Actually my second wife ran them all off.

Am I the only 1 questioning the timing of the article? The news told us about an asteroid passing the earth today, then we see an article claiming that an asteroid impact killed the dinosaurs.....

Hum.

It would be understandable if that triggered the idea, but actually this article is reporting on a Science paper that just came out this week. So it really is a cosmic coincidence!

I told my neighbor it wasn't the NRA........FINALLY............some proof!!!!

Google Farside and the real reason dinosaurs became extinct and you'll see the truth.

Not sure how to take "OH NO"s comment. I happen to be a Creationist, but also don't believe that God's days are what we humans traditionally see or are use to. A day to God isn't constrained to 24 hours, but this is the unit of measurement that man knows and that is why it was used in Genesis. This said, I have always supported the meteorite theory in the extinction of the dinosaurs, (the volcano thing just doesn't seem plausible) and now it will be made more credible by the new findings. The current research of global warming attributed in part to the methane gas excreted by commercial dairy farms proves that giant lizards eating a bunch of roughage and the methane gas they produced may have contributed to the "final blow" the meteorite inflicted. So there!

Ok

"What we really need to do is to understand better what was going on before the impact — what was the level of ecological stress that existed that allowed the impact to be the straw that broke the camel's back?" Renne said. "We also need better dates for the massive volcanism at the Deccan Flats to better understand when it first started and how fast it occurred."

My theory is that the Asteroid/Comet impact caused a massive shock wave that, while initially dissipating with distance, would have refocused the energy at the exact opposite point on Earth - which would have been exactly where the Deccan Flats volcanic eruptions occurred (Modern India was slowly migrating North from Antarctica towards its current location 65 million years ago).

That massive re-focus of energy at the Deccan Flats would have created massive cracks in the Earth, thus resulting in massive volcanic eruptions.

Once they are able to pinpoint the date for the eruptions at the Decca Flats, if they were to be found to occur at the same time as the impact, the coincidence would be too great for them not to be related.

That would indeed indicate that the Asteroid/Comet impact would be the proximate cause of the devastation that occurred at that time.

Time will tell.

John Anonymous-4176247

Thanks for letting us know you a moron in an overly long paragraph.

Not possible since the earth is only 6,000 years old. It is all just a trick by the devil to make people not believe in God. Or so that's what some moron I work with claims.

Some people are just too stupid to be ignorant!

"Proof" of the event that caused a mass extinction, or "New Evidence" supporting the theory of this event? I'm just sayin. (Proof is a strong word.)

No wonder they are all crossing the border and coming up here, they must know another one is coming soon.

timod, "proof" may be technically incorrect, but it is often used when the evidence reaches a threshold that pretty well clinches a theory. if you want to be more precise you have to go into the study itself and learn exactly what the uncertainties are and decide for yourself.

Timod - There is didn't you see the picture ?

Awe Shoot, guess I'll have to start putting my faith in men then. LoL, I don't think so.... Sorry Lord that was a joke. Kind of like the humor you give us when these men try to determine that you don't exist so they can have us believe they can lead us.. LoL yesir that sure is working out well.

So these men, they said that the Grand Canyon took millions of years for the Colorado river to create and then you sent a nice little flood somewhere in the world and showed them that it could be done in just a few days. That was pretty awesome and they changed their theory.

Now they want us to believe that a rock 32,760 feet across hit the earth at probably around 26,550 feet per second or greater with a temperature hot enough to melt rock hit the earth and didn't pierce the magma core turning everything around it into glass? Well, where's the glass? where's the Ignious rock?

I mean, surely it would be buried around there somewhere. A nice, thick, hard as diamond layer of it.

Nope haven't seen proof of or heard anything about that. Nice Theory though keep up the great work and remember to take at least 1 day off a week.

This beautiful planet we all call our home has evolved over centuries, and it's fascinating how science has informed us all as to how we have come to be as we are. I believe "GOD" made heaven and earth and even more convinced now than ever before!

It was really humorous information the other day when these same scientists' informed us that our very first mother was a four legged, long tailed, fury little RAT. What a wonderful thought. Once again, keep up the great work you fine, fine intelligent men fellows'.

chosen....please feel free to believe in an invisible sky being...that is your right. But try not to sound so sanctimonious when those of us that don't believe in fairy tales come along and want scientific explanations for our being here. What completely galls me about people like you is that you are so sure that you are right that you look down on those that don't believe as you do as being stupid and uninformed. Well...I am not 100 percent sure that I am right (that there is no god, just like there was no Zeus, no intergalactic creature named Xenu, and no golden tablets in a hat), but I am pretty sure that with no proof either way, I tend to lean toward the scientific explanations rather than a 2000 year old manuscript written by humans.

"Chosen" I doubt these scientist are trying to bid you into doing their evil deeds of finding out the history of our planet. Also i am rather intrested in your statement claiming that a there was a flood that created a canyon similar to the Grand Canyon, so if you could please provide more details and links to this I would be very much appreciative. Also i failed to find anywhere in teh article claiming that this event lead to "turning everything around it into glass? Well, where's the glass? where's the Ignious rock?" None the less I would aslo like to inform you that if this were created it probably would have eroded for the most part due to weathering. But if you want to look for a giant ancient window in the ground have at it.(FYI glass is not as hard as a diamond) Also its rather commical your misunderstanding of the term theory it is called a theory because its not proven yet but it has some supporting eveidence, think back to 6th grade science. It is also likely new evidence will be found and alter the theory or perhaps prove that it is in fact correct. Lastely your statement on our first mother being a rodent was mis-used it is believed to be the first mammal. Our oldest know Organism is know as a stromatolite and the oldest specimen is 3.5 billion years old and they still live today. its rather pathetic that a high school student from conservative idaho can see you are clearly speaking out your arse in some effort to to degrade scientists because they question the history of the earth but more importantly your beliefs.

stevefoo....... please feel free to believe whatever THEORIES are offered regarding physical events which others postulate having taken place hundreds of thousands or millions or hundreds of million years ago. Like a few of the other commentators here, it is only necessary to open one's eyes and see that there must be a creator!! Like I said, you are welcome to lean in whatever direction you choose, but ignorance of the TRUTH because it doesn't fit into your intellectual or sketchy fundamental ideology or beliefs is indefensible.

I'm sorry, chosen, it's hard to tell whether you are trying to sound ignorant as a joke, or if you are actually being serious here, so I apologize if your comments belong to the first option... Believe what you want about how the earth was made, but if your going to comment on scientific discovery, maybe have a little knowledge about the material. Have you done any research to support this idea of yours that there should be a nice, thick, diamond-hard layer of glass in the area of this impact? Do you know anything about asteroid impacts? First of all, glass forms from the melting, then rapid cooling, of silica (SiO2), a mineral that makes up quartz (and sand, which is tiny pieces of quartz). You can't just apply pressure and heat to any rock and get glass, and glass would never be as hard as diamond, nothing is as hard as diamond. Second, the amount of pressure from the impact was enormous. As a result of the great pressure, very distinct rock structures called shatter cones were formed from some rocks at the site. Shatter cones are conical structures with striations that develop from the apex outward. These structures are only found at known asteroid/meteor impact sites and nuclear bomb testing sites, so there's some evidence for ya. Third, do you realize how dense and thick the crust and mantle are??? No asteroid is going to hit the planet and be able to penetrate all the layers of earth down to the molten core, and there still be a whole planet left.

And, yeah, the idea that women were created from a man's rib is so much more believable than evolution... wow.

PopsinAz you belief in THEORIES as well, and yours are so illogical its pathetic and at other times downright wrong. And if your hoping to go to heaven well then i can only imagine what cutting off your own manhood must have been like but hey for Jesus right. "For there are eunuchs, that
were so born from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made
eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the
kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive
it." (Matthew 19:12 ASV) I can pull out many other flaws if youd like argue flaws against science go ahead im up for it, but expect the same when it comes to your beliefs

Pops....you said 'there MUST be a creator'.....MUST? Why MUST there be one? Because you say so? Because you look around and see some sort of theoritical evidence that others just blindly do not see? Well...it must be wonderful to be you and be so smart about something that is truly just a question mark for our existence. But...keep believing those fairy tales...I look around and if I were to truly believe there was a creator in charge of this rather huge mess here on this planet, I would have to believe he were either impotent to help his 'children' here or a really lousy 'god'. In my opinion, if he really does exist, then somebody else needs to run for the position of god...because he sucks at it.

And...for both chosen and Pops....if you don't believe in evolution, how in the world do you explain the complete difference in facial structure, skin color, height, eye formations, etc between Norweigans, Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, etc, when we all supposedly came from one set of biblical parents? That right there is a prime example of evolution at it's core....whether you believe it or not. But, I'm quite sure that your fairy tales keep you warm and safe at night. It just closes your mind to the possibility of any type of scientific explanation that comes along to depose your theories.

Its simple adam and eve were born a multiple race mix, with different colored eyes, different hair colors, different lobe shapes, each with very slight % of genetic diseases so that their kids will one day have them. The list goes on and the only reason im speaking out about christianity is because im tired of having people force it onto me and acting like they are all superior and then i see them treating other human beings like garbage. the only reason you believe in the relgion you do is because of where you were born.

God is an alien, or actually several aliens. They came to Earth in a beam of light to different parts of the world. They told the locals in those areas that they are their special people and it is their duty to kill off all of the other tribes and races. They did this so that we would all kill each other off and save them the trouble so when their colonization space ships arrive with their entire population, they can just settle in without too much fuss getting rid of who's left over. I think this explanation of religion and god/gods makes at least as much sense as a fairy god father up in the clouds over the rainbow keeping a spot warm for us in a magical land for the dead to live in.

As far as this article, I'm pretty sure whether a comet or a super volcano, food was scarce and well, dinosaurs were huge and needed a lot of food. I'm pretty such that also helped to do them in.

Proof? I'm unconvinced... I realize radiometric dating methods is all they got, but it's HIGHLY inaccurate. Ever hear of new rock testing to be millions of years old? The photograph shown has even sediment deposit layers throughout. The organic matter is concentrated in the 2 coal layers. The only way ground layers end up this even, with the organics sorted as they are is if they are deposited by flood water... I believe along with volcanic ash layers.

Um, is NASA's mission still to be a "cultural outreach program" to our Middle Eastern friends, thanking them for the gift of calculus and other flavors of math? USAID might be a better venue for that.

Maybe the Universe is telling us, with the close approach of this most recent NEO asteroid, that now would NOT be the best time to slash NASA's budget. Gotta have a way to get out there, [WAY out there and WAY early] and to bump these bad-boy rocks off collision path with Earth. It's a relative no-brainer.

NAH, go back to ESPN2 and drool over this year's draft picks. It'll be alright. Nope, nothing to see here, folks...

Well MSNBC, you need to check your facts yet again. The asteroid that wiped the dinosaurs was NOT the most recent mass extinction. There have been at least a couple ice ages since then. They know that there was civilized HUMAN life on this planet as far back as 200,000 years ago, which coincidently seems was BEFORE the last ice age. They know this because there are towns under the ocean in places that havent been dry land since before the last ice age. They have estimated that previous population was probably in the millions and that afterward was down to maybe a few thousand. And birds are not the only living survivors of the asteroid either, there are alligators, crocs, monitor lizards, probably all lizards, snakes, frogs, sharks and rays. There are TONS of species dating all the way back as far as you care to follow. And POPZ, you are a @!$%#ing moron. Science does support you bible to a certain point. Science and history and sociology tell us unblinkingly that people came from the stars and mixed our neanderthal man with their own genetics and made an attempt to teach us the way to enlightenment. But since we are greedy ignorant pieces of @!$%# who couldnt accept that these people werent god and couldnt comprehend the things they tried to teach us they gave up and left. In any case humans were here LONG before any of the real events from the bible ever happened. And the FACT about the bible is that it does contain some true history and some of the actual lessons they wanted to teach us, but what is left of the origional bible(the dead sea scrolls) is hidden away from the eyes of the average man. Its hidden away because they dont want anyone to know that half or more of the bible was made up bull@!$%# to push people into acting a certain way and forking over their income and that 'god' is really just a man who came from a more advanced civilized planet.

Brandon Schmitz "They have estimated that previous population was probably in the millions and that afterward was down to maybe a few thousand."

Interestingly, scientists estimate that when Mt. Toba (a Super-Volcano) erupted about 73,000 years ago, it likely wiped out all but a few thousand humans on the entire Earth. Here's an interesting link;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory#Genetic_bottlenecks_in_humans

Tom, we obviously didn't read your source--the reason for our stupidity. Please enlighten us, from a peer-reviewed SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL, or even NatGeo. We're all ears...

Wait a minute somehow semi-auto weapons had to be responsible not an asteroid!.

Nice one.

No your the one smoking the wacky weed.

No need to bait the creationists. I think it is more amusing when they make their claims spontaneously.

You might want to ask for a refund on that calendar and failed watch you are using... Me thinks all is not well with your thinking and the time is tremendously greater than you can conceive.

To Oh_no:

You're joking...Right? You're parodying those who think the earth is only 6,000 years old...right? Your's is a good post if that's the case. You can't possibly be serious.

Man I hope "oh no" is being sarcastic.....

Of course he's being sarcastic. lol

It's a sarcastic cheap-shot at Christians. It's also not accurate. While Christians may have actually believed that 100's of years ago, the Church now clearly believes in evolution and deep time.

Christians are not a homogenous group. Clearly, some of them are more enlightened than others. Yes - some Christians and even some churches still ardently believe that the Bible is the unadulterated word of god and that the earth is only 6000 years old max. But many, perhaps even a majority, understand that is not really the case. At the least, trying to lump ALL Christians under the same banner of The Church is not correct.

I like Jock's post at 2.3 - no need to bait them, as they usually are more than happy to skewer themselves, lol.

>Todd - what is so cheap about what I said, is there many or
>not out there that believe the earth is about 6000 years old?

The 'cheap shot' part comes from reading every science story and there's always someone who takes a random, uncalled for, cheap shot at Christians. It would be totally unacceptable to take random jabs at Blacks or Homosexuals or Blonds or Muslims or any other group, so why is it acceptable to take a cheap shot at Christians? I see it as Bullying - plain and simple - just the same as if you'd randomly said, ''Blacks are so dumb, they think..." in a Health article, or "Muslims think that..." in a Financial article.

Besides, I don't know if I'd call that group 'many' - I'd probably say a relative 'few' still believe in a 6000 year old Earth. But people also used to believe in Gremlins as the explanation for Friction also. People used to believe in an 'Ether' as the transport mechanism of the Universe. People used to believe that other Galaxies were just 'Nebulas' in our Galaxy. Buddhism teach that the Universe somehow keeps a ledger and magically 'balances' good with bad through Karma - but it still would be totally unacceptable to take a shot at Buddhists in every science story, wouldn't it? It would be bullying and it would be unacceptable.

>If they so clearly believe the earth is older why is there no mention of the dinosaurs or
>other exotic animals not familiar those who wrote the bible mentioned in the bible?
>If they now believe in evolution why is there no mention of the evolution of man in the bible?

You are talking about a book with portions that are 1000's of years old and extrapolating that modern Christianity somehow teaches or believes the same things today. Yes - there is no mention of dinosaurs in the Bible, and yes, some Fundamentalists today will take that to mean that dinosaurs couldn't have existed. There was also no mention of Quarks, Black Holes, Quantum Physics, Radio, Baseball... in the Bible either. The list of things that the Bible doesn't mention would be pretty long.

It's not fair to label all Christians as all acting or thinking a certain way. I think that most American's understand that the ''Radical, Islamic Fundamentalist'' is not really representative of 99% of the mainstream Muslims in the world - and neither is the Fundamentalist Christian representative of 99% of mainstream Christians today.

Suggesting that Christianity today believes in a 6000 year old Earth - that's simply not accurate - and my point is that jumping into an Asteroid / Astronomy / Science story with a random shot at Christianity is bullying.

Also, the "6,000 year old" calculation wasn't just done by the Pope and his henchmen - it was carefully calculated by many very smart people - including Newton & Kepler. They were wrong, but they weren't crazy, lazy or trying to fool anyone. They were simply wrong.

For the record, I'm not Pro-Christianity - I'm anti-Bullying. To jump into every random Science story, and to take a random (and inaccurate) cheap shot at Christians in order to perpetuate YOUR myth that Christians believe in a 6,000 year old Earth and that they don't believe in Evolution - that's Bullying plain and simple.

And, it's a cheap shot because it's not even accurate. We wouldn't say ''Gays like to have sex with animals" because some Homosexuals in 1750 may have been having sex with animals, would we? It wouldn't be accurate, and it would be bullying, and it wouldn't be tolerated.

Finally, most racist, sexist, homophobic 'hate speech' comes from ignorance. If you honestly believe that Christianity officially teaches a 6,000 year old Earth and officially teaches against Evolution, then let me help educate you.

> In 2004, Pope Benedict XVI, wrote:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on Earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for the theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on Earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

Again, for the record, I'm not Christian - but I am anti-bullying and we should all be mature enough to let people have their own beliefs without ridicule and without painting them all with the same broad brush, shouldn't we?

No cheat shots. If you believe in a myth then be prepared to put on your big girl panties and deal with it. You can't equate racist to his comment. Give me a break.

why is there no mention of the dinosaurs or other exotic animals not familiar those who wrote the bible mentioned in the bible? If they now believe in evolution why is there no mention of the evolution of man in the bible?

Because the Bible has already been written and you don't get to add parts to an ancient holy text, even if new information suggest parts of it may be wrong, obviously. You can believe in the Bible and still believe in evolution and the scientific age of the Earth; nothing in the Bible explicitly contradicts either of those facts.

It would be totally unacceptable to take random jabs at Blacks or Homosexuals or Blonds or Muslims or any other group, so why is it acceptable to take a cheap shot at Christians?

Because Christians are not a threatened or beleaguered minority. It's unfortunate and unfair that prejudice is acceptable as long as nobody feels sorry for the group in question, but that's how it works, and complaining about it (and trying to equate it with racism against disadvantaged groups) doesn't help.

I don't know why you would want that kind of sympathy, anyway. The culture of victimhood that plagues all those groups you mentioned is a disease, not a privilege.

Oh_no.. is yet another armchair quarterback. I would ask if you studied theology with all your supposed "knowledge" of Christians, but from the lack of anything substantial coming out of your brain. I can answer that question myself. If you really want to know what Christians beleive, head to several of your local churches (since all churches are different, you'll need to go to a few)

But the sense i get is you're a close minded bigot that just likes to spout his useless oppinion about a group you know nothing about.. so you have no interest in actually finding out facts.

Myself being raised all my life as a Christian i have studied many, many different religions, the ideas of evolution and reincarnation and every other theory is interesting, dinosaurs, life on other planets (also not mentioned in the bible, but the universe is so vast i am pretty sure there is) Its all fascinating.

Dont feel so threatend by what other people believe in, only a small group of "Christians" go door to door, so now adays its not in your face all the time, but you obviously obsess about it if that's the only thing you have to contribute to a discusion about a astroid wiping out dinosaurs.

Anyways, to each his own, at least for now you have the right to say and believe what you want, but IMHO you should try not hating so much, you'll live longer.

2.11

Lord, have mercy! I think I'll wait 4 the film.

;-)

ToddC, the Pope may grudgingly accept evolution (with a very ID sort of interpretation), but the fact remains that at least half of Americans do not. That is a serious problem for the future of science in this country.

But you are correct that these juvenile commenters should not be baiting creationists and taking cheap shots at all Christians.

Unbelievable how this has turned into a christian bashing article when, CLEARLY, it shows why mexico is such a POS country....the asteroid did it !!!

Corrected:

Unbelievable how this has turned into a christian myth bashing article when, CLEARLY, it shows why mexico is such a POS country....the asteroid did it !!!

Wow Mike - weren't hugged enough as a child or something?

I dont buy the christian stuff either, but he's just saying dont be like the over-the-top bible thumpers.

Which you are.

Which I'm sure will make all christians reading this say "wow, I gues my beliefs are wrong. Thanks Mike"

Christians are still infiltrating school boards across the country and removing evolution from schools and pushing "intelligent design" So saying the Church has embraced evolution is a bald face lie. The church hasn't changed it's official stance at all.

I’ll bite- first if you read Genesis you read what G-d did in 7 dark and light cycles- no where is that defined as a 24hr period- the Sun wasn’t even created until the 3^rd day so a 24hr day is not a reasonable assumption to begin with. Immediately after G-d tells us what HE did in his time frame the story picks back up in mans time frame on the “6^th day”. In truth we are still in the 6^th day of creation. For biblical proof of that when the Israelites angered G-d in the desert he swore in his wrath that none of that generation would enter into his rest (his rest is the Sabbath- the 7^th day) he could not have made that claim if in fact mankind had already made to his 7^th day of creation. Paul further writes that observing the Sabbath is a foreshadow of things to come which means it has not happened yet. As for evolution the bible does also support this- first came fish, plants, insects, animals and final humans. The creation story follows the path of evolution from sea creatures to land animals all becoming more and more complicated and “evolved” until you reach humans which was the panicle of earthly animals. The bible also mention that there ARE other life forms in this universe and that we are not alone. Genesis also mentions that some of those life forms mated with humans (read Gen. 6). The fact is you simply have never tried to read the bible with a scientific understanding of it and now wish to insert your ignorance of what is written as fact of proof that it is incorrect- what is written is not incorrect it is your understanding of what is written that is incorrect. Notice also in the creation story it says let us REPLENTISH the earth- you could only use that word if there had been life on earth prior to creating humans. I find there are many things in the bible that most are either unaware of or choose to ignore but by in large the bible never declares man is the only intelligent life in the universe, nor does it say the earth is the center of universe, or that there wasn’t other life prior to humans. Read the bible for what is actually written not for what you want to believe is written.

evolution and creationism can be the same thing, with the time line modified.

And the birds are all thats left of the dinasaurs, so they didnt go extinct , they evolved..again duh.

And with an asteroid hit , there usually is other asteroids in the same group. the mass of the earth was changed and this caused a change in the balance of the treble point of water. gravity increased and caused the moisture content of the atmosphere to dry out.

those oversized were not able to compete and the microclimates created favored the most suited so only they went forward in the creation/ evolution timeline..

keep guessing, suggesting and assuming.. scientists will get it right one day.. how many times does the weather man get it right on ? Oh yes,, weather is a science, so I guess they can only GUESS !!!!

No Mike, you atheists are always on starting fights and acting like the smartest person in the room because you believe something different. Your such a boring tool.

AT new gawker That is bc there is more logic and reason in intelligent design than spontaneous life. At what point do you stop saying the trillion upon trillion sequential events that need to occur for life is 1 gigantic coincident? I mean you are asking us to believe that all of life started only once in the earths roughly 4 billion yrs and then evolved all by itself without any design or thought to every single species alive today. In science your theory is only as good as your assumptions and evolutions assumption is that man kind is the ONLY intelligent life to have ever existed and that is where the theory is severely flawed. Every piece of evidence or data examined is done so under the assumption that no other life form could have been involved in it, yet statistically speaking there is every reason to believe there are other life out there in the universe- heck the bible doesn't even deny that fact. These life forms could have very well created life just as we have created computers. To illustrate the flaw in evolution I’ll use current science- we have spliced the genes of a goat with a spider, so that the goats milk has spider silk in it. Under the standard evolutions model there would be absolutely no way to prove or even say that man kind did that bc evolution states that life happens naturally with absolutely no other intelligent involvement. Under the model of evolution you would have to assume the goat and spider had a common ancestor some million-billion yrs ago, or that a mutation recent occurred but you could not infer that a being was the cause of this new species. Under intelligent design however you could argue that an intelligent being had a hand in creating this new goat-spider cross. Our current science has already proven that an intelligent being can create or manipulate a new species, yet our standard model of evolution would exclude that possibility, so our current model of evolution has a flaw in that it does not allow for what we have proven is possible.

Christians are still infiltrating school boards across the country and removing evolution from schools and pushing "intelligent design" So saying the Church has embraced evolution is a bald face lie. The church hasn't changed it's official stance at all.

1) There is no "The Church". Christianity is very far from a unified organization. Even the Catholic Church, which at least has a head administration, is torn on accepting scientific principles that might challenge traditional Catholic beliefs, and they don't represent even a majority of Christians.

2) What schools have removed evolution from their science curriculums and replaced them with creationism classes, exactly? Because every time someone in any position to do that even hints at it, I always see a huge media outcry and it never happens. Since you seem to have inside knowledge of this insidious plot, mind sharing some of your data?

Easy. Look at history. How many deaths in the name of religion? Most. Argument over. Stuff the fairy tails up your shoot.

I don't care if you polish it, roll it up into a fancy trinket, clean it with the best cleaner available, give it a facelift or new paint job. It doesn't change. It is crap. It is superstition, and misinterpretations.

Twice this week two separate "christians" turned my simple converstaion into a "preachy moment". Very awkward. Annoying! Keep it to yourself and no one will give you a hard time about it.

SF, many school districts in thoughout the South have effectively removed any mention of evolution from the curriculum, even if it is not an official policy (which it may well be in some places). They really ARE inflitrating school boards and they have proudly stated as much. The science community needs to get its act together in promoting science education of we are going to lose the fight against ignorance.

sumday: "so our current model of evolution has a flaw in that it does not allow for what we have proven is possible."

We have proven that humans can manipulate genes. We have not proven that unknown supernatural entitities can do so. Big difference.

SF, many school districts in thoughout the South have effectively removed any mention of evolution from the curriculum, even if it is not an official policy (which it may well be in some places).

So I keep hearing... from random posters on Internet comment boards.

If true, then that's unfortunate, but it's hardly indicative of a larger trend away from science and toward religiosity. Religious observance is falling every generation, and will continue to do so. There is no university in America that would refuse to teach evolution, even if some primary and secondary schools did (and I'm not convinced that's happening in public education).

So I don't believe there is nearly as much of a "fight" as some would like us to believe. I don't think faith need be identified with ignorance. And I certainly don't think that you need to give up or suppress religion for the sake of science, or vice versa.

This has nothing to do with religion other than the fact that most of the people doing it are religiously-motivated. Anti-intellectualism and anti-education are on the increase even if "officially" religion is not. Just listen to the political debate in this country if you think Reason is doing just fine. Yes, we are still training lots of smart people, but you should hear what the radical right has to say about the "leftist" universities.

I'm well aware, and I despise anti-intellectualism as you do. But I don't think the radical right represents a legitimate threat to our education establishment. For one thing, they're not in power. Even if you consider all Republicans "radical right," which I do not, I very much believe that so long as they cling to such absurd views they're going to lose more and more power in government.

Having read most of your comments,it just occured to me why the universe is expanding at an increasing rate,even though the big bang happened billions of years ago. I thank you all for this insight. I can now with all confidence state that I know exactly why. Once again,thank you!

They are not in power at the national level, but that is not where most decisions get made.They are making great strides at the local level in many areas.

The power of the Christian Right is both overestimated and underestimated. No, they do not have the power to "win" on a broad front. But the fights they do take on they go after with an energy and single-mindedness that we underestimate at our peril. And I would rather not write off the entire South as a lost cause; there are good people down there.

In Tennessee where they have put "Intelligent Design" in the schools' curroculum there is a State Senator Stacey Campfield saying,

"Most people realize that AIDS came from the homosexual community -- it was one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men. It was an airline pilot, if I recall."

So much for scientific knowledge in TN.

It would be totally unacceptable to take random jabs at Blacks or Homosexuals or Blonds or Muslims or any other group, so why is it acceptable to take a cheap shot at Christians?

This made me literally laugh-out-loud. Seriously, how can you say this with a straight face?

You have obviously never met a Christian. Let me introduce you... they are the group who takes random jabs at homosexuals EVERY GOD DAMN DAY. And they spend their fair share of time on Muslims too. Granted, they have eased off the Muslim jabs, but you still hear the occasional "Islam requires you to murder people" anytime Muslims come into the discussion.

But to make the claim that Christians do not actively insult or "take a jab" at homosexuals is the biggest lie I have ever heard. Every time a homosexual is referred to in a story, the Christian armada drops anchor and releases a full barrage of "abominations", "burn in hell", "barbarians", "pedophiles", "bestiality"... followed up with the occasional call to eradicate them from existence.

So you will have to excuse me if I don't feel pity for the "poor wittle Christians who get picked on", considering they do more than their fair share of bullying. But I'm sure Jesus would be SO PROUD of his followers, and how they have turned out.

only a small group of "Christians" go door to door, so now adays its not in your face all the time

The jokes keep on coming, today.

So let me get this straight... a small group of Christians going door to door, trying to convert people... monolithic structures in every city, crowned with symbolism and bells that let the public know when they meet... national holidays based around their religion, where they remind everyone of the supposed "true meaning", and play the "war victim" card if any other religion says anything... political figures calling us a "christian nation" that should follow "christian rules".

All of that is considered: "not in your face"

But, according to Christians, a homosexual couple merely existing on the same planet as them... maybe holding hands... is considered: "shoving it in my face"

God I love Christian logic.

They are not in power at the national level, but that is not where most decisions get made.They are making great strides at the local level in many areas.

And while I may not particularly like that, I also don't see that as a threat. Local is local. It affects people who live there and vote for those people. And if they're willing to write off science as elitist gibberish, well, I'll argue with them plenty, but I'm not going to "fight" them. It's enough for me that they aren't able to export their agenda to the national level.

Most of what's good about civilization came directly from or is heavily influenced by organized religion. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Peace out, yo.

Lmao at ToddC..... Homosexuals are not a Race, they are men that like to have other men make love to their rectums, you know, that spot where the Stinking crap ferments and gets removed with great and powerful force sometimes? WoW... Oh and by the way that same piece of flesh they like to have put there, well they also like to have that put in their mouths. Yeah, kinda disqusting isn't it....

Chosen-numbers, I find brussel sprouts disgusting, but some people like them. To each his own. By the way, homosexuals are not just men.

Let's be clear here: not all Christians despise homosexuals, not all Christians deny evolution, not all Christians go door-to-door, and not all Christians take the persecution route. Most main-stream Christians are fine with it all, and are not so judgemental. It is a smallish and select group of evangelical Christians that feel personally affronted with any of these issues. They are the ones to raise the fuss, so they get the press.

So if you feel like bashing someone, make sure to bash the right ones. I personally do not give a rats arse what they believe. But I know a lot of Christians, and the only ones that are in-your-face about any of these issues are those who consider themselves to be evangelicals. I find that rather ironic, actually, because Jesus mostly taught not to judge your neighbors.

Alright, here we go again.

Oh-No, et al., Usher's chronology of the Bible attempted to use the various list of BEGATS (genealogies) in the Pentateuch (first five books) to establish a date for the events of Genesis. His figures came out to around 6000 years ago, give or take a millenium. Just as the genealogies were written in the idiom and vernacular of the day and weren't intended to make a "date certain" for Genesis, the Bible is not meant to be a textbook of paleoarcheology or paleogeology.

We study, we do field archeology, geology, astrophysics/cosmology, etc., and we analyze the data to the extent of our ability. The result is our most recent interpretation of that data.

There are great hazards in assuming we have all the data, as this article points out, or that the current fad of conventional wisdom is the final word on the matter.

If you want to have some fun, go to your local Redbox and rent the DVD of Ben Stein's documentary "Expelled", where he points out, correctly, that anyone who deviates from the current conventional wisdom was expelled from their academic institution. He also got a revealing quote from Richard Dawkins, avowed atheist, that he believes in little green men. This documentary also pointed out scientists who happen to be atheists who have serious methodological criticisms of current evolutionary theory.

Please, folks, don't bash people for believing in God. Erich Von Daniken stated he believes in a supreme being as well as advanced races, what we call aliens or E.T.s, who likely influenced the development of the human race. All sorts of fun interpretations of the Book of Ezekiel, Genesis chapter Six, etc. in the History Channel's Ancient Aliens Series which can be purchased in a boxed set. Another speculative look at human history is a movie called "The Man from Earth." The screenwriter for this movie, I believe, also wrote for at least one episode of Star Trek TOS.

Who knows? It may be that we ARE a genetic experiment by a super-race, or evolved through eons from lower forms. If Elohim holds time-space in his hands, there's no reason that He DIDN'T bring things into being in six literal days. Once again, the ancient Hebrew terms do not limit God to our conceptions of Him. Either case is fully consistent with belief in a supreme being. I fully believe in the God of the Bible, and I believe He invaded our history in the person of his Son, Y'shua, or whom we call Jesus Christ. In any event, or before the next "Big Event," DON'T leave Earth without Him...

DaveyJonesDetroit...You made the most sense of anyone on this blog. Thank you. I am ready also for the next "big event". Hallelujah! Come Lord Jesus.

Katward, your words are very kind. Thanks!

dissapointed and ashamed Easy. Look at history. How many deaths in the name of religion?

But that is exactly my point - looking at a historical behavior of Christians and their beliefs or actions 100's of years ago, and then taking a jab at Christians today - as if they are personally responsible and as if they ALL still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth? Absolutely you are correct - Christian armies went on 'genocidal wars - but that's got nothing to do with your Christian neighbor or the Pastor down the block today. The Catholic Church today doesn't believe in a 6,000 year old Earth - and even they are not 'all Christians' either.

So, my point was:

a) The article was about asteroid and dinosaurs, and was NOT about Christians. A random, uncalled for dig at Christians is no different than a random, uncalled for dig at any group.

b) That while some radical, fundamental Creationists do still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth - that is NOT mainstream or normal Christianity - and to paint all Christians everywhere with that same brush is no less fair that doing that to any other group.

Again - I'm not a Catholic or a Christian, but I am anti-bullying.

Greg-2438150 No cheat shots. If you believe in a myth then be prepared to put on your big girl panties and deal with it. You can't equate racist to his comment. Give me a break.

Just to be clear - I don't believe in the Creation Myth, and I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not a Christian.

BUT, I do believe in not bullying anyone. So no Greg - just because someone believes in a myth (or any other belief that you or I don't also believe in) doesn't mean it's open game to pick on them and that they should have to 'deal with it'.

oh_no clicked on an science article about asteroids and dinosaurs and then decided to make a post taking a jab at the 6,000 year old Earth belief.

That is an uncalled for, cheap shot in my books. Exactly the same as if he'd said something totally random, unrelated and uncalled for about any group. Nothing in the article brought up any religion - oh_no simply decided to take this opportunity to clout the ear of the nerd in front of him, just like any schoolyard bully.

Just to be clear - I don't believe in the Creation Myth, and I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not a Christian.

I don't care what you believe or not believe in. That's not at issue.

I think you need to look up the definition of bullying.

Religion is not some inoccent notion. It's dumbing down our country and trying to make it's way into our kids schools. I will continue to point out the stupidity of religion. If you see it as bullying that's your problem, but to assume it is bullying is just as stupid as religion.

Isn't the crocodile and Komodo Dragon plus some other animals descendents of dinosaurs. Birds certainly are. I don't think they went extinct rather they morphed into what they are today. The big one's like T-Rex, Brontosaurus, Stegosaurus and Triceratops vanished and likely cause was lack of foodstuff. They actually has a long reign compared to our own expectations which will hardly be measured in millions of years.

Yeah I agree. This article and even scientists need to be more accurate when talking about dinosaur extinction.

Some 95-98% of all dino species were already extinct before the K-T event happened. Changing conditions in climate and floral took many of them out, and forced others to evolve. The introduction of mammals probably didn't help either. Studies done on eggs showed that the remaining dinos near the K-T boundary showed that the walls were thinning and becoming softer with less eggs per clutch, indicative that they were becoming more and more stressed as a population.

The dinosaurs were pretty much out the door before the meteor hit, all it really did was close the door so to speak. So really, the K-T boundary wasn't really the point of mass extinction, but more of a point where the mass extinction event that was already going on started to end.

Mitchell

Blackbird, birds are descended from dinosaurs, and crocodiles are the next closely related; but Komodo Dragons are monitor lizards and therefore more distantly related.

jock59801 is correct. Crocodiles are related to dinosaurs in a similar manner as are cousins. Birds are descended from one line of predatory dinosaurs, great grand children so to speak. Monitor lizards are not really related at all.

I disagree with Mitchell. Mammals played no part in the extinction of dinosaurs. Mammals and dinosaurs both originated in the Triassic and by the end of the Cretaceous, mammals had no evolutionary advantages. The fastest, smartest, most versatile land animals at the end of the Cretaceous were all dinosaurs. They lived from pole to pole. The largest mammal was R. giganticus which weighed only 30 pounds. It was in the extinct order Triconodonta which did not survive the Cretaceous. It is possible, due to the ecological factors mentioned in the story, that dinosaur diversity was down at the end of the Cretaceous, but there is no indication that dinosaurs, mosasaurs, pterosaurs, pliosaurs, or plesiosaurs were reduced in numbers. What did happen is that just about every large active deep ocean air breathing vertebrate and every large active land vertebrate became suddenly extinct at the KT boundary. Birds were very heavily hit with relatively few species surviving. Those that did survive, primarily lived around water. During the early Paleocene, the early winners were birds, crocodiles, turtles, lizards, and snakes. Of significance is that all of these Cretaceous extinction event "winners", with just a few exceptions, are egg layers. I doubt that egg predators would have preferentially fed upon the well guarded eggs of say a dromaeosaurus and not eaten bird, crocodile, lizard, turtle, or snake eggs. Crocodiles came through the Cretaceous extinction event better than any other large vertebrate type. Both in the Cretaceous and Paleocene there were crocodiles that were fully marine animals, fully land dwelling predators, as well as todays familiar semi-aquatic predators.

Your sort of wrong there Dale, mammals did have an advantage. They were warm blooded with at least some having hair/fur, this means that they were better able to maintain their temperature and allowed them the ability to forge food for longer amount of time than dinos.

Mostly this means that they were able to take some of the better vegetation at a greater rate. Obviously they wouldn't compete as predators as they weren't big but they definitely were competing with the herbivores and omnivores. If they were beating them to the best vegetation this would put pressure on those dinos, which in turn would also affect the carnivores indirectly.

This would be very apparent during the cold eras. Though there is very good evidence that at least some dinos were warm blooded also, without fur/hair they still would be at a serious disadvantage. They would also be competing with other dinos that were already in the process of developing feathers.

It comes down to a numbers game. Mammals would simply be able to out number dinos given their advantage.

Mitchell

Mitchell, With all due respect, I believe you are confusing modern day mammals with the old image of lumbering reptilian dinosaurs. The evidence is that placental mammals barely survived the K-T extinction event. Link The dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous included herbivores with massive batteries of teeth that could eat the toughest plants. Quick, active predators such as feather covered 40 pound dromaeosaurus were common. I believe you are also forgetting the marine animals and flying pterosaurs which went extinct at the same time. Certainly mammals played no part in the sudden extinction of mosasaurs, pterosaurs, pliosaurs, or plesiosaurs. Here is a link to a website concerning Paleocene mammals: "Despite this impressive diversification, most Paleocene mammals are still on a primitive level of anatomy in comparison to mammals of today."

Yeah I agree. This article and even scientists need to be more accurate when talking about dinosaur extinction

I would read the actual journal article before making that judgement. A short article like this cannot include any depth because of space and audience.

I doubt there is any way to really know what the various ecological advantages were during the Mesozoic; but it's still always fun to argue (excuse me... debate) about such speculations anyway. It is interesting that another recent study reported this week estimates that placental mammals did not originate until just after the K-T boundary, which would confuse the issue because there is then the hypothesis that their explosion of diversity could have been due to evolutionary advancement besides the new release from competition.

isnt it logical that disease entered into the changes and extinctions? Isnt it likey that mammals have better immune sytems and being placental gives mammals more control of their birth time, location and nutrition. and isnt foiled by temp changes that can wipe out a clutch of eggs.

Consider this, the asteroid hits cracking the mantle and earthquakes and volcanic eruptions ensue. Water is vaporized and mixed with the volcanic ash and dust from the asteroid rains down a watery muck that coats everything including all vegetation, diminishing oxygen production. At the same time, the water vapor and soot dim the skies with clouds further reducing oxygen production from the oceans. Impact and volcanic gases spread out for miles from the epicenter and the loss of oxygen from the fires causes a large moving mass of low oxygen air creating an oxygen dead zone that kills every oxygen breathing thing in it's path (such as what happens with oceanic death zones devoid of oxygen). The temperature warms with the cloud covers and fires stressing poikilotherms who then breathe faster and suffocates with the largest of them dying faster as they use up more oxygen.

Also deep oceanic sequestered carbon dioxide will be liberated adding to the toxic heated and ashen air.

Actually, a lot of you are wrong. Dinosaurs, reptiles, mammals and various insects and fish all lived at this same time. Birds are descendants of various smaller dinosaurs, recent discoveries show the even some of the larger dinosaurs may have had feathers. Dinosaurs were warm blooded, reptiles, like crocodiles, lizards and snakes are cold blooded. But all animals are related the further back you go along the evolution scale, they just branch out along their own limbs. Humans branch out on that mammal limb which includes deer, tigers, cows, skunks and then we branch out onto the primate limb that includes monkeys, the various apes and us.

Given the discussions we had in our geology classes in college, our conclusion was that Mitchell is correct and that mammals did play a part in driving the dinosaurs to extinction. If you read his post a bit better and tried to understand what he was saying perhaps you would have gleaned some insight.

No one has a vision of lumbering reptiles anymore (expect for kids) and I guarantee you he doesn't think that. Also, no one was saying we are talking about modern mammals. We are talking about mammals having the ability to out compete the dinosaur herbivores and omnivores. If you need an analogy, think about this; We've seen in recent history several instances where you've had a bloom in the rodent population that decimated entire regions buy devouring the vegetative food supply and put tremendous pressure on the local populations.

Mitchell never said that they specifically caused any extinction, he said it was a factor which they were. Many people inside both the geological and paleontological fields believe they were along with the other factors he mentioned.

The vertebrates which survived the best were turtles. Over 80% of all turtle species survived the K-T extinction. On fact remains very true, the survivors were mostly small and lived in or near fresh or brackish water. Mammals survived no better than crocodiles. Birds barely made it. Those that did were swimming and diving types. 1/3 of all higher plant taxa died. Crocodiles, birds, turtles, and most lizards & snakes all reproduce by eggs. Many of the mammals which survived the K-T extinction also reproduced by eggs. The immediate period after the K-T extinction was dominated by reptiles, not by mammals. This is the exact opposite of what would be expected if mammals played any role in the extinction.

Dale, your reading skills haven't improved any. Again you are implying things that were never said. In my collegiate course we also showed why mammals were thought to be contributing factors. These are people studied in the fields of geology and paleontology, not just instructors but field researchers too.

So, for your last post: Turtles are irrelevant to the discussion, mammals surviving the impact are irrelevant, mammals laying eggs are irrelevant, what dominated after the impact is irrelevant. If you cannot stay on topic, why discuss?

Mitchell

That and cow flatulence.

Actually, I thought it was San Andreas' fault.

You can not blame everything on obama any more than you can blame no dinosaurs on one single event. Obama is just one more disaster that followed the clinton disaster that followed the carter disaster. One leading researcher (economist) makes a strong case that there never was a real recovery from the carter disaster, just a minor economic upward blip. Just like the you can sum up the dinosaurs demise to a string of environmental stresses, you can sum up the demise of economy on the welfare nanny-state stresses of the Democratic party agenda.

captn - LOL!

kill yourself dennis....no party wants people on welfare. That's idiotic. They want to help people who need it but assume less people are abusing then there probably is while republicans think more people abuse then there probably is

If Obama didn't WANT a dependent populace don't you think he would DO something about it?

He is the Campaigner-in-Chief, a lot of lip service but the only IDEA is to devalue the dollar to make ALL people poorer. Taxing more will just make MORE people dependent.

NO, I believe the democratic party WANTS a dependent state.

If Obama didn't WANT a dependent populace don't you think he would DO something about it?

If it was within anybody's power to make all people productive and independent of state aid, then they would do it. It isn't that simple.

This entire thread = no value.

Actually it could very more realistically be that the rest of the world decided to ignore the invasion of masses of central/southern dinosaurs escaping the disaster and as a consequence the quality of life everywhere deteriorated until complete collapse.

no, actually man got hungry and ate all the dinos..lol

There is no doubt at some point in the life of the planet there will be an object large enough hit the planet and reboot the system .... For the species I am more concerned about more plausible and immediate crisis of overpopulation, adaptive disease, world-wide economic collapse (primary concern at this point).

Rebooting the system is not necessarily a bad thing. We some how think this earth was specifically made just for us and it is not. Man is in a runway mode and in time the only thing that will exist on earth is just us and that is a sorry life.

It would seem that the Earth is in need a reset pretty soon. With the population closing in on 8 billion, the planet cannot sustain this kind of assault.

Bah, mammals survived the first round, we'll handle the second one too or die trying.

I think the idea that mankind needs to be "reset" is absurd and atrocious, but with our ability to shelter ourselves and create food in protected areas, it'll take a much bigger rock to finish us off than the one that took out Rex.

"For the species I am more concerned about more plausible and immediate crisis of overpopulation,"

"Man is in a runway mode"

"With the population closing in on 8 billion, the planet cannot sustain this kind of assault."

Awesome! I'm clearly NOT the only 1 who knows about the Georgia Guidestones. (thumb up!)

One day at a time. Yesterday is gone, tomorrow isn't guaranteed, all you have is now, enjoy it best you can.

It has a way of doing that.

The climate was already changing, but this would have certainly messed it up further (at least temporarily).

No. The average interglacial period has been roughly 20,000 to 30,000 years, with the average glacial period being 70,000 to 100,000 years duration. A complete cycle in the Holocene and Pleistocene has run between 100,000 to 200,000 years. 11,000 years doesn't appear anywhere in these cycles.

This is the record for the Quaternary Ice Age (the one we are still in). Previous Ice Ages are the Karoo, the Andean-Saharian, the Cryogenian, and the Hurionian. These are each separated by roughly 100,000,000 years. Details become sketchy the further back in time we go. The only Ice Age we really understand in any detail is the present one.

And we know the timing of the recent ice ages much more precisely, the last one probably within a few decades.

when are these people going to wake up and realize tht evolution science is a bunch of b.s.? no evidence in history supports evolution anywhere close to what they are teaching, no evolution past a kind of animal, the rock layers are formed by the flood and clearly are seen by the way trees are left standing through rock layers. quantum physics proves that the uiverse could not exist without a living being first able to project it into reality. get real people quit casting out evidence that agrees with bible jus because it doesn't agree with scientific theory!

Kirby, if you don't understand science, don't pretend that you do. It's embarrasing. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. So much that there is nearly zero chance that there could be any other explanation for the evidence. If you aren't aware of this, who's problem is that?

This all part of the SWAG theory

no not hardly, the speed of impact has such a rock drilling through all the air and all the water in fractions of a second, largely unimpeded, to expend its energy on the seabed. that seabed was crushed into a vast depression still visible today and truly spectacular quantities of ejecta (some water, some molten rock, etc) covered the planet within hours.

Makes no nevermind whether you buy it or not, Jim. It happened and the dinosaurs died as a result. It could happen to us if another asteroid of the same size hit. That's denial you're feeling. Education removes it.

Research the Tunguska Event. Google it. You will be amazed and if you have any sense at all, you will be afraid. Very afraid.

Hey, don't we Obama supporters get any credit? We're pretty badass too!

there's a tinfoil shortage in america currently

Definitely no shortage of morons with Obama-tourettes. They can't type 2 sentences without blaming him for something.

I would be rather discouraged to find out that the Creator had the sense of humor of a 13-year old Internet troll, actually.

Hey look.... proof of the Creator's sense of humor is in the White House now!

Of course he had a sense of humor. He created san Fransisco, didn't he?

How's about them 49ers?

;-)

You mean the prospectors? Or one of those sports teams that keeps drawing crowds onto the trains during the weekends?

Because frankly, they're equally irrelevant to me.

(snicker) No sense of humor & snooty 2 boot.

U either don't go out when it rains or U have 1 heck of an umbrella.

;-)

Two umbrellas and a rain coat, actually.

The lackwits are confusing San Francisco with Seattle. SF is known for foggy weather, not so much rain. How can they be so dumb?

Sometimes the fog is so thick that it gets you wet, though. It's a real pain.

Dude, dont be the "bible-thumper" of evolutionists. You're making us look like them. People will get it, or they wont. And obviously (based on the past 200 years) people are coming around. People will get it, but not if you hit them with it (ironically, as you're accusing them of doing). We've come a long way since the Scopes trials, but dont be an ass about it

Cee

I beg to differ there friendo

Do some channel surfing on Sundays and witness the mind numbing parade of bible thumping preachers and their mindless sheep and you'll see how far we've come

I'm with Cee. It is fine to vigorously debate science, but you can do it without baiting and insults.

Do some channel surfing on Sundays and witness the mind numbing parade of bible thumping preachers and their mindless sheep and you'll see how far we've come

You're correct in that this is a problem.

And Cee is correct in that you're making the problem worse, not better.

Science and religion need reconciliation with each other, rather than constantly standing in opposition. People that insist that the two forces are opposed are a bigger problem than the religions themselves.

unforgiven#s - Quite true - Where I lived there was a guy who stands on the corner everyday from 4-6 with his church, and signs about repenting, etc.etc.. But he's the exception these days. And this was in Appalachia.

This conversation would have been illegal 100 years ago, and gotten you tarred and feathered. Look at all the books on evolution, and TV shows, movies which use it as a basis. It is slowly (quickly by evolutionary scale, though) becoming accepted. There wil always be some hangers-on. But the tide is turning. Eventually all things will work themselves out in the way they should be. Copernicus was once "crazy" for his view of the solar system (which the church condemed because it contradicted the bible) but there is almost no one who thinks it isnt so now.

I'm just saying that you wont convince anyone by mocking them outright. I'm assuming you arent "converted" when told evolution is devil-junk, or whatever.

More flies w/ honey, and all that...

According to Pat Robertson it was all the bestiality that brought about the demise of dinosaurs!

Now THAT, I can support! (read Stephen Baxter's 'Evolution, if you havent already)

Didn't the Fourth Doctor already prevent that from happening, SF Accountant? or was it Eleven?

LOL perfection

Yeah, those placental mammals just ruined the place. None of the lizards could get jobs anymore.

Were you there for the lizard marches?

Desertjunky, meet unforgiven-3578588 (above)

Now play nice

I assumed you were joking at first, but you are doing too good a job of sounding like a clueless fundamentalist.

Evolution has nothing to do with morality.

I am absolutely not humble enough to accept Creationism as the explanation for existence. I am far, far too intelligent and have too much self-respect (you'd probably call it arrogance) to push aside all of the scientific achievements of humanity and declare "Magical omnipotent guy did it. End of argument."

The thought of submitting to a God disgusts me, and I laugh at the idea that the Bible is a more legitimate guide to my behavior than any number of philosophical texts written by ordinary, fallible humans.

If He has a problem with that, He can tell me in person.

Desertjunky, member of the flat earth society?

Can't say I disagree with you!

We are curious, because we are human.

Knowledge has value even if you don't recognize an immediate benefit.

For example: knowledge of the exact effects of tremendous asteroid impacts could teach us the exact weather patterns influenced by meteor strikes, and how to counter them if we find ourselves unable to stop a meteor from hitting the Earth.

It may not be teaching love and tolerance, but I'd take not getting crushed by rocks over pretty words any day.

I see know study that really can benefit us, today from what may or may not have happened to the dinosaurs. It does however provide another avenue for money to be spent on professional student types...when it would have fed literally thousands of people, but what is helping a few starving people?

Can it change the weather today, tomorrow...no way in hell....sometimes science is what it is...nothing mor.than professionals making calculated guesses....better known as the SWAG theorem,.

I guess those starving people should actually read a science book and make something of themselves, so that maybe they can contribute something to society and feed themselves, rather than complaining that smart people are actually accomplishing things rather than giving them food for nothing.

It's a rough world out there; they'd better get used to it sooner rather than later.

A) There ARE asteroids hitting earth, just not in the past 104 years.

B) We do have our books. And more than one. Which is sort of the point alot of us are making.

C) There is no crime against beliveing one way or another. The way I see it, if you (or I) are happy with our belief, and we're not hurting anyone in the process, go for it.

We'll all find out who was right or wrong soon ebough.

Lucifer runs science? Is that where we're at now?

Did Lucifer create your computer, too? Because let me tell you, it wasn't God that forged the silicon into microprocessors.

my friend, the bible is a collection of books from prophets and scholars who witnessed these things. Other historical books also prove the Torah is the real deal. Historian Flavinus Josephus proves there is a hell and a heaven.

"We'll all find out who was right or wrong soon ebough"

I already know the answer my friend I suggest you take a cue from Cornellius the Centrioun

"We'll all find out who was right or wrong soon enough"

Putting aside your poor spelling, I've heard people making this claim all my life, and it never happens. We're never going to "find out". Science will simply keep advancing and those that resist new knowledge for the sake of maintaining faith will be left behind. Those with the sense to reconcile their faith with the verifiable truth will move forward toward a better future.

SF -the 'b' key is next to the 'n' key. It happens.

First off, I'm not sure what you're saying. I figure I'm going to die someday, and then I'll find out if I or the religious folk were right. I'm assuming you will too.

Secondly, obviously science will keep advancing. How (barring cataclysmic disaster) can it not?

Third, if you read my post, I was contradicting (that means not agreeing with) mugen1. My faith (poorly placed as it may seem at times) is with the human race, not a supernatural being who showed up one day, made a few speeches, and vanished like a teenage father. However, like a dogma of science, I am not claiming to have all the answers based on supposition. Hell, maybe they're all right after all. I doubt it, but hey, you just never know (witness the ceolacanth)

What? I wasn't arguing with you. Both my posts were directed at Mugen.

This has nothing to do with Al Gore, global warming, or your need to make juvenile political attacks.

I'd like to see an ass-teroid land on Gore's head !!

So you're into face-sitting eh baliman?

They have the time window greatly narrowed, probably as good as can be done with radiometric dating. tha is a remarkable achievement, and gives us very precise knowledge.

at least the bible is consistent with the dates and historic records.

Actually, it's kind of stating "we now know more than before" (you see, 33,000 is less than 1,000,000. They are narrowing it down. )

Yes, mugen1, fiction has the luxury of being very precise.

more of "they know more and slowly telling us (Psalms 64:6-9)" because it's not YOU that are doing this, it's is THEY. THEY tell you, YOU just recieve it. Hebrew Records tested the ages of time, modern science is ancient records manipilated to the masses to draw away for an existing GOD who's name is AHAYAH. The Torah does not need to be narrowed down because it's in stone, Modern Science being exposed daily have to scramble up new theories and make them facts for you to believe. But I cannot tell you what to believe, just check the scriptures and research and weight it.

Thank you sir for an open mind.

Mugen, science has to allow room for correction and error precisely because it does not have the luxury of "faith" that religion has. When evidence arises that a religous belief is wrong, it's perfectly acceptable to ignore it and declare that it's some sort of "test" or blasphemy, and ignore the actual evidence regardless of its veracity.

Science can't afford to be that slipshod. It gets its legitimacy from the fact that it corrects itself when it comes up with better data. I for one put MORE trust in the source that has improved and grown over the centuries than the source that has remained almost completely stagnant and unchanging despite all the fantastic progress humanity has made in understanding the natural world. Being so well "time-tested" is religion's flaw, not its virtue.

SF accountant I find it easier to believe that this 'miraculous' universe was created than to believe that it just spontaneously happened without cause. I have already prayed for you. I hope you can find something better to do with your time than repeatedly post on MSN.

SF accountant I find it easier to believe that this 'miraculous' universe was created than to believe that it just spontaneously happened without cause.

Of course it's easier. Magic will always be easier than science, because the former doesn't require logic or proof. That doesn't make it more correct. I find it much more rational (the counterpart to "easier") to believe that a set of unfathomably unlikely circumstances occured to give birth to all life rather than there being an all-powerful magic man who always existed and did everything Himself.

But neither of those things really have to do with meteors killing dinosaurs, so they have jack all to do with the article.

As for posting on MSN, it's how I deal with the crushing boredom of a paper-pushing desk job. This is all far more interesting and stimulating to me than verifying invoices.