Global Warming?

[chkntrktr]

I think a little research will show that such an impact would tend to cool the planet...i.e., contribute to an "ice age" scenario...rather than the opposite...duh!

Correct.
dinosaur

Even volcanic eruptions can cause cooling.

Was the Little Ice Age triggered by massive volcanic eruptions?

 

[EE_Bota]

Regarding the dinosaur extinction, I have seen some suggestions that a great deal of the destruction was from the heat of impact, followed later by a cooling. The information had estimations of the energy released by the impact, and it was right impressive and suggested that much of the land based life in the hemisphere of impact was dead within a few hours.

 

[madmax12]

Since two dinosaurs are written about in two separate historical books of the historical Old Testament, some consider the global flood of Noah's time to have played a role. It is stated to have covered the highest mountain peak under 20 feet of water. Any land creature not on the ark... Didn't make it.

It also might explain how some creatures were instantly frozen, as they were immersed and thrown, via extraordinary weather events, into a frozen climate.

 

[/pine]

Regarding the dinosaur extinction, I have seen some suggestions that a great deal of the destruction was from the heat of impact, followed later by a cooling. The information had estimations of the energy released by the impact, and it was right impressive and suggested that much of the land based life in the hemisphere of impact was dead within a few hours.

It would seem from a layman's point of view that the heat associated with an impact would be localized rather than global/hemispheric...it also seems that an impact significant enough for the associated heat to have more than a localized effect would have to be so massive that it would entail much more catastrophic changes to the planet than just climate...

I would also think that a heat source of such magnitude (to cause hemispherical impact) would also leave other physical evidence...especially near the point of impact?

As far as having an effect to to cause such instantaneous death...I have to think about the frozen animal specimens that have been found with fodder still in their mouths etc. with no other physical signs (other than temperature) that caused their deaths...

can you cite any references for the impressive "suggestions" you mention?

 

[EE_Bota]

I would also think that a heat source of such magnitude (to cause hemispherical impact) would also leave other physical evidence...especially near the point of impact?

I want to comment on the use of the word "impact" which could be pretty confusing in this discussion. I view your phrase "to cause hemispherical impact" as meaning that it had an effect on the hemisphere. Responding to the meat of your statement now, the information claimed there was a massive impact crater down in the Mexico. They represented it as being much like a super massive nuclear blast, with the heat the surface of the earth far and wide until depleted.

As far as having an effect to to cause such instantaneous death...I have to think about the frozen animal specimens that have been found with fodder still in their mouths etc. with no other physical signs (other than temperature) that caused their deaths...

can you cite any references for the impressive "suggestions" you mention?

Unfortunately, I think I have confused the discussion because I am quite sure you know all about this, so somehow I have said something in a strange way that has accidentally obscured what I was referring to:

Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at the topic "Effects" you will see what I mean about the heat effects.

Sorry to confuse folks.

 

[/pine]

I want to comment on the use of the word "impact" which could be pretty confusing in this discussion. I view your phrase "to cause hemispherical impact" as meaning that it had an effect on the hemisphere. Responding to the meat of your statement now, the information claimed there was a massive impact crater down in the Mexico. They represented it as being much like a super massive nuclear blast, with the heat the surface of the earth far and wide until depleted.



Unfortunately, I think I have confused the discussion because I am quite sure you know all about this, so somehow I have said something in a strange way that has accidentally obscured what I was referring to:

Chicxulub crater - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you look at the topic "Effects" you will see what I mean about the heat effects.

Sorry to confuse folks.

Other than the heat created by a "super massive nuclear blast"...there is the "shock pressures" that could also possibly have a wide spread effect on flora and fauna...

Popigai Crater, Russia

 

[IslandTractor]

Since two dinosaurs are written about in two separate historical books of the historical Old Testament, some consider the global flood of Noah's time to have played a role. It is stated to have covered the highest mountain peak under 20 feet of water. Any land creature not on the ark... Didn't make it.

It also might explain how some creatures were instantly frozen, as they were immersed and thrown, via extraordinary weather events, into a frozen climate.

How many of you "deniers" accept the stories in the bible as equal or more reliable than "modern" (post Darwin) experimental and observational science?

I am fascinated by the confusion on matters of biology and other science between beliefs based on scientific evidence and religious beliefs based on what was recorded in the bible (or other religious texts). Some people seem to assume that because the word "belief" is used to describe each that they are therefore equally valid sources to determine the history of the universe. Do those of you who dispute the role of man and fossil fuel in climate change fall into that group? Is someone who is willing to believe biblical stories as literally true also more willing to believe the various conspiracy theories used to disparage the great majority of climate scientists who believe that man plays a great role in driving the current climate change?

 

[madmax12]

How many of you "deniers" accept the stories in the bible as equal or more reliable than "modern" (post Darwin) experimental and observational science?

I am fascinated by the confusion on matters of biology and other science between beliefs based on scientific evidence and religious beliefs based on what was recorded in the bible (or other religious texts). Some people seem to assume that because the word "belief" is used to describe each that they are therefore equally valid sources to determine the history of the universe. Do those of you who dispute the role of man and fossil fuel in climate change fall into that group? Is someone who is willing to believe biblical stories as literally true also more willing to believe the various conspiracy theories used to disparage the great majority of climate scientists who believe that man plays a great role in driving the current climate change?

Consider the way u just addressed me. In what way could we have an objective discussion? U clearly consider me the fool, and the denier. Is it not possible that the role is reversed? If u do not consider it possible that the other view has anything to study...then u r not able to objectively research the subject, at all.

 

[/pine]

once again for the highly gullible and misguided fools that consider anyone that questions an unproven science as "deniers"...:

"science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Richard Fenyman

 

[IslandTractor]

Consider the way u just addressed me. In what way could we have an objective discussion? U clearly consider me the fool, and the denier. Is it not possible that the role is reversed? If u do not consider it possible that the other view has anything to study...then u r not able to objectively research the subject, at all.

Religious explanations of natural phenomenon are almost by definition not scientifically investigated. Hard to objectively research miracles etc that occurred hundreds of years before they were first recorded in the bible.

Your point is good though as religions themselves don't try to disprove their own "theories" or to collect data prospectively to answer questions. Science does and as you seem to value objective research I presume you come down on the science side of the debate intellectually even if you reference the Noah myth.

 

[madmax12]

Religious explanations of natural phenomenon are almost by definition not scientifically investigated. Hard to objectively research miracles etc that occurred hundreds of years before they were first recorded in the bible.

Your point is good though as religions themselves don't try to disprove their own "theories" or to collect data prospectively to answer questions. Science does and as you seem to value objective research I presume you come down on the science side of the debate intellectually even if you reference the Noah myth.

What u wrote here is so biased, it's just sad. The faith-minded r constantly searching, studying, testing, investigating. The faith-minded test each other, wanting to speak what is true. There are many scientists that r in the faith category, and they agree on some things and disagree on others.

Our search, all of us, should be for what is really true, not what fits in our box. If I read what u say correctly, I hear this: "Since I think religion is a stupid myth, and it doesn't fit in my box, anyone or any 'fact' in that area is foolish, ignorant, stupid, and false...therefore, I will never have to study it...because I'm already right."

Presume, for now, that I am a stupid fool. What if I'm an arrogant, stubborn jerk? Does that mean the whole faith construct is nullified because u met me and I hold to that point of view?

Your presuppositions are so biased and basic, that it is an indication to me that u would have no way of knowing any of the science known in the faith community.

Why not find researchers of faith, who really r intelligent scientists, and see how they arrived at their conclusions.

If u presuppose everything in a "religious" category of science to be false, that would force u to view any information (even if it were supportive of the faith construct) as only supportive of a non faith view.

 

[IslandTractor]

What u wrote here is so biased, it's just sad. The faith-minded r constantly searching, studying, testing, investigating. The faith-minded test each other, wanting to speak what is true. There are many scientists that r in the faith category, and they agree on some things and disagree on others.

Our search, all of us, should be for what is really true, not what fits in our box. If I read what u say correctly, I hear this: "Since I think religion is a stupid myth, and it doesn't fit in my box, anyone or any 'fact' in that area is foolish, ignorant, stupid, and false...therefore, I will never have to study it...because I'm already right."

Presume, for now, that I am a stupid fool. What if I'm an arrogant, stubborn jerk? Does that mean the whole faith construct is nullified because u met me and I hold to that point of view?

Your presuppositions are so biased and basic, that it is an indication to me that u would have no way of knowing any of the science known in the faith community.

Why not find researchers of faith, who really r intelligent scientists, and see how they arrived at their conclusions.

If u presuppose everything in a "religious" category of science to be false, that would force u to view any information (even if it were supportive of the faith construct) as only supportive of a non faith view.

First, I don't think I said religious science is false, I just said that religious doctrine is not investigated through prospective collection of data.

Second, scientists with religious faith virtually never apply the scientific method to testing their own religious beliefs. This demonstrates, to me at least, the fundamental difference between science (testable hypotheses) and religion (faith based belief, no evidence needed beyond scripture and none rigorously sought).

Third, you seem to consider religious thinking, which I agree can be highly rigorous, to be similar to evidence based hypothesis driven science. I do not equate these. I believe you referred earlier to evidence that there were two dinosaurs on Noah's Arc. That is probably a testable hypothesis if you accept any of the science of paleontology. To my knowledge there have never been dinosaur fossils found mixed with modern mammal fossils or bones and the two are never found in geologically similar strata with regard to time. Also, in case you prefer chemistry to paleontology evidence, I don't believe there is any carbon dating evidence that shows any of Noah's mammals were extant at the same time as dinosaurs. Those are at least three pretty important points to consider (and require refutation) if you think dinosaurs (other than chickens) were aboard the Arc.

Fourth, I have not called you any of the names you suggest. The basis of my initial question was the juxtaposition of a faith based assertion (dinosaurs on Noah's Arc) being raised as evidence relevant to a climate change discussion. It seemed odd that dinosaurs were accepted as a matter of faith while many of the participants in this discussion appear to deny the validity of scientifically collected climate data. You say I am biased but I just asked a question. To rephrase it: Are climate data and dinosaurs on Noah's Arc both verifiable through scientific testing or not? If they are discordant in this way then I'd say that Noah's Arc beliefs are fundamentally different from experimentally collected climate data. One belongs in a Sunday school discussion and the other belongs in a public policy debate. We do not (should not!) develop public policy on unverifiable faith based science.

 

[EE_Bota]

Choosing a chicken as an example of an extant dinosaur rather than say salt water crocks, alligators, monitor lizards, Komodo dragons seems odd to me. Perhaps you are trying to signal that you believe that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

 

[IslandTractor]

once again for the highly gullible and misguided fools that consider anyone that questions an unproven science as "deniers"...:

"science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Richard Fenyman

Do you even understand that quote you continue to reference? Talk about misguided and gullible. Just how does your favorite cute quote either contribute to the discussion or undercut science?

 

[IslandTractor]

Choosing a chicken as an example of an extant dinosaur rather than say salt water crocks, alligators, monitor lizards, Komodo dragons seems odd to me. Perhaps you are trying to signal that you believe that dinosaurs were warm blooded.

Nah, it was just on my mind as i recently saw an article discussing chickens and dinosaurs. Also, everyone assumes Noah had chickens on board. I don't believe Komodo dragons would have behaved well on the ark.

 

[/pine]

...Talk about misguided and gullible.

I have...and they describe your missives profoundly....

 

[IslandTractor]

I have...and they describe your missives profoundly....

And just how is your cutsie quote relevant?

 

[IslandTractor]

One more time (for those that (just) think they are more "mentally equipped" than those that question their "facts")

"science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"

Richard Feynman

Still no reply from you regarding how this quote is relevant to the discussion. Me thinks you thought it was cute but never went any further.

To be sure, Richard Feynman was a remarkable scientist and philosopher. Los Alamos, Caltech, NASA, Nobel Prize, etc etc. He never disparaged science. Quite the opposite. He was a confirmed atheist who rejected his families faith quite openly and always believed that science should be critically pursued and honestly communicated. I find it fascinating that you like to use his quote to imply the opposite.

Here is a more relevant quote from him on belief and science:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. "

Richard Feynman

 

[madmax12]

First, I don't think I said religious science is false, I just said that religious doctrine is not investigated through prospective collection of data.

Second, scientists with religious faith virtually never apply the scientific method to testing their own religious beliefs. This demonstrates, to me at least, the fundamental difference between science (testable hypotheses) and religion (faith based belief, no evidence needed beyond scripture and none rigorously sought).

Third, you seem to consider religious thinking, which I agree can be highly rigorous, to be similar to evidence based hypothesis driven science. I do not equate these. I believe you referred earlier to evidence that there were two dinosaurs on Noah's Arc. That is probably a testable hypothesis if you accept any of the science of paleontology. To my knowledge there have never been dinosaur fossils found mixed with modern mammal fossils or bones and the two are never found in geologically similar strata with regard to time. Also, in case you prefer chemistry to paleontology evidence, I don't believe there is any carbon dating evidence that shows any of Noah's mammals were extant at the same time as dinosaurs. Those are at least three pretty important points to consider (and require refutation) if you think dinosaurs (other than chickens) were aboard the Arc.

Fourth, I have not called you any of the names you suggest. The basis of my initial question was the juxtaposition of a faith based assertion (dinosaurs on Noah's Arc) being raised as evidence relevant to a climate change discussion. It seemed odd that dinosaurs were accepted as a matter of faith while many of the participants in this discussion appear to deny the validity of scientifically collected climate data. You say I am biased but I just asked a question. To rephrase it: Are climate data and dinosaurs on Noah's Arc both verifiable through scientific testing or not? If they are discordant in this way then I'd say that Noah's Arc beliefs are fundamentally different from experimentally collected climate data. One belongs in a Sunday school discussion and the other belongs in a public policy debate. We do not (should not!) develop public policy on unverifiable faith based science.

I have a different view from yours, so u may have a hard time hearing me. That said, science is not magical. It's not even English. It is a transliterated word... translated it would be "knowledge". The concept of the thread, is theory. Not knowledge. The global warming/cooling/climate change debate... is just that. A debate. It is not a hard science. Same for evolution. Theories. Ideas. Wonderments... Faith, even. You have yours. I have mine.

Your statement: "Second, scientists with religious faith virtually never apply the scientific method to testing their own religious beliefs." Can u show me the data that verifies your belief, in that sentence? From your belief, there, you arrived at a conclusion... "This demonstrates, to me at least, the fundamental difference between science (testable hypotheses) and religion (faith based belief, no evidence needed beyond scripture and none rigorously sought)."

"I believe you referred earlier to evidence that there were two dinosaurs on Noah's Arc."
We have exchanged, what... 3 posts? And u do not accurately know what I said, and u could have easily scrolled up the computer screen to know for sure. But, alas, you did not. I do not think the dinosaurs were on the ark. I think they were wiped out in the flood. My post on that was very short, and, I thought, very clear. But...you did not "know" (scientia) even my short post, from mere moments ago.

"Are climate data and dinosaurs on Noah's Arc both verifiable through scientific testing or not?" That depends. For both subjects, the data would have to be purely, truthfully, unbiasedly collected. For both subjects, that is debated. Do I think I will change your thinking? no. But, I will say this... The Bible is proved in many areas:

Literary validity testing. As u would test works of shakespeare, etc... u can test the Bible for literary historical credability.
Historical testing. There are cultures mentioned in the Bible who were thought to be mythical, until the cultural remains were discovered.
Archeological testing. Where the Bible refers to cities or events long gone, they are found, when digging based on biblical location references.

Researching the Noaic flood. Amazon.com: Mount St. Helens: Seeing Noah's Flood Through Geology: Dr. Steve Austin, Kyle Justice: Amazon Instant Video

Assumption of TIME in evolutionary theory. Mount St. Helens by Steve Austin - YouTube
I have seen the full length video, though it has been a while. It is a useful tool for researching the opposing view, from the one you hold.

"One belongs in a Sunday school discussion and the other belongs in a public policy debate. We do not (should not!) develop public policy on unverifiable faith based science." That quote sums up many of the world's troubles. It is a presuppositional assumption. Such an attitude will destroy true science. Knowledge is cast down by assumption... not learned.