravity is correct? And scientific disagreement being "wrong" depends on the reasoning for disagreement, if it's based on a preconceived bias that whatever is said is obviously wrong, then it's disingenuous. If there's a competing set of reasoning then it's not settled. Your comparison to gravity is disingenuous because humans are here to experience gravity and learn about it directly. Nobody was here to experience any of these events that supposedly happened millions of years ago. So it's not a valid comparison at all. So are you saying you know for sure that a huge asteroid crashed in this area and spread clay over the entire globe? You can say that for certain? Can you explain why the crater is a very shallow depression around the crash site? We've seen other asteroid craters, even on the moon and other planets... are there any that caused a shallow groove instead of high walls? Can you explain why this circular groove is still almost perfectly round after what you say was 66 millions years of plates moving and continents shifting? Are you saying the Earth deformed so dramatically that it inverted the crater yet maintained almost perfect symmetry? I'm at least giving examples and facts to question these claims. What have you provided to prove that these things happened as you say they did? I'm not saying they are wrong, but more importantly, I'm not trying to say I know what happened. I'm only questioning things that make absolutely no sense to the facts presented. Everyone that has tried to counter me has just given me complicated explanations of what a theory or hypothesis is, in an attempt to say they are pretty much fact. And that's bullshit. Here are pictures of 11 of the most fascinating craters on Earth. Every single one has lifted walls with a depressed inner area. None are inverted like the supposed Chicxulub crater. Even the images used in articles for Chicxulub look NOTHING like the topo map of this area. I'll post it again for reference. https://www.touropia.com/impact-craters-on-earth/ https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_39_52-Window-2387294.png https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/167167/2022-05-17_14_45_49-Clipboard-2387306.png Again, Le Sigh. I see you still haven't read much of anything. Gravity maps, cenotes, core samples and other proxies give us a pretty good picture. ![]() ![]() |
|
Quoted: I poked around the first 3 links and I've read several dozen articles throughout my life. I know there are pieces of evidence that scientists look at and theorize how these things can be. But that's all it is, a theory. Not one scientist can tell you for certain that these events happened as theorized. If you look at scientific papers, you'll see so many things stated as facts and then theories are formed based on those facts. But go look at those "facts" and most of the time you'll find those are just theories too. I gotta get back to work but just for an example, take basically any statement in the first article like this one: You have the Cretaceous Period and Tertiary Period. Both of those periods in time are nothing more than theories if you truly get down to it. How do they know these periods actually happened during those years? And they took samples from "several sites around the world". That is very little evidence to suggest clay layer was spread all over it due to an event. The Earth is HUGE and several core samples are really freaking small. All I'm saying is scientific research has a tendency to build theories on top of theories on top of theories. The more theories that are made, the more the upstream theories are accepted without question. But I can say with absolute certainty that nobody really knows. Not one single person that has ever stepped foot on this Earth REALLY knows what happened to it millions of years before. View Quote ![]() |
|
Quoted: Given the considerable evidence that exists I can say with the same certainty that 12,000 years ago on any random Thursday (before the concept of Thursday even existed) that at the equator the sun rose in the east and set in the west that day. That is how overwhelming the support is for the Chicxulub crater to have been a large rock from space that hit what is the current day Yucatan peninsula. [snip] Here's a classic example of a far smaller and much younger crater, first thought to be volcanic in origin until some of the above commented features (shockedquartz, tecktites) were observed around the crater. https://static.toiimg.com/thumb/38136210.cms?resizemode=75&width=1200&height=900 [snip] View Quote ![]() |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.