The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Thu Dec 01, 2011 5:05 pm

Five years ago, in our senior year of high school, we visited a science and history museum. We were looking at the dinosaur exhibit and I talked to Bergen, the other nerd in our class.

We decided that if the so called "proven theory of extension" was true, why would no dinosaurs have cracks on them. And you can't glue bones together. And if the meteor hit only half of the earth as said, why were dinosaurs not on the other site.

We never actually created our own theory, but realized, their's is wrong. If all dinosaurs died, nothing else could. Only ants maybe, and no human evolves from ants cause no nuclear explosion happened we think that made that happen.
 
So all in all, if we evolved from monkeys or apes or whatever, how would something survive. I think it's highly unlikely for apes to live on only half and dinosaurs on only the other half of the world. The earth was still connected, and the animals were bound to wander around.

I was reminded of this when Bergen called me up and asked me if I had a new search on it.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby KittyReaper » Sat Dec 03, 2011 12:38 am

ok let me debunk your thoughts really quick.

1. there were no primates alive during the time of the dinosaurs.

2. the size of a mammal alive at that time was about the size of an average dog at the very most.

3. dinosaurs were huge reptiles and they needed a lot of food everyday just to keep going if they starved they died.

4. the asteroid in question which hit the gulf of mexico (with the force of 9million nuclear warheads) was 9 miles long approximately.

5. the force of an asteroid that big hitting the earth, would cause an aftermath of huge climate change, resulting in poor air quality, huge storms, forest fires, earth quakes, tsunamis. (basically Armageddon)

6.the only thing that saved the mammals most likely was their size they needed a lot less food to live and the fact that they invested in their young which is probably one of the main reasons we are here today.
Last edited by KittyReaper on Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby fabolous1024 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:52 am

^ This.

Do you really think a meteor literally blew up half of the Earth and physically killed everything all at once? It's amazing what a small meteor and as Reaper said, massive and sudden climate change will do to.... basically all life on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous ... tion_event

Wiki is for winners.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:01 am

Reaper1711 wrote:ok let me debunk your thoughts really quick.

1. there were no primates alive during the time of the dinosaurs.

2. the average size of a mammal alive at that time was about the size of an average dog at the very most.

3. dinosaurs were huge reptiles and they needed a lot of food everyday just to keep going if they starved they died.

4. the asteroid in question which hit the gulf of mexico (with the force of 9million nuclear warheads) was 9 miles long approximately.

5. the force of an asteroid that big hitting the earth, would cause an aftermath of huge climate change, resulting in poor air quality, huge storms, forest fires, earth quakes, tsunamis. (basically Armageddon)

6.the only thing that saved the mammals most likely was their size they needed a lot less food to live and the fact that they invested in their young which is probably one of the main reasons we are here today.


Let me debunk your theories.

1. If no primates were alive, then how did they evolve.

2. Scientists agree we didn't evolve from dogs.

3. I agree, but I still realize that, but some were a lot smaller in comparison.

4. I'm no idiot, of course I know that.

5. Basically summarizing what I said because all of those things woild knock of planet life.

6. they would've either starved or been crushed or burned etc...

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Sat Dec 03, 2011 7:05 am

fabolous1024 wrote:^ This.

Do you really think a meteor literally blew up half of the Earth and physically killed everything all at once? It's amazing what a small meteor and as Reaper said, massive and sudden climate change will do to.... basically all life on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous ... tion_event

Wiki is for winners.


But they don't say how we became if we evolved from ape. (Tell me if I'm wrong because I read only the first half.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby Kyle » Sat Dec 03, 2011 8:59 am

Reaper1711 wrote:3. dinosaurs were huge reptiles and they needed a lot of food everyday just to keep going if they starved they died.

...

6.the only thing that saved the mammals most likely was their size they needed a lot less food to live and the fact that they invested in their young which is probably one of the main reasons we are here today.


Many dinosaurs were pretty small too, actually. The bigger ones happen to be the better-known ones, which is generally true even among animals that are alive today (think sharks for one example).

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby SamanthaBoundx » Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:15 am

My inner-nerd is halfway between laughing hysterically and sobbing in despair after reading this. . .

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby skybird137 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:24 am

"6. they would've either starved or been crushed or burned etc..."

You mean like the small mammals that survived right next to Mount st Helens?

According to your claim, they all died. Reality is a bit different from that...
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby viking » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:25 am

Lonewolf wrote:But they don't say how we became if we evolved from ape. (Tell me if I'm wrong because I read only the first half.


i'm not really a scientist, and never bothered about science. but if you really need an explenation about the evolution then have a look at this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faRlFsYmkeY
that should mostly cover up the long road of the evolution
Once a scout, always a perverted pyromaniac with a fetish for knives and duct tape

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby fabolous1024 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:08 pm

Lonewolf wrote:
But they don't say how we became if we evolved from ape. (Tell me if I'm wrong because I read only the first half.


Sigh. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... #Evolution

On a different note, I have a question. Do you really think that the hundreds of thousands of people, each working for many decades over their lifetimes throughout the various fields of evolution and geology and paleontology and other related fields, would all be wrong and you, with 0 formal education or research in the subject, would be right about this? That's basically what you're saying when you say such nonsense such as "The dinosaur extinction theory wrong".

Samanthaboundx wrote:
My inner-nerd is halfway between laughing hysterically and sobbing in despair after reading this. . .


Yah I facepalmed a few times on this thread.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby Scottstud94 » Sat Dec 03, 2011 5:16 pm

Wow. Just wow.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby SamanthaBoundx » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:19 am

fabolous1024 wrote:Yah I facepalmed a few times on this thread.


Trust me, there is no amount of face palmage sufficient to make up for this xD

And you go to Stanford? Really. . ?

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby xtc » Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:49 am

Lonewolf wrote:
But they don't say how we became if we evolved from ape. (Tell me if I'm wrong because I read only the first half.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the theory of evolution claims that we eveloved from apes, merely that we share a common ancestor (? the missing link?)

Is anyone else worried that anti-evolutionists ( and even creationists) are teaching maths and even science in our schools?
Boxer shorts are cool,
but little speedos rule!

More by the same author: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=22729

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby Chase Ricks » Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:02 am

Lonewolf you have earned yourself yet another reason to be the forum laughing poster. You must have had Charles Darwin's descendants be your most hated teachers ever in school and in the scientific books you read. I am sorry but there will be no way I will ever take you seriously again on this site after reading all your silly crazy replies on here.
Last edited by Chase Ricks on Mon Dec 05, 2011 12:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
From whence I came and whence I went heaven said I was too evil and sent me to hell. Demons and devils succeeded in breaking my soul.

Image

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby KittyReaper » Sun Dec 04, 2011 10:13 pm

xtc wrote:
Lonewolf wrote:
But they don't say how we became if we evolved from ape. (Tell me if I'm wrong because I read only the first half.


Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the theory of evolution claims that we eveloved from apes, merely that we share a common ancestor (? the missing link?)

Is anyone else worried that anti-evolutionists ( and even creationists) are teaching maths and even science in our schools?


Being anti-evolution makes no sense anymore. It's like hating facts. There is so much evidence for evolution everywhere that is just boggles my mind how people can still say "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" then they get this smug look on their face like they just drew 4 aces in a game of poker, and I want to beat them in the head with a biology textbook to see if they can finally understand how it really works.

In response to your second thought, yes I do believe that many teachers are still apprehensive about teaching evolution to students because it interferes with their religious affiliation.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:52 pm

Princeton thinks differently my friends:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... dinos.html

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:54 pm

Even though it says that exact evidence had been found at the end of page 2, the evidence there convinces me enough, and this is also what got me thinking after he sent me the article.

Delete

Postby MattyH » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:20 pm

Delete
Last edited by MattyH on Fri Dec 09, 2011 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:26 pm

I guarantee that you didn't even look at the article!!

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby soka1 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 5:28 pm

I laughed at the article and title...

Princeton isn't right at anything, at the article is from 2004!!:) Too much laughter... Can't breath... Haha!!

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby fabolous1024 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 6:38 pm

Lonewolf wrote:Even though it says that exact evidence had been found at the end of page 2, the evidence there convinces me enough, and this is also what got me thinking after he sent me the article.


You're easily convinced; that's a bad quality. No scientist would tell you that yes, the Yucatan impact was, without question, the cause of the dinosaur extinction. Unfortunately, since most people are incapable of thinking scientifically and critically, most people learn in elementary school about a meteor impact and think "yes, that is it, no questions asked". The reality is that a lot of evidence points to that being the cause. However, as you can see, there may be evidence pointing to other possibilities or evidence not in favor of a certain cause. This other hypothesis may turn out to be wrong or maybe it has already been shown to be wrong (behind every well-established theory lays dozens or hundreds hypotheses that turned out to be wrong). Who knows? I certainly am not interested in wasting a lot of time in finding out as it is not my field of study.

The argument is not whether or not X impact caused the extinction vs. Y impact. We're not geologists. This is not a geology forum. What we're arguing against is your way of thinking. This is kind of similar to the people who come around saying the Big Bang didn't happen. They'll say things like "the Big Bang is wrong because there is no oxygen in space". Now, there is no 100% agreed upon model of the earliest universe, but all the evidence points to a big bang type event in any case. The problem with a person who says something like that is that the actual theory doesn't even say there was an explosion, just like the extinction event theories don't say there was a blast that suddenly and near instantly decimated life on Earth. So you're arguing a theory is wrong without actually knowing the science behind it (which for some reason is an acceptable thing in society).

soka1 wrote:I laughed at the article and title...

Princeton isn't right at anything, at the article is from 2004!!:) Too much laughter... Can't breath... Haha!!


So? The dating of an article is irrelevant. That's like saying Einstein was wrong about Relativity because he published it in 1905. Also, please don't mock research institutions doing research that you probably couldn't even begin to understand.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Mon Dec 05, 2011 8:48 pm

fabolous1024 wrote:
Lonewolf wrote:Even though it says that exact evidence had been found at the end of page 2, the evidence there convinces me enough, and this is also what got me thinking after he sent me the article.


You're easily convinced; that's a bad quality. No scientist would tell you that yes, the Yucatan impact was, without question, the cause of the dinosaur extinction. Unfortunately, since most people are incapable of thinking scientifically and critically, most people learn in elementary school about a meteor impact and think "yes, that is it, no questions asked". The reality is that a lot of evidence points to that being the cause. However, as you can see, there may be evidence pointing to other possibilities or evidence not in favor of a certain cause. This other hypothesis may turn out to be wrong or maybe it has already been shown to be wrong (behind every well-established theory lays dozens or hundreds hypotheses that turned out to be wrong). Who knows? I certainly am not interested in wasting a lot of time in finding out as it is not my field of study.

The argument is not whether or not X impact caused the extinction vs. Y impact. We're not geologists. This is not a geology forum. What we're arguing against is your way of thinking. This is kind of similar to the people who come around saying the Big Bang didn't happen. They'll say things like "the Big Bang is wrong because there is no oxygen in space". Now, there is no 100% agreed upon model of the earliest universe, but all the evidence points to a big bang type event in any case. The problem with a person who says something like that is that the actual theory doesn't even say there was an explosion, just like the extinction event theories don't say there was a blast that suddenly and near instantly decimated life on Earth. So you're arguing a theory is wrong without actually knowing the science behind it (which for some reason is an acceptable thing in society).

soka1 wrote:I laughed at the article and title...

Princeton isn't right at anything, at the article is from 2004!!:) Too much laughter... Can't breath... Haha!!


So? The dating of an article is irrelevant. That's like saying Einstein was wrong about Relativity because he published it in 1905. Also, please don't mock research institutions doing research that you probably couldn't even begin to understand.


Keep in mind, you just said that they were possibly right. But this has to have some scientifical meaning for it was posted on national geographic and nothing else has been posted to disapprove of it.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby skybird137 » Mon Dec 05, 2011 11:11 pm

The main argument of the Nat Geo article is that:

The Yucatan impact did not cause a quick mass extinction.

Another impact 300,00 years later did.

So by putting this article forward, are you agreeing that an impact did cause a massive mass extinction, which essentially wiped out the dinosaurs?
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby KittyReaper » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:21 am

not to mention that 300,000 years is a fraction of a second compared to the age of the planet.

-

Postby GoneGoneGone » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:35 am

-
Last edited by GoneGoneGone on Tue May 20, 2014 5:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:15 am

skybird137 wrote:The main argument of the Nat Geo article is that:

The Yucatan impact did not cause a quick mass extinction.

Another impact 300,00 years later did.

So by putting this article forward, are you agreeing that an impact did cause a massive mass extinction, which essentially wiped out the dinosaurs?


Isn't it obvious from the title that I'm saying the asteroid DIDN'T kill them.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby skybird137 » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:28 am

Lonewolf wrote:
skybird137 wrote:The main argument of the Nat Geo article is that:

The Yucatan impact did not cause a quick mass extinction.

Another impact 300,00 years later did.

So by putting this article forward, are you agreeing that an impact did cause a massive mass extinction, which essentially wiped out the dinosaurs?


Isn't it obvious from the title that I'm saying the asteroid DIDN'T kill them.



Wait a moment, the article mentions TWO asteroids.

"But authors of a controversial new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (online edition) contend that the asteroid behind the Chicxulub crater impacted Earth 300,000 years earlier than previously thought. They say a second, as yet unidentified asteroid impact must have caused the mass extinction popularly attributed to the Chicxulub asteroid."

So, which asteroid didn't destroy the dinosaurs? The first or second one?

If you say both, then you are attacking the article which you have brought forward as the case for yourself.

I wonder if you have actually read it through, or just the parts that you agreed with.
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby lonewolfandfriends » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:59 pm

I said that I think it wasn't an asteroid or other heavenly bodie that killed the dinosours and other animals.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby sarobah » Tue Dec 06, 2011 9:24 pm

This “debate” reminds me of an argument I have with my brother about the speed of light. He claims Einstein must have been wrong because it doesn’t seem right.
I try to tell him that every physics experiment, every observation, every theoretical advance in the last 105 years has made relativity the most precisely tested theory in the history of science, so what are the chances that they are all wrong and he (my brother, whose field is economics) just happens to be right?
I may as well be spitting into the wind.
Words, like Nature, half reveal and half conceal the soul within.

Re: The dinosaur extinction theory wrong

Postby skybird137 » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:41 am

Lonewolf wrote:I said that I think it wasn't an asteroid or other heavenly bodie that killed the dinosours and other animals.


Then why did you introduce the article that said that an impact did cause the mass extinction?
Calling Fifty Shades of Grey a Bondage Story is like calling Titanic an Iceberg Movie...

http://skybird137.deviantart.com