Slashdot Mirror


Volcanoes May Have Caused Mass Extinctions?

Hugh Pickens writes "According to recent research, huge amounts of sulphur dioxide released by volcanic eruptions may have had more to do with wiping out dinosaurs than the meteorite strike at Chicxulub on Mexico's Yucatán Peninsula. Marine sediments drilled from the Chicxulub crater have revealed that that the mass extinctions occurred 300,000 years after Chicxulub hit Earth. The Deccan volcanism was a long cumulative process that released vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. '"On land it must have been 7-8 degrees warmer," says Princeton University paleontologist Gerta Keller. "The Chicxulub impact alone could not have caused the mass extinction, because this impact predates the mass extinction."' Keller also postulates a second larger and still unidentified meteor strike after Chicxulub, that left the famous extraterrestrial layer of iridium found in rocks worldwide and pushed earth's ecosystem over the brink. But where's the crater? "I wish I knew," says Keller."

210 comments

  1. Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Chicxulub impact alone could not have caused the mass extinction, because this impact predates the mass extinction.

    For the Chicxulub impact to have caused the mass extinction, it *must* have predated the mass extinction. How's it going to cause a mass extinction if it takes place after the mass extinction occurs?

    1. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because a seperation of 300,000 years removes the impact as a reasonable source of the mass extinction.

    2. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought cavemen hunted dinosaurs to extinction, right ?

    3. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by SnowNinja · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the Chicxulub impact to have caused the mass extinction, it *must* have predated the mass extinction. How's it going to cause a mass extinction if it takes place after the mass extinction occurs?
      I think what they're trying to say is that 300,000 years is a little long to actually attribute the mass extinction to the meteor. If it were the direct cause, the extinctions would have occured in a much more narrow time frame.
    4. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      >>I think what they're trying to say is that 300,000 years is a little long to actually attribute the mass extinction to the meteor. If it were the direct cause, the extinctions would have occured in a much more narrow time frame.

      I would Love to know the margin of error radioactive carbon dating has at a 65 million year old site, where other radioactive elements were deposited.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    5. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by IdleTime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gerta Keller... *sigh*

      I think everyone should take her research with quite a few grains of salt, she has been in a bitter fight for years over this issue and she has been quite obnoxious when it comes to the topic of Chicxulub and mass extinction. Until this is confirmed by independent research, nobody should take it for gold.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    6. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by ByOhTek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Given that radiocarbon dating looses too much accuracy to be useful somewhere between 5k and 10k years... I seriously doubt they used that. Especially since it wasn't mentioned in the article.

      Some quick (20 second) searching found some things you might like to enlighten yourself with.
      Radometric dating, methods other than just carbon
      They probably used thermoluminescence dating.

      --
      Self proclaimed typo king, and inventor of the bear destroying coffee table (patent not pending).
    7. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by YouTookMyStapler · · Score: 4, Informative

      Volcanoes not only belch out gas, but aerosol droplets and ash are blasted into the stratosphere during major eruptions. If the major gas component of eruptions is carbon dioxide, that "evil" global warming gas, it will cause temps to increase globally. While on the other hand, if sulfur dioxide is the major component of an eruption it can lead to an over all global temperature drop. [pulling info from my brain from college courses]

      If volcanoes, globally, are belching out a massive amount of gas, it will eventually lead to a dramatic change in atmospheric conditions. The altered atmospheric conditions will then have the domino effect on global climate. Any dramatic fluctuation in climate obviously didn't occur over a short period of time, but would have affected the dinosaurs in the long run(droughts, famine or temperatures they were not able to adapt to) and, in short, lead to the Darwinian 'survival of the fittest'. The mammals were the ones that were able to adapt, so they 'took over'.

    8. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are misinformed at best, there are other radio couples around than C14, which has an half life in the range of the 5000 years.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14

    9. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by wish+bot · · Score: 3, Informative

      Unfortunately, Keller is about the only person who believes the date of the impact is 300,000 years earlier than the extinction. A lot of people have issues with the location and interpretation of the core samples she has taken to create this theory - directly from the impact site. To me, trying to analyse samples from the impact site of an explosion 2 million times more powerful than our largest nuclear bomb blast is a pretty insane thing to do - it'd be like trying to read the tea leaves in your cup of tea after someone ran a bulldozer through your house, set fire to the rubble, dug it up and sent it to the dump.

      --
      lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
    10. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And Walter Alverez attached the name of his Nobel-winning father onto his papers to gain instant "credibility". There are quite a few holes in the asteroid theory, just as there are with the Deccan Traps theory. The scientific method involves taking an objective look at ALL of the evidence. It's totally possible that neither one of these theories explains the true cause of the K-T extinction.

    11. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      I have already read both of those. Oddly enough eveyrthing that can reach back to 65.5 million years ago has an error rate of ~200,00 years or so.

      Whether or not they factored this in is something the article doesn't address.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    12. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, about 4000 to 6000 years ago. Can you believe we have come so far in so little time? Thanks God.

    13. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Miraba · · Score: 1

      Apparently there's some controversy as to whether the gap is a result of normal geological activity or a direct result of the impact. See the last paragraph of this section.

    14. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      For the Chicxulub impact to have caused the mass extinction, it *must* have predated the mass extinction. How's it going to cause a mass extinction if it takes place after the mass extinction occurs?

      Geologic timescales. Here, 'predated' implies 'predated significantly enough such as to be unrelated.' This is understood by everyone who isn't trying to be as pedantic as humanly possible.

    15. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by rujholla · · Score: 1

      Sorry not trying to pick nits but is that 200,000 with a missing zero or 20,000 with a misplaced comma?

    16. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's like you shoot your friend in the back tonight, and (s)he dies in 2010. It's not that your friend no longer died after you fired the gun, but rather the 2-3 year wait kinda cancels the 'smoking gun' effect.

      If, on the other hand, the prosecution produces evidence that you shot your friend in the head, and then your friend went into a coma for 2-3 years before dying, then they might still have good grounds for a murder charge.

      Such a coma effect might be if we could show that the 300,000 years of increased vulcanism arose shortly after (and, thus, was probably caused by) the force of the Chicxulub impact.

      Oh, and I'm of the opinion that the second impact near the main Chicxulub crater was simply a 'b' fragment of the larger asteroid...

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    17. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Parent post makes a very important point. Vulcanism may raise or lower global tempuratures, depending on CO2 output vs ash tossed into the upper atmosphere. The more energetic the volcano, the more likely it would have a net cooling effect, as the more particulate matter/SO2/etc would be sent high enough to matter long term. The Year Without A Summer, for example wasn't that long ago, and wasn't very impressive volcanic activity (of course, the effect didn't last long either).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    18. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by IdleTime · · Score: 2, Informative

      Aye! This is true.

      Esp. in this area since the two parties are so at the throat of each other that it is difficult to take anything they say for good fish. Gerta Keller is quite hateful and very angry because her funding was taken away after some umm unconventional outbursts from her side.

      --
      If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
    19. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, not thermoluminescence. It's application is mainly very young samples (geologically speaking) in archaeology. You're right that carbon wouldn't be used either, because it decays far too fast (half life of about 5000 years, and after 10 half-lives it gets difficult to measure the parent versus daughter isotopic ratios reliably). The isotopic systems used in the time range of the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary are usually either K-Ar (or sometimes the related Ar-Ar), U-Pb, or Rb/Sr, and sometimes all three are used on the same rock samples.

    20. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      It's like you shoot your friend in the back tonight, and (s)he dies in 2010. It's not that your friend no longer died after you fired the gun, but rather the 2-3 year wait kinda cancels the 'smoking gun' effect.

      Actually, depending on where the person was shot in the back, the bullet could indeed kill them a number of years later.

      Likewise, it's not impossible that, even if she's right about the time difference (which is debatable as others have pointed out), the meteor strike could have set off a series of events that led to the demise of the dinosuars.

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    21. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by karmic_penguin · · Score: 1

      The absolute maximum extent that radiocarbon dating can be used is actually somewhere between 50 to 60k years, but even so that's a far cry from 65 million years. The articles don't mention the dating method, but perhaps it was Potassium-Argon or some similar method, which have much longer half lives.

    22. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      it'd be like trying to read the tea leaves in your cup of tea after someone ran a bulldozer through your house, set fire to the rubble, dug it up and sent it to the dump.

      In my house, we call that Tuesday.

      -Gil Grissom

    23. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      Yes, C14 dating is never used when dealing with millions of years. It is useful up to +20,000 years, and loses all significant accuracy after 40,000-50,000 years. Thermoluminescence can't be used to targets as old as 65 million years, either, both it and C14 are used more in archeology than paleontology (except in quaternary geology and paleontology). My wild guess about the method they used in dating the Chixulub impact site is argon-argon dating. Google will probably tell you more with "chixulub" and "dating".

    24. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      It really was noxious gases, but they didn't come from a volcano.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    25. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      ... or 200 with two decimal places written French style?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    26. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This proves the theory of houses exploding after exposure to tea leaves. Incidentally, this theory was also composed by Keller.

    27. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google "chicxulub" "dating"

      ....

      Did you mean "chicks club" "dating"?

      [PDF]Characterising Chicxulub Impact Ejecta: Dating the Event Stratigraphy File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Characterising Chicxulub Impact Ejecta: Dating the. Event Stratigraphy. Markus Harting (1). (1) Utrecht University, Faculty of Geosciences, Budapestlaan, ... www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/04452/EGU06-J-04452.pdf - Similar pages - Note this

    28. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      The more energetic the volcano, the more likely it would have a net cooling effect, as the more particulate matter/SO2/etc would be sent high enough to matter long term.

      You're forgetting (or not mentioning) that the residence time of the particulates in the atmosphere is at most a year or two ; the corresponding residence time for CO3 is decades to centuries.
      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    29. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Hel-lo!

      Only HUMANS can cause Climate Change, silly!

      ( Like Mother Nature would do that! LOL! )

    30. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by lgw · · Score: 1

      And if the vulcanism is ongoing for decades or centuries? The Earth has been very cool at times in the past when CO2 levels were very high.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    31. Re:Pre hoc ergo propter hoc? by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 1
      I'm not saying that the two facts exclude a cause-effect relationship -- just that they're not sufficient to prove cause and effect.

      It may be, for example, that it takes 2 years for the bullet to work it's way into the victim's spinal column. On the other hand, it may be that the victim jumped off a bridge after accidentally running over their child.

      A lot can happen in the space of 3 (or 300,000 ) years. Without extra evidence it's almost silly to claim that either (or neither) branch is what happened.

      --
      OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
  2. North or south poles? by mrkitty · · Score: 1

    Obviously they've hunted land they can see, maybe look under the ice? Just recently greenland discovered a new island when some ice melted.

    --
    Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
    1. Re:North or south poles? by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      I think you'd have to go a long way down. I think Anywhere with ancient surface easily available would be OK. Mountains are more likely to be a good place, since deep ancient surfaces are uplifted.

      It's not so easy to find good sites though, Time is money, and there isn't much of either available usually. Most places where you can find good rock are out of the way, and many have only a few months of the year you can be there.

    2. Re:North or south poles? by mrkitty · · Score: 1

      You'd think they'd be able to use some NASA technologies (xray, heat, whatever else they use to probe the cosmos) from space or something to see through the ice, then identify suspect patterns. Money for sure is an issue.

      --
      Believe me, if I started murdering people, there would be none of you left.
    3. Re:North or south poles? by Burz · · Score: 1

      Funny you should mention that.

      I recall reading several years ago about a gigantic impact site located between Australia and Antarctica. I don't recall when it was supposed to have hit.

  3. where's the crater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    But where's the crater? "I wish I knew

    Its gotta be in Oklahoma. Trust me, that place is a **** hole!

  4. Xenu by jas_public · · Score: 3, Funny

    This sounds like an L. Ron Hubbard story.

    1. Re:Xenu by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Did dinosaurs fly B-52 shaped spaceships?

    2. Re:Xenu by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 3, Funny

      No, but Tyrannosaurs fly F-14s.

  5. Welcome to Kindergarten by cromar · · Score: 1

    I know the circumstances of the dinosaur's extinction are controversial, but this is what they tought me way back in elementary school...

    1. Re:Welcome to Kindergarten by Derek+Loev · · Score: 1

      My professor just made us watch Dinosaur . I thought that was a non-fiction movie?

  6. Doh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative
    How's it going to cause a mass extinction if it takes place after the mass extinction occurs?


    If you had ate least read the summary, you would have realized that this "predate" here means 300000 years...

  7. Well it looks as if by Deleriux · · Score: 0, Troll

    Tom Cruise and John Travolta were right about Xenu all along!

    1. Re:Well it looks as if by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So this is what happens when members of the CoS get mod points? Some people have zero sense of humor.

  8. is it warm in here? by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Deccan volcanism was a long cumulative process that released vast amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

    Yeah, but with our advanced technology, we can cut that time in half.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  9. Easy by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Funny

    It shouldn't be that hard to work it out, after all, wasn't it only about ten thousand years ago it happened? /ducks :)

    1. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      *Touches rucs_hack with his noodly appendage*

  10. Let me get this correct by BlowHole666 · · Score: 1

    So the earth is 4.5 billion years old. This person is talking about 300,000 years. So if my math is correct 300,000 / 4,500,000,000 = 00.0066666% of the total life span of the earth. That time span is less then 1% of the total time the earth has been around. How can their data be that accurate to know the temperatures when up X degrees etc. I know carbon dating is quite accurate but to know the temperature by looking at a sliver of time. Thats like knowing how much is in my bank account by looking at 3 pennies.

    --
    I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    1. Re:Let me get this correct by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Hah! I can tell how much is in my bank account by looking at TWO pennies! I win.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:Let me get this correct by BlowHole666 · · Score: 0

      Let me guess 2 pennies?

      --
      I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    3. Re:Let me get this correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm, you are wrong the earth is not that old, is 6000yo at best, read the bible idiot.

    4. Re:Let me get this correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Zero, obviously. You have to take the pennies out to look at them.

    5. Re:Let me get this correct by BlowHole666 · · Score: 1

      Did the Bible mention dinosaurs? If it did not...maybe you should start your own post talking about how dinosaurs never existed.

      --
      I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
    6. Re:Let me get this correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They wouldnt be using Carbon Dating for something like this anyway. The furthest back anything has been Radio Carbon Dated is about 60,000 ya. Potassium Argon Dating would be used for any substance in contact with Volcanic activity and it acuratly dates archeological sites up to 4 bya.

    7. Re:Let me get this correct by prelelat · · Score: 1

      The Bible didn't mention AIDs either but what can you do.

    8. Re:Let me get this correct by timmarhy · · Score: 0

      AIDS came after the bible, so obviously it's not going to be in it, thank you captain obvious

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    9. Re:Let me get this correct by prelelat · · Score: 1

      well obviously so did dinosaurs :P

      now who looks stupid.

    10. Re:Let me get this correct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only MY account was that large. *sigh*

  11. Ridiculous... by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 4, Funny

    Everyone knows that the earth is only 6000 years old, as evidenced here They even have models of Eve with vegetarian Raptors. See. I do not understand why anyone pays any attention to these activist scientists. Duh...

    1. Re:Ridiculous... by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      Vegatarian Raptors? Heh. Is that really an exhibit? I'd go see it, but I'd probably wet myself from laughing.

      What does a Raptor with six inch claws eat? Anything it wants.

    2. Re:Ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      well, to tell the true they got all my attention when they said Chicx u lub...

    3. Re:Ridiculous... by Empiric · · Score: 1

      Well... not according to Jesus.

      When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into existence before you, which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!

      --Gospel of Thomas

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    4. Re:Ridiculous... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1, Funny

      Ha ha ha! Oh gosh that's funny! That's really funny! Do you write your own material? Do you? Because that is so fresh. "Everyone knows that the earth is only 6000 years old". You know, I've never heard anyone make that joke before. Hmm. You're the first. I've never heard anyone reference that on Slashdot before. Because that's what the religious people say in church right? Isn't it? "The earth is only 6000 years old". And, and yet you've taken that and used it out of context to insult people who are different than you in this everyday situation. God what a clever, smart person you must be, to come up with a joke like that all by yourself. That's so fresh too. Any Titanic jokes you want to throw out there as long as we're hitting these phenomena at the height of their popularity?

      God you're so funny!

      (Apologies to Seth MacFarlane)

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    5. Re:Ridiculous... by seededfury · · Score: 1
    6. Re:Ridiculous... by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Actually, I myself am a practicing catholic and consider myself among the faithful. That said, I have no issues with any other religion or belief system. I merely poke fun at those who insist on keeping their head in the sand AND forcing their world-view on other people.

    7. Re:Ridiculous... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't think the earth is 6000 years old, either, but I'm sick to death of hearing this exact same joke repeated again and again and again every time something even remotely tied to the distant past is brought up on Slashdot. I guarantee we'll see the exact same joke told at least a half dozen times here.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    8. Re:Ridiculous... by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Maybe my estimate is a bit low; there are already three such posts (including yours). That's 4% of the postings here.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    9. Re:Ridiculous... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      there's something deeply ironic about some dude taking another dude to task over his use of an overused worn-out dig by dragging out an overused, worn-out insult.

      i like the family guy bit. or well, i liked it the first 50 times somebody cribbed it.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    10. Re:Ridiculous... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      If we were allowed to brand morons, you wouldn't have to listen to the jokes. Unfortunately, they get equal time on the floor AND we can't mark them. Until then they must be ridiculed as the morons they are, lest we forget how stupid our fellow man can be.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    11. Re:Ridiculous... by gentlemen_loser · · Score: 4, Interesting

      And I'll keep telling it, and others like it until the groups who subscribe to such theories STOP pushing it on everyone else (ala school boards calling evolution into question, government policy decisions being based on it, etc.). I believe that such policies are dangerous as they are pushing our educational system backwards, thereby potentially triggering a landslide of bad side effects (intolerance, war, and damage to the economy, to name a few). You'll notice that I have never, nor will I ever, make an Amish (or other such group) joke. I politely disagree with their position, but fully recognize and respect their right to practice those beliefs. Its when those beliefs start being rammed down my throat that I take issue...

    12. Re:Ridiculous... by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, wait, let me get this right. The "6000 years" thing is so obviously stupid that no one should accuse Christians of believing it, but the part where Christians believe that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in all humans because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree and thereby pissing off an invisible wizard who lives in the sky -- that part -- is not obviously stupid at all, but obviously true?

      For simplicty, please list which fairy tales you do and don't believe in, so we can insult your *actual* beliefs?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    13. Re:Ridiculous... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      You'll notice that I have never, nor will I ever, make an Amish (or other such group) joke.

      I do, but that's because they're pretty much tied with Buddhist Monks for being the group least likely to hear my jokes, and group least likely to punch me if they did.

      Fundies of the shove-it-down-your-throat variety may be more deserving of jokes, but they're a lot more likely to beat me up. :(

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Ridiculous... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      You can mark them as 'foes' and change your settings so you'll never see their comments again.

    15. Re:Ridiculous... by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 0, Troll

      It must be convenient to live in a world where you get to completely describe the entire worldview of your opponents in a single run-on sentence.

    16. Re:Ridiculous... by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      chicx u lube - The new competitor for K-Y Jelly.

    17. Re:Ridiculous... by Starvingboy · · Score: 0

      Would this be a bad time for one of those "You must be new here" jokes?

    18. Re:Ridiculous... by towermac · · Score: 1

      Well shit; they're practically begging for it then.

    19. Re:Ridiculous... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I'm sick to death of hearing this exact same joke repeated again and again
      It's equally possible that there are people who'd have to come back as zombies (so they could be sick to death twice) of people like you who go on and on and fucking on about it all the time. Not saying it's so, but had you thought about that?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    20. Re:Ridiculous... by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      In that case, could you please stop preaching to the choir and direct your vitriol at the people who are actually doing the pushing instead? Ranting on /. isn't going to help.

    21. Re:Ridiculous... by jbengt · · Score: 1

      You "Reader's Digest"ed the plot, but left out the theme:

      All people deserve to live.
      All people deserve to die.
      not necessarily in that order.

    22. Re:Ridiculous... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sigh. The only thing more boorish and annoying than the hardcore creationists is the people who have some strange need to take potshots at them in every single damn science article. These kinds of comments are twice as stupid as the creationists ever were.

    23. Re:Ridiculous... by cyphercell · · Score: 1

      I browse my foes list at +5, so I can play whack a mole when they come out. I usually come to respect these people eventually that way, anyways making fun of stupid people is just a public service nerds have an obligation to fulfill, if we don't have enough smart people around they will start burning us at the stake again.

      --
      Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
    24. Re:Ridiculous... by E++99 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure how many morons are pushing 6,000-year-old earth theories. But the much more successful morons are the ones pushing CO2-induced global warming theories (especially the ones with mod points). If we can brand the combined group with "moron" insignias, I'd be satisfied.

  12. Cause by rossdee · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe the meteor impact caused the volcanos to start up.

    1. Re:Cause by rucs_hack · · Score: 2, Funny

      There is a theory that this is what happened. The Siberian Traps were already going, they were a long term thing, but they had an upsurge of activity that was seriously bad for the environment at around the time the Asteroid hit, or so I recall, it was a while ago I learned this. Wait a bit and I'm sure a slashdotr technorati will provide the ref :)

    2. Re:Cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i was under the impression the siberian traps caused the permian mass extinction and were not active in the triassic.

    3. Re:Cause by Miraba · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's already been proposed. See the entry on the Shiva crater.

    4. Re:Cause by Anthony · · Score: 1

      That is correct, though the latest evidence suggests they at least contributed to the Permian/Triassic extinction. The Deccan traps, however, in India were the ones active at the end of the Cretaceous.

      --
      Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
  13. Not just warmer by russ1337 · · Score: 1

    ...it must have been 7-8 degrees warmer..
    and a whole lot tighter, right?

    right?
  14. Oblig futurama by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fry: What killed off the dinosaurs?

    Giant Super Brain: Me!

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  15. More likely multiple causes by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Because our historical estimations from geologic and weather events more than 1 million years in the past are so broadly inaccurate, it is highly likely that it was a combination of widescale epidemics combined with supervolcano eruptions and other stress factors.

    Sometimes the answer is not A, B, C, or D. Sometimes the answer is A, B, C and D.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  16. DO NOT ask that question on slashdot by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think we've all seen the crater by this point.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:DO NOT ask that question on slashdot by repvik · · Score: 1

      Lame mods. Parent is humor. If you don't get it, you must be new here ;)

  17. maybe it was both by dominux · · Score: 1

    How about a huge impact somewhere in the south Pacific west of Chili, this caused a shockwave rippling out from there around the world. The shockwave ripples then reconverged on the opposite side of the world in India, causing the Deccan Traps to go pop. I figured out the likely location using the wonderful Earth Sandwich tool http://www.zefrank.com/sandwich/tool.html

    1. Re:maybe it was both by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 1

      Too much plate tectonics between then and now, but there are theories that try to figure out where a strike might have hit to do this.

    2. Re:maybe it was both by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      I figured out the likely location using the wonderful Earth Sandwich tool

      Nice try, but it must be wrong; Dad said we could dig a hole straight down to China, but that we shouldn't because all the commies would come pouring through.

  18. Possible craters by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    A crater all that big would be pretty obvious, i.e. Hudson Bay or possibly the general Yucatan shape. I vote for the Yucatan because maybe it followed the other rock in right behind it and hit harder, which is why the one famous crater is so hard to see land-wise. Maybe the 300,000 years is how long the iridium took to land back on earth from being jettisoned into our atmosphere and/or beyond. (gravity)

    --
    stuff |
    1. Re:Possible craters by Jeremy_Bee · · Score: 1

      I vote for the shallow sea in between India and Asia (now the Himalayas). It might also explain why India was traveling so fast when it hit Asia.

    2. Re:Possible craters by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Jokes aside search for "Shiva Crater". Just found it myself and it sounds like the crater you are looking for.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    3. Re:Possible craters by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Just read what I posted :-) "Found it" in the sense "found references about it on the net" :-)

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
  19. Where is the second, larger crater? by magarity · · Score: 1

    But where's the crater? "I wish I knew," says Keller."
     
    It's the entire Gulf of Mexico. I mean, it's obvious from the shape of the thing.
     
    Remember you read it here first.

    1. Re:Where is the second, larger crater? by netsavior · · Score: 1

      can I join your fan club? My first thought was "Under the antartic cap of course" but I think the gulf is the best cosmo-conspiracy theory yet. (an no I am not being sarcastic)

    2. Re:Where is the second, larger crater? by LotsOfPhil · · Score: 1

      the gulf is two craters overlapping. try the sea of japan instead.

      --
      This post climbed Mt. Washington.
  20. Volcanoes May Have Caused Mass Extinctions? by Fx.Dr · · Score: 3, Funny

    DUH! The Church of Scientology has been saying this for years now, people! Get with the times!

    1. Re: Volcanoes May Have Caused Mass Extinctions? by ReTay · · Score: 1

      DUH! The Church of Scientology has been saying this for years now, people! Get with the times!
        (Score:-1, Troll)

      All right who gave mod points to a bivalve?
      (And yes I am sure everyone else would have found that funny.)

    2. Re: Volcanoes May Have Caused Mass Extinctions? by magarity · · Score: 1

      DUH! The Church of Scientology has been saying this for years now, people! Get with the times!
       
      Parent is FUNNY via witty sarcasm and reasonably on topic not TROLL.
       
      OK, not 5 but at least 2 or 3.

  21. that's what by Herr+Proktor · · Score: 0

    L. Ron has been trying to tell you people for years!

  22. We already knew this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We already knew this was the case, or at the very least that the deccan traps magma plume was a major contributor to that particular mass extinction.

    This is so well accepted that it was in fact part of my Earth Science lecture today, my undergraduate FIRST year lecture.

  23. So, what, a few by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    Massive-ass Earth Farts, and Ka-Phooey! That's all it took?

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  24. Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Informative
    The idea that absolute dating techniques can survive catastrophic events without the introduction of abnormalities is rather presumptive. Just last week, there was an announcement that uranium isotopes are not invariant ...

    http://http//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071023103947.htm

    What is the cause of the extraneous decay?

    One Russian researcher has performed a simple experiment that demonstrates a statistical enigma within decay rates that mysteriously correlates with movements of the stars, the Sun and the Moon ...

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/time.html

    Charles Ginenthal has written a scathing 17-page paper on the problems associated with absolute dating titled "Scientific Dating Methods In Ruins". Of relevance ...

    If it were shown that careful radiocarbon testing of an item of known age, uniformly contaminated by its surrounding environment, gave one age as a result of repeated testing or testing by several laboratories, then there would be no question regarding the concept of the technique. Let us remember that a jawbone, repeatedly tested, failed to give the same data again and again. What then of a blind test, conducted by several laboratories, of an artifact of known age? This is a crucial experiment!

    In fact, the denouement came in 1989, with a blind test, conducted by the British Science and Engineering Research Council (BSERC), at 38 of the world's leading radiocarbon testing laboratories. According to Andy Coghlan, the council commissioned a blind trial that compared the accuracy with which 38 laboratories around the world dated artifacts of known age. An item of known age was divided into 38 parts. One part was sent to each testing laboratory for a full measurement of its age. After careful testing by the 38 laboratories, only seven produced results that the organizers of the trial considered to be satisfactory.(28) At the August, 1990, Symposium of the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Gunnar Heinsohn read from a newspaper account of the BSERC meeting, at which this evidence was disclosed. None of the testing laboratories achieved a correct date, even with plus or minus tolerances, and many were off by thousands of years.

    Another interesting part ...

    Frank C. Hibben also discussed the process of radiocarbon dating. After outlining several problems associated with using this method, he stated that "[e]ven with these drawbacks and pitfalls...archaeologists and laboratory technicians began to hammer out the exact history of the earliest Americans. The dates badly out of line were disregarded."(13) (Emphasis added.) With what were dates badly out of line? They were out of line with the accepted and established chronology of the history of the American continent. As Robert E. Lee informed us above, this is, apparently, quite common. Regarding this same point, Ron Willis stated that "[t]here are anomalous dates in the series [of dates] which do not fit. This is common in the C-14 process. LIKE ANY GOOD ARCHAEOLOGIST, I WILL IGNORE THE DATES THAT DO NOT FIT."(14) (Emphasis added.) Once again, we are informed that dates that do not fit the accepted chronology are ignored. We are told that finding anomalous radiocarbon dates is a common occurrence and that good archaeologists will ignore anomalous dating evidence.

    Not everybody agrees that there is validity to these dates ...

    "The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results," wrote R. E. Lee. "There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected." - R. E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error," ANTHROPOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF CANADA, 19 (1981), p. 27

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    1. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The radiocarbon* techniques are very accurate. How accurate depends how far back they go. So when we are talking millions of year, you might have a 25,000 year deviation.

      *Important to note, the use different things for decay depending on the age of the product. Carbon dating with carbon 14 is useless for things over 50,000 years. That's about 9 half lives. So they use other elements with a longer half life.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The above screed brought to you by the Electric Universe nutjob, and modded up by who knows how many idjits with mod points.

      Fake Science in all it's glory.

    3. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by zerocool^ · · Score: 3, Informative


      For starters, the 21st Century Science and Technology is NOT a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a group of quacks. Literally, the magazine (which is not even printed anymore, copies are available now as pdf only) is a thinktank of scientists who challenge "the assumptions of modern scientific dogma, including quantum mechanics, relativity theory, biological reductionism, and the formalization and separation of mathematics from physics." (from their statement of purpose).

      Furthermore, the "21st century" publication follows the line of groupthink known as the LaRouche Movement, a wacky pseudo-political group of conspiracy theorists and nutcases. Their group spews fascist, anti-semetic ideology like it's going out of style.

      That alone makes your bullshit transparent, but you state that you want something other than attacks on credentials (I happen to believe that scientists stand or fall on their credentials, including past bodies of work, but whatever). So, in a nutshell, Radiometric Dating, including Carbon-14 dating and other methods such as Rubidium-strontium dating and Uranium-lead dating, is EXTREMELY accurate and accepted by all reputable scientists and peer-reviewed scientific journals.

      So, if your russian scientist is the only one shouting that it's inaccurate, we must be left asking "Why does every other scientist accept it, and what is his axe to grind?".

      ~Wx

      --
      sig?
    4. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by huckamania · · Score: 1

      You could have just as easily written "is not" and left it at that.

      The OP made a clear and convincing argument. Showed examples of people doing very non-scientific things like throwing out data that doesn't agree with them. That is just plain wrong.

      Science should be held to a higher standard. It should not kowtow to consensus or preconceived notions. What good is peer review when the reviewers are biased? What good is peer review when articles that challenge the consensus get rejected? It's about as usefull as talkback when someone posts a critical argument and the response is 'is not'.

      Still, the Earth is older then 6k years.

    5. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      The radiocarbon* techniques are very accurate.

      Just to be pedantic, radioisotope dating is precise (by your example), but may not be accurate. Precise indicates that you can get results with many significant figures (like +/-25,000 years out of 65 million). Accurate indicates that you can get results which are correct.

      It is possible to have precision without accuracy. The parent post was suggesting radiometric dating suffers from inaccuracy, you have claimed it does not suffer from imprecision. You might both be right.

    6. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'd love to hear *reasons* for why these people would be wrong (as opposed to attacks on their credentials). Why do we place so much confidence in dating techniques when there is apparently quite a bit of controversy about them, and in spite of demonstrations that there may be significant problems?

      The controversey and 'demonstrations' are mostly from people with an axe to grind - not people interested in the scientific process.
       
      Now, take this quote as prime example:
       

      In fact, the denouement came in 1989, with a blind test, conducted by the British Science and Engineering Research Council (BSERC), at 38 of the world's leading radiocarbon testing laboratories. According to Andy Coghlan, the council commissioned a blind trial that compared the accuracy with which 38 laboratories around the world dated artifacts of known age. An item of known age was divided into 38 parts. One part was sent to each testing laboratory for a full measurement of its age. After careful testing by the 38 laboratories, only seven produced results that the organizers of the trial considered to be satisfactory.(28) At the August, 1990, Symposium of the Canadian Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Gunnar Heinsohn read from a newspaper account of the BSERC meeting, at which this evidence was disclosed. None of the testing laboratories achieved a correct date, even with plus or minus tolerances, and many were off by thousands of years.

      My response? "Well, duh - what did you expect?" Pretty much anyone who has ever studied radiocarbon dating, even amateurs, know that the (raw) figure you get from the lab is damm near dimensionless. The enviroment the item has been exposed to, the material it is made of (and the provenance of said material), etc... etc... all must be considered. It takes quite a bit analysis to turn that raw figure into a date. (Like the problem a friend of mine doing post graduate work in archeology told me - if the item has been exposed to the atmosphere in modern times, it may be contaminated with coal dust, soot, or automobile exhaust.)
       
       

      Frank C. Hibben also discussed the process of radiocarbon dating. After outlining several problems associated with using this method, he stated that "[e]ven with these drawbacks and pitfalls...archaeologists and laboratory technicians began to hammer out the exact history of the earliest Americans. The dates badly out of line were disregarded."

      This, again, falls into the "well, duh" category. Again, pretty much anyone who has ever studied radiocarbon dating and archeology, even amateurs, know that radiocarbon dating is just _one_ method of dating. You have to weigh and compare various dating methods to come up with an accurate date. (For example, if I dig something out and the stratigraphy says "1200's", and the style says "1200's", the the odds are - the thing is from the 1200's, no matter what the radiocarbon dating says.)
       
       

      I'd love to hear *reasons* for why these people would be wrong (as opposed to attacks on their credentials).

      It's not an attack to point out that someone who consistently champions pseudoscience [Ginenthal] is not exactly someone whose word on scientific topics should be taken without a boxcar sized grain of salt.
    7. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Wow. It's amazing that you accept the ambiguity of the dating technique as just a part of the scientific process. And you call Ginenthal a pseudoscientist?

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    8. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      So, all you got is ad hominem? And from an anon account ... Way to take a stand for science!

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    9. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by RealAlaskan · · Score: 1
      ... 21st Century Science and Technology is NOT a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal.

      I won't argue with your assessment. However, they didn't publish the research in question.

      The original article was published in Physics-Uspekhi (Advances in Physical Sciences), which looks like a respectable journal. The English version of the Russian article is here. The abstract doesn't say what 21st Century Sci-Tech says. The reviewer's comments are here.

      If anyone can get access to the full text, let us know if Shnoll, et al did claim that decay rates are variable, and what the reviewers said about it.

    10. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      The study is a Russian study. I think the proper response to ask whether or not people have actually attempted to replicate the experiment? And if not, why is that?

      My understanding is that some of the other quotes in there were from reputable scientists and from reputable peer review journals, btw. If you're going to appeal to credentials, then that should be a two-way street: if somebody *of* credentials says something, then it should be followed up on, right?

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    11. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this really worthy of discussion?

    12. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      What is the error on these geological date estimates? They say in the article that there was a 300,000 year difference. Can they pin down events 65M yrs old to the nearest 100,000 years?

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    13. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      What's your take on the invariant isotopes? Do you dismiss that too?

      Everybody's got beliefs, but if you cannot defend them, then it's improper to outright dismiss people who do not agree with you.

      Many people on Slashdot like to appeal to the idea that popular science *must* be correct because it is inconceivable that so many scientists could be wrong. And yet, when you go back through the record, the history of science is filled with such stories where dogma stood in the way of testing and validating an idea. When I talk to people on Slashdot, I rarely meet people who are much familiar with the stories of science. It doesn't appear to be a very popular subject relative to mathematics and the science itself.

      I also find that many people are pseudo-skeptical. In other words, they do not read about anything that is contradictory to the dominant paradigms in science today. And yet, there is no doubt that there exist fringe concepts of today that will be vindicated in the future. It is in fact the process of science.

      None of it convinces me much that the people here are infallible in their estimations of what is true and not. If people don't accept the value of heretics in science, then there is no discussion and science becomes nothing more than memorization and an empire of belief. There is significant value in forcing people to *think* about and reason through their beliefs. The exchange of ideas invariably educates people on both sides of the issue. More than that, science does not always travel in straight lines. If you think that there are no discoveries that could happen tomorrow that might shake the foundations of science, then you are possibly in for some surprises in your life.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    14. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by samkass · · Score: 1

      It's amazing that you accept the ambiguity of the dating technique as just a part of the scientific process. And you call Ginenthal a pseudoscientist?

      Ambiguity *is* part of the scientific process. Only a pseudoscientist is certain enough to say otherwise.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    15. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where are the articles refuting other dating methods? There are plenty of dating methods apart from carbon dating which operate in different ways with different clocks (and sometimes different time scales for which they are useful). Not much has changed; people still beat radiocarbon though it is the only dating method.

    16. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2BRU.pdf contains an analysis of the analysis (yes, you read that right) of an experiment on tritium, which experiment was apparently inspired by Shnoll's. Interestingly, the analysis was published in a journal (Apeiron) which is known for being of a more -- ahem -- speculative journal than many mainstream scientists are comfortable with.
              The analysis (as spare of details as it is, I admit) is not favorably impressed with the original analysis. I postulate that the mistakes made may also have been made in the original Shnoll paper(s).

    17. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by onion_joe · · Score: 1

      You want a "reason"? How about WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT RADIOCARBON DATING. Christ, how the hell did this tripe get modded informative?

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    18. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by barakn · · Score: 1

      What is the cause of the extraneous decay?
      The article you referenced (with a flawed URL) did not mention extraneous decay. The authors merely stated that the ratios of isotopes varied more than expected depending on the original method of deposition. This partitioning of isotopes has absolutely nothing to do with decay and does not support your argument.

      One Russian researcher has performed a simple experiment that demonstrates a statistical enigma within decay rates that mysteriously correlates with movements of the stars, the Sun and the Moon ...
      So what? Human activity mysteriously correlates with movements of the stars, the Sun and the Moon (though your original reference doesn't mention a lunar cycle, leading me to wonder how well you researched your argument). Perhaps the button on his pants was slightly radioactive and he checked on his experiment the same time every day. Also, cosmic ray rates are well-known to have diurnal and annual cycles and I haven't seen any evidence that the Russian biologist knew enough about this to adequately shield his experiments from them.

      [t]here are anomalous dates in the series [of dates] which do not fit. This is common in the C-14 process. LIKE ANY GOOD ARCHAEOLOGIST, I WILL IGNORE THE DATES THAT DO NOT FIT."(14) (Emphasis added.) Once again, we are informed that dates that do not fit the accepted chronology are ignored. We are told that finding anomalous radiocarbon dates is a common occurrence and that good archaeologists will ignore anomalous dating evidence.
      Finding anomalous radiocarbon dates is a common occurrence. This is not because radiocarbon dating is voodoo but because even a tiny amount of a "new" material (i.e. composed of carbon recently acquired form the atmosphere) can contaminate an older object to give it a radiocarbon date much younger than the actual age of the object. If I took a bore sample from a tree with 500 annual growth rings, carbon-dated the innermost layer, and came up with an age of 100 years, I wouldn't stupidly assume the tree was 100 years old, I would rightly assume that innermost layer had become contaminated with something newer, perhaps the PBJ sandwich I ate right before taking the bore sample. That 10 year data point is one I'd ignore. The converse is not true. It takes quite a large amount of older material to contaminate and therefore shift the age of a newer object. Ages that come out anomalously older than one expects are usually taken quite a bit more seriously.

      Not everybody agrees that there is validity to these dates
      How kind of you to provide quotes of people disagreeing 26 and 30 years ago, or a blind test done 18 years ago. The implication here is that the science couldn't have improved much since then. In fact you go on to say "Have things *really* changed all that much since then? If so, what?" Your mental laziness or coldly-calculated reluctance to study the current state of the science is not the foundation of a good argument. Better instrumentation allows for dating of smaller samples (if an object is partially contaminated, dating the whole thing would come up with an anomalous date while dating of a smaller uncontaminated portion will come up with a proper date). Research on speleothems has shown that varying solar activity has caused varying levels of C14 in the atmosphere which can now be corrected for. Different plants have been shown to absorb different carbon isotopes at slightly different rates. The types of materials that can be dated keeps expanding as protocol are developed for dating them. The assumption that there was only one carbon pool has given way to the realization that there local variations due to (geomagnetic) latitude, nearby carbonate rocks or volcanoes, etc., giving rise to geographical corrections to carbon dates. The science of radiocarbon dating is a fertile and constantly advancing field.
      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    19. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Ambiguity *is* part of the scientific process. Only a pseudoscientist is certain enough to say otherwise.

      Yeah, but your methodology is ambiguous enough to allow for whatever results the peer review journals will permit. How can you possibly fault me for being skeptical of that? I would go so far as to say that anybody who did not exhibit a healthy dose of skepticism towards those results were faking their own skepticism of anybody who doubted them.

      I realize that you probably invested a chunk of change and your life into understanding how to apply those techniques, but for a person who has no vested interest in the methodology, you cannot blame or especially ridicule him for being skeptical. I reserve judgment as to whether or not you guys are right. I only object when people act as if there is some amazing amount of certainty to the technique in spite of the details of the technique.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    20. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their group spews fascist, anti-semetic ideology like it's going out of style. One would hope that it is.
    21. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I can't speak for the other techniques, but I can add that dendrochronology is very tricky. Trees grow rings on the basis of stress, not seasons. A tree on a sloped surface can grow multiple rings per year. If there is a bug infestation, rings can change from that too. Some trees in the tropics grow rings as expected; some do not. Any attempt to use dendrochronology to validate dating techniques or events in the past should be allowed with a healthy dose of skepticism.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    22. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Also, cosmic ray rates are well-known to have diurnal and annual cycles and I haven't seen any evidence that the Russian biologist knew enough about this to adequately shield his experiments from them.

      I think this goes to the heart of the matter, actually. The uniformitarian assumption that the number and intensity of incoming particles (like cosmic rays) never changes flies directly in the face of the notion of a catastrophic event. What happens in a catastrophic event? We really don't know. But, what we can do is look at the Tunguska event and the Great Chicago Fire (which was likely also a cometary encounter event). Those events were highly enigmatic and even electrical in nature, and they didn't even approach the size of the Mexican crater.

      It's also worth mentioning -- as people on Slashdot tend to pretend that it never happened -- that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted that the Deep Impact mission would entail two consecutive flashes at the time of impact. This is important because it indicates that even relatively small bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charges when their plasma spheres come into contact. The result contradicts the notion that space is quasi-neutral. The appropriate question is then what happens when large bodies trade charge? What happens to decay rates under this scenario?

      The assumption that there was only one carbon pool has given way to the realization that there local variations due to (geomagnetic) latitude, nearby carbonate rocks or volcanoes, etc., giving rise to geographical corrections to carbon dates. The science of radiocarbon dating is a fertile and constantly advancing field.

      And given the changes, arguably no longer falsifiable.

      You know, if people who believed in this stuff like a religion didn't so exclusively consider the evidence before them, then I would have no problem with it all. The problem is that evidence that does not fit is just made to conform, or is completely dismissed altogether. Case in point are the dramatic changes happening within the field of ancient document translation. It's not being picked up because it does not support the uniformitarian and gravity-centric doctrines of mainstream astrophysics, but the field is developing in ways that are not kind to dating techniques or mainstream astrophysics one bit. You can ignore the field and perpetuate the myth that such documents are nonsense, but in doing so, you fail to respond to any of the arguments that are being put forth by those people. As a strong case in point, I highly recommend that you leave your discipline a little bit and read "God Star" by Dwardu Cardona. The fossil record appears to correspond with the eyewitness accounts written down in the historical documents, which both in turn correspond with the observations that space plasmas can become highly electrical (as they do regularly within the laboratory).

      Just yesterday, a group of scientists pointed to the formation of stars within jets that had helical magnetic fields around them. They went to great lengths to argue for a mechanism that excluded the movement of electrical charges causing those helical magnetic fields, but it should be quite clear that their exclusion of such a possibility is merely based upon the education they received, which ridicules the idea that electricity can flow through space. Inarguably, if you actually read what the Electric Universe Theorists are saying, you will find that they have been specifically arguing for a long time now that stars are formed within "jets", to borrow the terminology of the mainstream, that are surrounded by helical magnetic fields (caused by electrical currents). People do not realize that the mainstream is trending towards these guys' theories because everybody is too busy ridiculing them. The history of electromagnetism is completely filled with stories of dogma taking precedence over observation and simple experimentation. It wasn't realized for 2

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    23. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by E++99 · · Score: 0

      For starters, the 21st Century Science and Technology is NOT a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal. It is a group of quacks. ...So, if your russian scientist is the only one shouting that it's inaccurate, we must be left asking "Why does every other scientist accept it, and what is his axe to grind?".

      Maybe his claims truly are nutty. If, instead of ad hominem attacks, you had attacked the merits of his specific claims, we would actually know. I've never read his work, so I don't know. But someone claiming, "oh, he's not reputable," or "no other scientist believes that" is hardly going to convince anyone who is interested in making their conclusion in a way consistent with the scientific method.
    24. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by E++99 · · Score: 1

      Maybe his claims truly are nutty. If, instead of ad hominem attacks, you had attacked the merits of his specific claims, we would actually know. I've never read his work, so I don't know. But someone claiming, "oh, he's not reputable," or "no other scientist believes that" is hardly going to convince anyone who is interested in making their conclusion in a way consistent with the scientific method.

    25. Re:Absolute Dating Absurdity by g8oz · · Score: 1

      Okay enough posting. We get it. You're boring and crazy. Run along now.

  25. I caused the mass extinction by tjstork · · Score: 5, Informative

    I do not care much for lizards. They are big, stupid and slow, and they smell. All these dinosaurs are around, and I hated them all, but there's all sorts of stupid regulations about dinosaurs, thanks to Al Gore leading the save the dinosaur charge.

    So I hopped into my time machine, gathered up some of the world's famous hunters, went back in time and killed the dinosaurs. Me and Buffalo Bill must have slaughtered 1,200 T-Rex's in what is now Montana, just in one night of drinking and hooting and hollering and a-shooting.

    Those of you wonder what really happened to Jesse James, though, should know that he really did die 65 million years ago. We were playing cards one night after a big hunt and I drew a royal flush to his full house. Jesse probably wouldn't blown my head off in anger, but Buffalo Bill was quicker on the draw and he said, "Don't even do it Jesse." Jesse stuffed his revolver back into his holster, grabbed the bottle and went off in a huff. But as he was a stompin' away, he was set on by a pack of raptors and chewed up. It was a sad thing, but T.R. was able to go shoot two down with that pistol of his, and, thus, while we couldn't save Jesse, we at least saved the bottle of whiskey.

    I reckon it took us a few months to kill all them dinosaurs. Since they all ate the biggest dinosaurs, we just took out all the brontos and crushed their eggs, and the rest all starved. We shot a bunch too. And then I dropped everyone back into their own times, and came back to this one, and there was not a dinosaur to be found.

    Thank god!

    So I called upon Mr. Gore to see if he remembered how much he liked dinosaurs in this adjusted timeline, and he said that he thought dinosaurs were ok in their own time, and said that, if we didn't do something about global warming, dinosaurs might come back.

    So now, I gotta back in time and gather up the boys and go visit henry ford.

    Ah, the work that we do!

    --
    This is my sig.
    1. Re:I caused the mass extinction by DirePickle · · Score: 1

      (Score:5, Most Awesome Thing on Slashdot, Ever)

    2. Re:I caused the mass extinction by Ox0065 · · Score: 1

      Sooo... ...who killed the ones outside the USA?

      --
      thx e
    3. Re:I caused the mass extinction by Walter+Carver · · Score: 1

      This is modded informative while it was meant to be funny.

  26. Goatse saved the planet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously he was struck in the ass by a big meteorite that otherwise would have destroyed Earth!

  27. This theory again? by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 1

    It's a great theory that fell out of favor back when Walter Alvarez http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Alvarez found the smoking crater we now call Chicxulub and got all the applause. Back then, there were only a few contrary types that dare maintain that the Deccan Traps made a stronger argument. The Deccan Traps, it was argued, occurred over quite a long span of time; lots of average degassing numbers were thrown out and everyone liked the catastrophic version of the impact crater. That, and the kickass artwork with the dinosaurs looking over their shoulder at their impending doom...
    Here's the upshot: The theory of the traps can be extended to include other extinctions. The Siberian Traps occurred around the same time as the mass extinction that brought ABOUT the dinosaurs. And while folks are looking for that cometary impact, it's _possible _ that the same "hotspot" that created the Siberian Traps stayed in generally the same place, and later awoke to spew out the Deccan Traps. If that's the case, the hotspot in question is off the southwest coast of India, where there are volcanic sea mounts today.

  28. My theory: 50% Shoemaker-Levy, 50% Yellowstone by sponglish · · Score: 1

    Earth was pummeled by several strikes similar to the Shoemaker-Levy comet fragments that hit Jupiter back in 1994 instead of just one big strike. The resulting craters could be smaller than Chicxulub while causing enough shock damage to eventually set off every VEI 8 mega-colossal volcano there was. Since the Toba eruption 75K years ago lowered average global temps by 3 to 3.5 degrees Celsius for several years, nearly wiped out humanity, and may have caused a planet-wide die-off, a chain of similar eruptions over the next few thousand years resulting from the comet strikes could easily have led to a series of ELEs.

    --
    "I improvise. It's my greatest talent. I prefer situations to plans..." --Wintermute, William Gibson's "Neuromancer"
  29. T'Leth by vecctor · · Score: 1

    It should be no surprise, then, that ancient alien city of T'Leth is right in the center of the Gulf of Mexico.

    Those damn aliens were the second impact!

    --
    Why, yes I have been touched by His noodly appendage. And I plan to sue.
    1. Re:T'Leth by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      It should be no surprise, then, that ancient alien city of T'Leth is right in the center of the Gulf of Mexico. Those damn aliens were the second impact!

      Second Impact was in Antarctica.

      Yes, I did always name my main X-COM base in Japan 'NERV'. Why do you ask?

      (The UK one was 'UNIT', of course.)

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  30. LOL! Mod parent up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad Usenet is sorta defunct...the parent deserves to get forwarded to rec.humor.funny.

  31. always with the global warming by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    seriously, this has to be proof that if you want your research funded, find some obscure way to link it to global warming.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  32. Resolution? by Enrique1218 · · Score: 1

    They say that meteor hit 300,000 years before the KT extinction. That would mean that they are able to date the rocks in the KT layer and samples from the crater to within 0.4% error (300,000/65,000,000). I don't know of any radioactive dating techniques that are used to date in the 10's million of years. Even with those, the accuracy will vary from researcher to researcher and sample to sample. If they are analyzing the the thickness of sediment layers on the side of a cliff, I can't see how they could claim that resolution. Consequently, the argument is semantic without that resolution because a meteor strike of that magnitude and volcanism in Deccan can both singly devastate massives species like the dinosaurs. Smaller animals are favored in those situations. In fact, I seriously question whether the humans as a species could survive such events.

    --
    You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
  33. Voodoo Chili by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

    Chili killed the dinosaurs?

    Damn, I gotta try some of that!

  34. Thickness of Iridium is most near Chixulub by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seeing the Iridium layer is thickest near Chixulub an impact somewhere else seems pretty hard to swallow. Also are there not major sulfur deposits under the Chixulub site? These were "credited" in the past with contributing to SO2 in the air which contributed to the extinction. As for measuring dates that accurately, after 65 million years, I think someone is dreaming.

  35. Might they be related? by Muros · · Score: 1

    I dunno, I'm not a geologist, but as far as I know geological processes are enormously slow (millions of years to make mountains, shift continental plates, etc.) A massive amount of volcanic activity in the 300,000 or so years after the planet being hit by a dirty big chunk of space rock might be something you would expect, with all the extra stress fractures it would cause in the earths mantle, which would take a long long time to heal.

  36. Boom by Joebert · · Score: 1

    Assume a volcano somehow got plugged up & couldn't errupt normally.
    Could an exploding volcano look like a meteorite crater ?

    What if a metorite crashed into the other side of the earth as exists a volcano, could a big enough impact cause a shockwave & an erruption on the other side of the planet much larger than normal erruptions ?

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Boom by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      There are some craters that are so big and so old that no-one knows whether it was an impact or an explosion. For example, the Bushveld Complex in South Africa is about 500km in diameter and no-one knows how it formed. The famous gold mines are around the rim of that crater. It is so big and so old, that there are other, smaller and more recent impact craters inside it.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  37. volcanoes make more sense than asteroids by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    there's a saying medicine when looking to diagnose medical symptoms: when you hear hoofbeats, don't think of zebras (it's more likely to be horses causing the noise)

    it's a variation on occam's razor: the more exotic explanation is the less likely one

    volcanic activity is more likely than asteroids

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:volcanoes make more sense than asteroids by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      why is that? the moon and other planets are covered in metorites impacts. there's 100% chance we've been hit and will be hit again.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
  38. can't breath? can't breath?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What is it with you morons and your innability to write correctly your own languange?

    1. Re:can't breath? can't breath?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean inability, right?

      Inability to write our own language correctly?

      Not innability to write correctly our own language.

    2. Re:can't breath? can't breath?!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go eat some cheese and surrender to the Germans.

  39. I know where the crater is by Froze · · Score: 1

    OK, maybe/not really.
    I was just looking at google maps one time an it sure looks like the remnants of a crater to me, judge for yourself.
    The visible arc of the eastern most portion of the crater is the coastline to the east and a bit north of Polar Bear Provincial Park.
    Why else would you have such a large semicircle coast just cut out of an otherwise irregular coastline?
    http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=56.583692,-79.672852&spn=10.630137,27.597656&z=6&om=1

    --
    -- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.
    1. Re:I know where the crater is by securityfolk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I dunno - between 20W and 80W, and 55S to 65S (to the West of the Sandwich Islands), there are some bizarre ocean bed shapes (check http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-59.739775,-46.557183&z=4&t=h&hl=en). Looks like something - or maybe a couple of somethings smacked into Earth pretty hard. Looks like it hit hard enough to separate Antarctica from South America, or at least severely deform the mantle around that area. Does anyone have the scoop on what caused that region?

    2. Re:I know where the crater is by onion_joe · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Hmmm, that one is pretty interesting, especially the semi-circular concentric ridges in the bay.

      However (of course, sorry) this http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=56.583692,-79.672852&spn=10.630137,27.597656&z=6&om=1 also looks kinda funny, and there is no evidence of an impact site. Current theory is a standing wave pattern related to ocean currents and tides. No shocked quartz, no tektites. Bummer, because that is in my neck of the woods and I am a geo-nerd.

      Only way to find out is to ground truth it. My wish list:

      electron scanning microscope, some climbing rope, a sea kayak, probably some warm clothes, and some slaves, um, I mean grad students.

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    3. Re:I know where the crater is by grikdog · · Score: 1

      Looks like tectonics. Squeezed stuff makes rounded shapes too.

      --
      ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  40. Mother Nature causes Global Warming? by Adam8g · · Score: 0, Troll
    but but but I heard that very smart man Mr. Gore say . . .

    And what about Mt. Pinatubo, its eruption in 1991injected 20- million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere .... Is that more than all the sulfur dioxide man puts into the atmosphere? Hummmm

    But but but I heard that very smart man Mr. Gore say . . .

    You mean the earth has undergone repeated cycles of extreme warming and cooling WITHOUT man?

    But but but I heard that very smart man Mr. Gore say . . .

    1. Re:Mother Nature causes Global Warming? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      And what about Mt. Pinatubo, its eruption in 1991injected 20- million tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere .... Is that more than all the sulfur dioxide man puts into the atmosphere?

      17 million tons is the reference I found. For comparison, in 2005 China alone was estimated to release 25.5 million tons of sulphur dioxide through industrial activity.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  41. Iceland by Akaihiryuu · · Score: 1

    Keller also postulates a second larger and still unidentified meteor strike after Chicxulub, that left the famous extraterrestrial layer of iridium found in rocks worldwide and pushed earth's ecosystem over the brink. But where's the crater? "I wish I knew," says Keller." Iceland. I watched a documentary on this in the early 90's. The iridium concentration grows as you get closer to Iceland. Iceland is a volcanic island that is the result of a large extraterrestrial object shattering the thin crust on a mid-ocean ridge. It formed a rather large volcano that brought up a lot of material for millions of years, and is still somewhat active even today (Iceland). Iceland is also somewhere between 60 and 70 million years old, which is when the object impacted.
  42. Right theory, wrong crater? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    I thought there was still some debate regarding whether the Central American crater is the actual impact site of the dinosaur-killing asteroid?

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  43. The crater story finally cratered by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    There are other, larger impact craters on earth, so the Mexican crater idea was improbable all along. The earth's atmosphere is produced by outgassing of the planet through volcanoes and vents, so this is obviously a major reason for atmospheric change.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  44. FWIW: A Comparison Post: Permian vs Cretaceous by anzha · · Score: 1

    I hate to be a bit self referential, but when Dr Keller came out with her press release, I wrote up a comparison of the Permian-Triassic and the Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinctions. The whole article centers around the idea that the Permian Extinction is assumed to be one caused by vulcanism where there is VERY strong evidence for that being the root cause so we ought to compare the KT to the PT if we want to see if lava trumps meteor.

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
  45. SO2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prior to pitching yeast, I use SO2 to sterilize my apple cider, instead of boiling (which sets pectin and drives off flavor). Why suggest volcanoes, when we damn well know where SO2 really comes from? The dinosaurs were fermenting cider. Lots and lots of cider, since dinosaurs were very large and could drink a lot.

  46. Creationist style by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    I am very wary of your argument style. It is heavy on quotes but not much on the measurements themselves. This is very reminiscent of my past arguments with Creationists before I saw the light and realised they were a bunch of losers not deserving of my time.

    I will follow my personally approved style on these issues: take the first article and look at it carefully, if it fails .... do not proceed.

    Yes the article talks about measurements that indicate a separation of U235 and U238 isotopes therefore skewing age determination using this mechanism. However, this is only in sandstone. It is believed to be due to either water action or microbes. This does not affect igneous rocks. Therefore if the researcher is careful about the environment of the sample and the rock type and backs it up with other methods they should be OK. In fact the oldest rocks are dated using not just any bit of dirt they find but via zircon crystals in the matrix, multiple rocks, different environments similar results.

    Conclusion, nothing to see here. Move on.

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
    1. Re:Creationist style by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Yes the article talks about measurements that indicate a separation of U235 and U238 isotopes therefore skewing age determination using this mechanism. However, this is only in sandstone. It is believed to be due to either water action or microbes. This does not affect igneous rocks. Therefore if the researcher is careful about the environment of the sample and the rock type and backs it up with other methods they should be OK. In fact the oldest rocks are dated using not just any bit of dirt they find but via zircon crystals in the matrix, multiple rocks, different environments similar results.

      Conclusion, nothing to see here. Move on.

      Similarly, I'm very wary of your eagerness to dismiss evidence that does not agree with your belief system. Notice that you just did that piecemeal. You did not take the time to actually investigate alternative astrophysical theories that might include that piece of evidence as a single element in a large collection of theories. If your comparisons are always Big Science vs little evidence, is it really any surprise that Big Science always wins?

      There is a term for this. It is called pseudo-skepticism. Pseudo-skeptics will question credentials. They will dismiss evidence as it suits them. They will minimize problems. If the issue is evidence vs belief, they will always opt for belief. But what they NEVER do is objectively investigate alternative THEORIES. They will never pick up a book written by a scientific heretic and objectively consider it.

      Do you realize that we decide what to believe the second that we pick a book to read? We identify whether or not it is in accordance with our beliefs before we will allow ourselves to actually start reading it? Do you not see that you do this?

      Scientists frequently oblige by doing the same sort of thing: they (possibly unintentionally) limit the set of possibilities for their explanations, and then explain that they have ruled everything ELSE out, so it must be THIS.

      These are real philosophy of science problems -- not the rantings of some nutcase.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    2. Re:Creationist style by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

      Oh dear, oh dear. Same old crap. I actually had to force myself to read it. Amazing, I predicted creationist and I now confirm it.

      Gee. Um. By the way do you have any you know ... what is it again? Evidence. Oh yeah that's it ... EVIDENCE. Not quotes. I can quote people telling me the moon is hollow and built by aliens. Doesn't make it true. Where is the peer reviewed evidence?

      BTW, when I pick up a book my first reaction is to read and question not just believe. I know this might be a new concept to you but try it. Open a book, eg the Good Book, read a bit then ask "Is that really so?".

      Maybe you don't believe the Earth is just 6,000 years old, and I am doing you a disservice. But I don't see that in what you write. As someone said the zircon crystals aren't dated the same way, but I did mention that there are alternatives.

      So ok. How old do you consider the Earth to be? Not believe, but based on the evidence.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
    3. Re:Creationist style by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      From what I understand, actually, the Son of God myth was around years before the Jesus myth started. But it doesn't end there. There were numerous other myths and traditions that were present apparently long before the supposed time of Jesus that mimick the Jesus story. I don't personally believe one second of all that resurrection garbage.

      What I find interesting though is that Dwardu Cardona was able to trace the origins of Santa Claus (in "God Star"). The fact that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole, believe it or not, is related to one of the most important mysteries of the universe. I'm not going to spoil the secret though.

      You certainly think I'm crazy, and I'm fine with that. What will be weird for you is when you realize many years from now that I wasn't.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  47. So by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    But where's the crater? "I wish I knew," says Keller."

    And no one but me has ever noticed the round, almost crater-like shape of the Gulf of Mexico...?

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  48. here's an idea by underworld · · Score: 1

    apparently we all want there to be a single explanation for this. could it be ... just possibly ... that multiple events took place which led to mass extinction of dinosaurs? couldn't it be that a combination of factors which are inclusive (as opposed to mutually exclusive) of meteors, volcanoes, and possibly earth climate cycles and other events all contributed? it turns out the universe is a big, complex, inter-mingled mix of stuff ... and sometimes it conspires against itself.

  49. rubbish! by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    I have seen loads of pictures of dinosaurs and there is often a volcano erupting in the background. The dinosaurs couldn't care less.

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  50. Excuse me? by robisbell · · Score: 1

    how could a volcano produce the K-T Boundary layer, when the main component is from meteors.

  51. No, Siberian traps were Permian by onion_joe · · Score: 1
    No, the Siberian Traps were dated to 250-251 million years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps and were not active during the Cretaceous era.

    Typically long time scale geologic events use potassium argon dating (which is especially useful in igneous rocks)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_argon_dating and not the more familiar Carbon Carbon dating. Carbon carbon dating only has a useful span of around 12,000 years, but can be used up to 60,000 years (though resolution drops sharply)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating

    On the issue of "was it a volcano or was it an asteroid" the question is rather silly because an asteroid impact can easily cause widespread earthquakes and volcanism. Now can it work the other way around? I highly doubt it...

    --
    sig sig sig siggy sig
  52. no, the Gulf is not Chixulub by onion_joe · · Score: 1

    check out this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chixulub for size reference and location information. Its actually not so obvious...

    --
    sig sig sig siggy sig
  53. What? by onion_joe · · Score: 1
    the rocks we are talking about are NOT dated with radiocarbon methods (too young), nor are they typically dated with U-U decay methods (too old). They use a method called K-Ar dating http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_argon_dating.

    you are not addressing the proper dating technique. radiocarbon dating != K-Ar dating.

    In fact, you are attacking the entire concept of radioactive decay. Better have some good data to back that one up, buddy.

    --
    sig sig sig siggy sig
    1. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      In fact, you are attacking the entire concept of radioactive decay. Better have some good data to back that one up, buddy.

      There was never any doubt that you and others would attempt to compartmentalize the finding rather than wonder about the causes and implications, btw. It is your choice to not be curious and wonder what the implications are. The authors clearly state that they do not know the cause.

      But yes, you are right. I am attacking the entire concept of radioactive decay's immunity to catastrophic events. I'm specifically posing the pragmatic question of how one goes about validating the dating technique when we're not even sure of what catastrophic events might have occurred? It's a completely fair question. Once you identify the set of events, then you still have the issue of trying to simulate them to identify how they mangle the decay rates. Presuming we're talking about an event that's significant enough to create a crater hundreds of miles across, how does *that* occur?

      I'm guessing by thought experiment, right?

      Have you ever heard of the story of Earl Milton and the fossilized tree? From "The Lately Tortured Earth", Ch.26: Fossil Deposits p 484 ...

      What dies is thus quickly recycled biotically, unless some geological intervention occurs. And this intervention that fossilizes is almost always connected to the cause of death. The fossil record therefore is distorted as to populations of the species and to a lesser degree to the kinds and numbers of species.

      Not all is known about fossilization, and less is realized. Ardrey mentions that the waters of Lake Victoria (Africa) were once fossilizing animals quickly and well because of some unknown quality probably not now present. E.R. Milton describes his examination of a petrified tree trunk in Alberta (Canada) [3]:

      The piece... was pure clear silica inside, it was coated with a rougher opaque crust of partially fused sand. The tree whose stump was petrified was alive five years ago! After the tree was cut down to accommodate the right of way for a new power transmission line, an accidental break allowed the live high-voltage wire to contact several tree stumps still in the ground. The power was cut off within hours of the break. All of the tree roots which contacted the broken wire were fossilized... Obviously, electricity can metamorphose matter quickly.

      I have no doubt that you will be quick to dismiss such testimony without objectively considering it. Everybody does. But, for the record, an objective person would reserve judgment until somebody has attempted to replicate it. And if the people who want to do this experiment are in fact successful at creating fossils within the laboratory, it would then be your obligation (if you are objective) to subsequently reconsider the process of fossilization as well as the assumptions that encompass catastrophic events and even possibly the dates associated with such fossils as that would imply that the underlying assumptions regarding catastrophic events was wrong and that rigor was not properly applied to the process of vetting dating techniques. That is at least what scientific rigor would require.

      You may -- or probably not -- know that Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted that the Deep Impact mission would result in *two* flashes. Nobody was predicting anything like that when he made the prediction. But the point was that he made his prediction on the basis that comets from deep space arrive with a dramatically different charge density than objects near the Sun. In other words, when the two objects approached one another, their plasma spheres contacted and charge-neutralized. There is significant evidence for this view. In other words, Wallace Thornhill accurately predicted this and many other aspects of that mission on the basis that bodies in space can acquire and trade electrical charge, and that space plasmas are in

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    2. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one with an ounce of honesty would convolve the fusion of silica sand via electricity with "fossilization". http://www.grazian-archive.com/quantavolution/QuantaHTML/vol_04/lately_tortured_earth_26.htm

    3. Re:What? by onion_joe · · Score: 1
      I'm guessing that physicists running experiments at orders of magnitude above your proposed energy levels have not seen radioactive decay (the weak nuclear force equations) being affected.

      We would all like to change the paradigm (and get famous), but you gotta learn the basics of quantum mechanics before you propose something so radical as electromagnetic/gravitational inputs changing the nature of the weak nuclear force.

      Propose a methodology, and I am more than game to examine it. I don't want to just poke holes in theories because that is destructive. I want to propose new theories [hypothesis] and then test them.

      This is the scientific method.

      my pizza is done, gotta go.

      onion_joe

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    4. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      No one with an ounce of honesty would convolve the fusion of silica sand via electricity with "fossilization".

      I don't believe that the possibility of transmutation is being taken seriously enough to be discounted. You can say no better than anybody else whether or not it is possible because nobody's done the experiment. Right?

      What you guys aren't getting is the fundamental difference in the spread of the evidence. Mainstream science -- Big Science -- is largely taking orders from the astrophysicists right now (more so than you guys recognize). Many of these astrophysicists have never stepped into a laboratory. They contemplate and compute beautiful mathematical universes instead of being careful to examine all evidence that appears within the various disciplines. They have dismissed the apparent uniformity of temperature over the entire globe that appears to permeate numerous ages of the planet (as well as even other planets within our solar system!). They dismiss alligator fossils and coral reefs at all latitudes, including the poles, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that numerous cultures across the planet tell of a time when there were no seasons. They continue to believe that the Garden of Eden is a *religious* concept. It is not. They ALL mention it. This unfounded idea of uniformitarianism -- the idea that the planet must have been the same for all of those ages -- predominates even though this assumption is now contradicted by the testimony. If you listen to the accounts of the people, they tell quite clearly and convincingly from *ALL* continents the same thing: that things have drastically changed and that there was in fact a large flood. The level of detail, and its consistency from place to place, is far more than you are aware. Just as you suggest that the dating science has changed, so too has the discipline of ancient document translation.

      The point is that the mainstream was a bit premature in developing consensus on a very large number of items. I mean, the list is extraordinary. There was complete lack of rigor with regards to the aether studies. The idea that the Sun has a thermonuclear core flies in the face of several important modern observations. Namely,

      - That there appears to be an anti-correlation between sunspots and solar neutrino generation
      - That the solar wind CONTINUES TO ACCELERATE EVEN AS IT PASSES THE PLANETS
      - And that the temperature of the corona is 100x hotter than the surface of the Sun

      My favorite is the whole story about Venus. Do you realize that we sent four probes to Venus to understand why the planet was so hot, and all four said the same thing? That Venus was not in thermal equilibrium. The instruments and math undeniably demonstrated that Venus was emitting 15-20% more heat than it was absorbing. The decision was made to declare that the two different types of instruments on all four probes were faulty. Then, it was decided to re-state the hypothesis of Venus' thermal equilibrium into the conclusion of the paper that was supposed to demonstrate as much. Check it out ...

      Taylor notes (page 758):

      "A more acceptable alternative is that the preliminary estimate of 0.80 +- .02 for the albedo from the PV measurements is too high, since the uncertainty limit is now known from further work to be too conservative (J. V. Martinchik, personal communication). A fuller analysis of PV albedo data - still the best in terms of wave length, spatial and phase coverage, and radiometric precision, which is likely to be obtained for the forseeable future, is likely to resolve this puzzle. In conclusion then, the best thermal measurements of Venus, with the assumption of global energy balance, yield a value of the albedo of 0.76 +- .01; this is the most probable value."

      Do you understand that the ancient testimony recounts the arrival of Venus? It's not even just that,

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    5. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that physicists running experiments at orders of magnitude above your proposed energy levels have not seen radioactive decay (the weak nuclear force equations) being affected.

      So, I'm to believe that based upon a different physical model of astrophysical plasmas -- where plasmas in space operate as fluids rather than electromagnetics -- scientists were able to estimate the charge densities present in planet-to-planet charge neutralizations and then subsequently replicate those transfers within the laboratory?

      I'm worried that those types of energy transfers can only be performed at special laboratories ... Oh, wait a second. I have an idea! Why don't we ask Anthony Peratt? He's been working on the z-machine at Sandia Labs. He must have a clue of some sort ...

      From http://saturniancosmology.org/files/plasma/civ.txt:

      IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS

      BEAVERTON, OR.--A plasma scientist and a radio astronomer announced
      the discovery of charged particle flows in interstellar space at the
      1999 International Conference on Plasma Science in Monterey,
      California. The discovery culminated decades of speculation and debate
      whether or not electricity existed on the scale of hundreds of
      thousands of light years in the interstellar space between the stars.

      According to Anthony Peratt, Scientific Advisor to the United States
      Department of Energy and a plasma researcher at Los Alamos National
      Laboratory in New Mexico, the discovery was made by computer analyzing
      large amounts of data gathered by radio telescopes from regions in
      space known to be occupied by 'neutral clouds of hydrogen.' The data
      was processed and the results obtained by radio astronomer Gerrit
      Verschuur, Physics Department, University of Memphis. Verschuur found
      that the 'neutral hydrogen clouds' were not completely a neutral gas
      of hydrogen and other elements, but rather consisted of charged
      particles of electrons and ions, called 'plasma.'

      The name plasma as applied to charged particles was borrowed from
      blood-plasma by Nobel laureate Irving Langmuir in 1923 because the
      particles interacted collectively in a lifelike manner in his
      laboratory experiments. "Verschuur analyzed nearly two thousand
      clouds, principally from the Aericibo radio telescope in Puerto Rico,
      but also from other radio telescopes scattered around the globe," said
      Peratt. Verschuur had previously found, under high resolution computer
      processing, that the 'clouds' were not clouds at all but were instead
      filaments of material which twisted and wound like helices over
      enormous distances between the stars.

      Peratt said that the filaments between the stars are not visible
      themselves but are observable with radio telescopes that can observe
      space at much longer wavelengths than are visible to the human eye.
      Prof. Per Carlqvist, a researcher at the Royal Institute of Technology
      in Stockholm, estimated that the interstellar filaments found by
      Verschuur conducted electricity with currents as high as ten-thousand
      billion amperes.

      "The i

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    6. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I would like to add to my previous statements that Anthony Peratt, who is one of the few people in the world who can comment on the notion of transmutation of elements from high charge density plasmas is a supporter of the Electric Universe Theory. He works at the z-machine. I do not know if he specifically supports the statements of Wallace Thornhill, who is a leading proponent of transmutation, but I'm absolutely sure that the two have discussed the issue and it did not lead Peratt to renounce his support. I can get more details if there is interest. I'm curious myself what the conversation was like.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    7. Re:What? by onion_joe · · Score: 1
      eh. plasma is hot matter. wow, big news. Go and run with plasma electric universe if you want.

      has no bearing on radioisotopic dating.

      bored with you. you can't stay on topic.

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    8. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      bored with you. you can't stay on topic.

      Plasma is "hot matter"?

      hehehe

      Um. :o

      Do you know what a Birkeland Current is? Or a z-pinch?

      Perhaps they seem irrelevant only because you have no idea what they are ...

      chris
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    9. Re:What? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I am attacking the entire concept of radioactive decay's immunity to catastrophic events.
      Perhaps the atoms get frightened by the big light in the sky, or the loud noise when it hits, and the fearful shaking splits their nuclei apart. And I challenge any so-called conventional scientist to probve otherwise.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:What? by onion_joe · · Score: 1
      plasma is the state of matter where electrons are stripped from nuclei, no? Most commonly by heat, yes? I suppose it could be done with monopole magnets, but since none exist outside of gedankenexperiment...

      man, you are good at baiting (no offense, please :-) but where does electric astrophysical theory create a better (aka: better predictability) GUT than the standard model and Einsteinian relativity coupled into string theory? This is what you are getting at, yes?

      Me need links and math. I'm a sucker for new ideas.

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    11. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      man, you are good at baiting (no offense, please :-) but where does electric astrophysical theory create a better (aka: better predictability) GUT than the standard model and Einsteinian relativity coupled into string theory? This is what you are getting at, yes?

      Me need links and math. I'm a sucker for new ideas.

      There are some good resources available with papers here:

      http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Plasma_Universe_resources

      I would point out that although Don Scott (who wrote The Electric Sky) and perhaps some others are not big fans of Relativity, others don't believe that Relativity precludes the existence of an aether. I believe that all of the EU Theorists believe in an aether and there is detailed work underway to understand David Thomson's Aether Physics Model well enough to integrate it into EU Theory (if it is possible). The thing is, Thomson was able to create a physical model for his aether that successfully predicts the electron binding energies associated with *every* single element of the periodic table. It was thought that one of his values was off, actually, but they went back and apparently found support elsewhere for the value that his model predicted. David Thomson does not discount Relativity. Wallace Thornhill, who successfully predicted all of the results of the Deep Impact mission -- including the existence of a pre-impact flash -- has stated that he believes that gravity waves in fact travel exceptionally faster than we can currently measure -- on the order of here to the opposite end of Andromeda in one second. He argues that if he is right that the Relativity equations simplify to absolute time. I'm still filling in the blanks on all of the details. There's so much to learn that it's rather overwhelming sometimes, but when you find a situation like the current one where the mainstream theory may not in fact be correct and this ridiculed theory has lots of validity to it, that is a big motivating factor for learning about it.

      The general point though that this group all agrees upon is that there has been an over-reliance upon mathematics and an under-appreciation of physical models and reality checks within the mainstream theories. That would include string theory. I would argue -- and I often do -- that there are philosophy of science, history of science and even human psychological issues playing prominent roles within our failed attempts to fully understand our surroundings right now. People basically believe that the conventional models are right, and this dissuades nearly everybody from considering against-the-mainstream theories. The problem is that this leads to a situation where very few people are comparing and contrasting the two models with each new observation, and that's a big big problem because as it turns out, the mainstream is slowly co-opting the EU Theory arguments (minus electrical currents over plasmas, of course). Their models are without a doubt trending towards the EU view, and there is an alarming realization that if we don't break through the media real soon that the EU Theorists are going to watch the mainstream astrophysicists publicly "discover" everything that the EU Theorists are arguing except the electric current portion. The thing is, without the electric currents, you still do not understand the system of the universe and how it moves energies and forces around. You fail to realize the interconnectedness of it all. For instance, I've seen mention that people have done very interesting work studying the periodicity for supernovae for particular galaxies. I heard one person on a mailing list mention off-hand that when he plotted supernovae for a particular galaxy, he noticed that they tended to move outwards from the center in waves. If you weren't looking for something like this, you could completely miss it.

      If Thornhill is right about his ideas about gravity,

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    12. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      If I may suggest some more modern papers, then I would point to these ...

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006A&A...454..201G

      These are Birkeland Currents in space -- where the mainstream says they should not be.

      http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1367-2630/9/8/263/njp7_8_263.pdf

      The idea that DNA might have electrical roots is nothing new to EU Theory. In fact, it's to be expected within their theory.

      http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2504&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

      This is actually a validation of one of Hannes Alfven's predictions, from what I've been told.

      http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn12652-milky-way-keeps-a-light-grip-on-speedy-neighbours.html

      These galaxies are quite filamentary.

      http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_060106.html

      Another filament where we didn't expect it.

      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7155/abs/nature06003.html

      Once again, a filament. You know, there is more than one way to make a repeating flash of light, as happens for pulsars. Is it a rotating beacon with a bowshock? Or, is it two stars electrically connected? People need to think very carefully about what holds these filaments together. Also, how does the filament remain illuminated for 30,000 continuous light years all at once?

      There are multiple explanations for these things that people are not taking into consideration ...

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    13. Re:What? by onion_joe · · Score: 1
      I am planning on buying the book you spoke to me about earlier, "The Electric Sky" by Don Scott.

      The coolest thing I have found regarding ES theory is the idea that information can travel faster than light on gravity waves. I remember concocting an idea based on reading some of the mainstream astrophysicists that gravitational waves might be felt instantaneously across the universe, and this is not even difficult to visualize (yes, I know, I can imagine and so can anyone else, doesn't make it correct...;-) with Ed Witton's M-theory.

      Anyway, I plan on getting the book. If you want to stay in touch, my /. email is posted.

      Thanks for the info and your time. I need to learn more for intelligent discussion.

      -Jeremy

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
    14. Re:What? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I'm going to be starting up an EU Theory website soon that will be specifically targeted for Slashdot people. I spent a year in research mode, learning how to talk around here and what arguments work with people. I used to read Slashdot regularly when I worked at a company called Xilinx as a computer engineer. I read the book that you're about to read, and it caused me to stop everything else that I was doing in my free time, more or less. I realized that these guys are onto something because I wasn't so invested in the more popular theories. In a full year now of interacting with people on the issue, I now realize that the EU arguments are rock-solid. When somebody responded with something that was challenging to the theory, I would just run it by the theorists themselves (it's a small group and it's easy to get to know them), and they always had a response that was more educated with regards to plasmas than everybody that challenged them. So, I started to realize that even though nobody around Slashdot had ever picked up "The Electric Sky", and few would take up my suggestion to do so, everybody here is absolutely convinced that it is wrong. That sent up a huge red flag. I would later learn that this is an actual philosophy of science issue -- when you unknowingly restrict the number of possibilities for your interpretation of observations, you can easily convince yourself that you are being rigorous when you explain in your papers that, "this is the least unlikely interpretation".

      Then, I dug a little bit deeper and ran into Dwardu Cardona's "God Star". It wasn't until I read "God Star" that I truly realized the significance of what's happening right now, and my conviction hardened. The field of mythology is unraveling before our eyes. Although few people clearly believe me, I believe that mainstream astrophysics will not survive the challenge. It all sounds really dramatic, but all of that strange stuff about the collective unconscious by Jung was basically garbage. The stories have common themes because they originate from the same sequence of events. This isn't even cherry-picking the evidence; it's the result of rigorous investigation. The field of comparative mythology is heavily evolving after an extended rut, and the mainstream astrophysicists are completely ignoring it all because the new findings are not relevant to their own cosmology. The idea that mythology is useless is gradually turning into an urban myth itself. The decision to ignore all of these changes -- an entire discipline -- will turn out to be an utterly disastrous move for them. We don't get to choose the evidence we use, and some evidence trumps other evidence. When the credibility is properly handled and the accounts are coordinated, the eyewitness testimony stands up rather well. If we have finally figured out ancient testimony, then it is completely admissible, even if your tendency is to believe that all ancient people were crazy. There's also the distinct possibility that the ancients were not all crazy, and the case that the evidence builds clearly argues as much. Arguments that it is not so logically fail once the arguments are known. In this sense, it is very exciting to see the process unfolding from the ground up before anybody else catches on. There are less than probably 500 people on the planet who know in any detail what the theory states! It's completely amazing really.

      I think you will be pleasantly surprised by TES. It is written for a layman, but the point here is that it's a return to common sense physical models, education by experimentation and a reduction of inordinate speculation. These are the guys that are pointing to laboratory science, and saying, "See, here!" Few people even understood how to use Maxwell's Equations when Einstein burst onto the scene. By the time we were able to actually observe synchrotron radiation in space (which would be necessary to validate that space plasmas are electrical), gravity-only cosmology was firmly entrenched. The whole history of science

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    15. Re:What? by onion_joe · · Score: 1
      Don't forget Thomas Kuhn. If you haven't read it, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"* (or at least excerpts from it) was required reading in my major (geology) at my school. Geology experienced a heck of a revolution in the 1950's with the advent of plate tectonics.

      And my time as an engineer has taught me, whenever possible (and this goes for scientific theories as well, aka Occam's Razor), KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid.)

      -Jeremy

      *sometimes Kuhn is used to support truly outlandish theories (hollow earth, timecube, creationism) so his writing is like a gun. Not able to be used or abused without human intervention. Baby, bathwater, et.al.

      --
      sig sig sig siggy sig
  54. Where's the crator? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When would these meteor strikes have hit the earth in relation to the breakup of the continents? Pangea? Could they have something to do with the tectonic plates?

  55. Keller's far-out by yusing · · Score: 2, Informative

    The 300,000 year hypothesis isn't widely supported.

    "Many scientists reject Keller's analysis, some arguing that the 10 meter (32.8 ft) layer on top of the impact spherules should be attributed to tsunami activity resulting from impact. Few researchers support Keller's dating of the impact crater." -- Wikipedia ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-T_boundary

    --

    "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

  56. But where's the crater? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    Under the Deccan traps?

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  57. That's not what killed the dinosaurs by rfc1394 · · Score: 1
    Let's get real about this. We all know what really killed the dinosaurs: High insurance rates!

    Paul Robinson - My Blog

    --
    The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    1. Re:That's not what killed the dinosaurs by rfc1394 · · Score: 1

      Let's get real about this. We all know what really killed the dinosaurs: High insurance rates!
      It just occurred to me, that's why Geico uses a lizard, because it killed all the dinosaurs before lowering its rates!
      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  58. Ford Excursion.... by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 1

    ....greenhouse gas belching transportation for Diplodoci.

    Now I know where the dinosaurs went.

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
  59. Stop watching television ! by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    .. television is hiding the true emotions of these animals!
    Protect the dino now before it is .. oh well bother..

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  60. Re:Ridiculous... no its the GAGO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You obviously have not been following the
    forthcoming GAGO controversy, have you?

    6000 years all condensed into one day.
    Well.. you will!
    GOD BLESS!

  61. Did Chicxulub cause the Deccan Traps? by grikdog · · Score: 1

    They're roughly 180 degrees apart, according to my highly placed sources (I dimly remember seeing something about this on Discovery Channel), and approximately coeval. Plus, IIRC, 300K is only about 0.46% of 65M, presumably within MOE.

    --
    ``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
  62. No, no, no by jbengt · · Score: 1

    We all know that the dinosaurs went extinct around 5,000 years ago after they began handing out free birth control to the reptilian students at Dino High.

  63. I Blame Doctor Who by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

    He killed off that weasly little bastard Adric by stranding him in a cargo ship the Cybermen took over and slammed it into the Earth to wipe out the dinosaurs.

    He may have mass genocided the dinosaurs, but it was worth it to kill off "the original Weasly Crusher" Adric.

    --
    Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...