Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

Yes.It was presented as evidence in post #1 and noone else bothered to take it on. And I haven't finished yet.{EDIT: The way evolutionism and the geo timetable are presented to the public is a disgrace, a travesty of science, and I'm as interested in blowing that kind of deceit as I am in this topic.}And of course you choose to ignore the obvious implications of this kind of thinking in the areas of evolutionism and the geo timeline, which the more sophisticated scientific reports only obfuscate although it is really the same kind of thinking.I'll get to everything I need to get to here if the thread lasts that long. No, you don't seem to be able to understand what I wrote. I wasn't talking about the iridium, I was talking about the "chemical evidence" found in Antarctica, which is also assumed to exist all over the globe. That's how I read it anyway. The first story starts out talking about a humungous dust cloud that would cover the earth. Certainly the idea is there that it must occur all over the globe if the "event" of the gigantic meteorite that is posited to have produced it was really that gigantic, at least as gigantic as the one that produced the iridium after all.However, in neither case is there any way to prove that the meteorite chemicals actually are found all over the globe, as I explained.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 06:03 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 06:05 AM

Just read through your post and what it confirms is what I already acknowledged -- these fragments that were found demonstrate a definite meteorite event. It also gives a chemical name to the fragments which the popular accounts didn't for some reason.In other words your more detailed scientific information has not contributed one thing new of any importance to what I've already discussed about the popular reports.We have evidence of a meteorite, period. Big deal, there have been many of them. There is still nothing to indicate that this meteorite was anywhere near as gigantic as is postulated, or to indicate the time frame in which it hit, except the assumptions of the geological timetable, which are interpretations, theory, not empirical fact. The sedimentary layers as time periods remain nothing but theory.The chemicals are empirical fact. Their being indicators of a meteorite event is very well supported empirically as the chemistry of meteorites is well known.Their actual distribution across the earth is not established and most likely can't be.There is also no crater to corroborate such a huge hit.And there remains the question raised at the close of the CBS report about how these chemicals could have survived 251 million years under normal conditions of weathering.

Iridium is found at the kt boundary across the planet at 100 plus sites. This layer is dated at about 62 mya by that pesky geologic column/timetable that you just can't wish away.The info on the Permian event is less well known, but at the 250 mya level several chemicals that are distinctive to impacts are present (just worked thru those pdf files about fullerenes and metal ratios).Again the key to understanding this comes with a basic geological education which you so willingly lack.Buy that book and work on tectonic movement, the rock cycle, and the geologic column. Eighteen year olds routinely understand these concepts, why can't you?ABB

This just seems to be gibberish. The only kind of thinking that seems to be in evidence is that theories supported by some data are preferential to those with no data whatsoever. My apologies, I take your point about the dust cloud. It would be a perfectly reasonable expectation that you would see this globally, but they don't make any claims that they have found evidence for this, and the phrase you quoted was specifically referring to the iridium deposits. I don't recall any such explanation, was it in a different post? Why would their presence in the same geological strata at a number of sites, ideally a random sampling, over the world not be compelling evidence. I'm not claiming that I have access to this evidecnce, I'm just asking why such evidence wouldn't be convincing. Obviously if you doubt the veracity of the geologic column then it might not be convincing, but most people accept the common identity of the various strata.TTFN,WK

uh, because even a 4 year old knows how to identify an artist's conception? that's rock, in the painting. impacts eject rock, that's what makes the crater. i think this should be my new signature. i'll even quote you:faith: so little fact, so much drama. uh, not in that article. that's a newspaper-type story. not scientific research. yes, well. welcome to science dumbed down for mass consumption. cbs news is markedly different than a scientific journal. it's news, not research or education. posting it as "evidence" is rather misleading. it's talking about the evidence that was found, and any reasonable person could concievably track down the study themselves. it's just a way to report that evidence was found.

---

אָרַח

Perhaps because it is simply a popular account and not a technical piece of research? Perhaps because most of the popular report is not directly relevant to the paper, I'm not claiming that the extrapolations the CBS article ofr even the papers author choose to make are neccessarily justified, simply that by rebutting such an article you are only taking down a strawman of the actual research. Obviously what I presented was not the whole article but only some extracts, the main points I was drawing to your attention were that there are a number of other papers dealing with data relating to this supposed impact from various sites around the world and that the paper does give details of the surrounding geologic layers, something you were complaining was absent in the CBS article. Indeed, and the possibly ephemeral nature of these chemicals does present a problem for finding a global distribution. It would be interesting to see if there are any particular environmental commonalities between the Antarctic and the Chinese beds which might explain the preservation at these sites but not globally, if there is a paucity of such deposits at other sites.TTFN,WK

you have failed to disprove the law of superposition, and you yourself admitted that the geological timetable must have been laid down sequentially.that means that in some respect, layers = time. by your own admission. there wasn't one for the k-t event for a long time, either. and then we found it.these are events that happened millions of years ago. they have been eroded, covered in sediment, filled in, and shifted around or distorted. we only know about yucatan one because of advanced seismological technology. you can't see it standing right above its center. its quite a distance below the ground, and stradles the coastline of the peninsula. standing right on top of it, you'd never know.yet there it is on the gravity map.

---

אָרַח

I heartily agree, in fact the way almost all science is presented in the media is a travesty of the actual methods and findings of science. But this is due more to a crass approach on the part of the media rather than some sort of intentional conspiracy from science.The habit of many researchers to run off to the media before getting their work published is a big contributing factor though, as well as the tendency to exaggerate the significance or implications of ones work.Perhaps we should start a new thread on the public presentation of science.TTFN,WK

It appears you are beginning to get a bit of a grasp about these things. (that is if any of us can).

"The Bad Astronomer" is the title that Dr. Plait uses on his own web site and indeed is his user name on his site's bulletin board system.

Assuming the mass extinction of the Permian/Triassic was caused by a large impact, the odds are that we will never find a crater. The odds are that that impact hit in the ocean and the vast majority of the ocean floor existing at the time has been since been subjected to the ultimate crater eraser: subduction.

Faith, if you'll go to Science | AAAS and register - for free - you can use the search feature there to find the article WK linked to. You can then read the whole thing for free. Don't forget the footnotes.
Look for:
Asish R. Basu, Michail I. Petaev, Robert J. Poreda, Stein B. Jacobsen, Luann Becker
Science, Vol 302, Issue 5649, 1388-1392 , 21 November 2003volume and first page is one way.This message has been edited by Coragyps, 05-26-2005 05:15 PM

The Bad Astronomer is also his user name here at EvC (though its been over a year since he made his five posts here .

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

and we all know how tough gophers are

i know i'm just being a pain.however, i did not know he posted here. that's rather awesome.

---

אָרַח