Some Large Dinosaurs Survived the K-T Extinction 269
mmmscience sends along coverage from the Examiner on evidence that some dinosaurs survived the extinction event(s) at the end of the Cretaceous period. Here is the original journal article. "A US paleontologist is challenging one of the field's greatest theories: the mass extinction of dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous period. Jim Fassett, a paleontologist who holds an emeritus position at the US Geological Survey, recently published a paper in Palaeontologia Electronica with evidence that points to a pocket of dinosaurs that somehow survived in remote parts New Mexico and Colorado for up to half a million years past the end of the Cretaceous period. If this theory holds up, these dinosaurs would be the only ones that made it to the Paleocene Age."
Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but the good news is modern technology has brought the internet into our caves and in the time it takes to post this comment another 2 "Cave chicks go Rex riding" websites will have been created.
As for TFA, interesting but only just outside the uranium dating error bars and no mention of the error margin in the strike date ~65mya. No mention of a KT boundry at the site that is clearly below the fossils. There is very strong evidence that insects were wiped out across the Americas for over a million years, so I think a bit more extrodinary evidence is required to belive a band of dinosours somehow survived in a "lost valley".
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
not a lost valley, but the Great Valley, noob.
xoxoxo,
Littlefoot
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
Yup! Yup! Yup!
Re: (Score:3)
Haha, I definitely did not think I would ever see a Ducky [wikipedia.org] reference on Slashdot. Ahhh...the first movie I ever remember seeing in a movie theater. Had the toys and everything. Those were the days.
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is very strong evidence that insects were wiped out across the Americas for over a million years, so I think a bit more extrodinary evidence is required to belive a band of dinosours somehow survived in a "lost valley".
More evidence is always good, but once you actually start to think about it, "a small population of some dinosaurs survived in remote areas until it eventually petered out" is actually more plausible than "every single last dinosaur died at once in a gigantic catastrophe that nevertheless was not large enough to affect other animals such as mammals to the same extent".
Many kinds of animals survived, after all. Why shouldn't dinosaurs have, too? I'm certainly not saying they must have, but just on the face of things, it seems more likely that their extinction was gradual and drawn-out over a long period of time. (And yes, I know the K-T extinction is not thought to have happened in the blink of an eye, anyway, but you know what I mean.)
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, size. The dinosaurs were all largeish - turkey-sized or bigger - with the exception of thos who seem to have evolved into birds, and may have been much smaller because of the nifty invention of feathers. The only mammals at the time were small, shrew-like animals. It is not unreasonable to think that small beasts could survive, scavenging of the dead big beasts, where big beasts could not.
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
The dinosaurs were all largeish - turkey-sized or bigger - with the exception of thos who seem to have evolved into birds, and may have been much smaller because of the nifty invention of feathers.
Well, it seems from the latest I've read on these things that paleontologists are now a-thinkin that a lot of the big dinosaurs had feathers too. In fact one article I read said that it was quite possible that T-Rex himself looked "like a big chick".
I remember that article because the image of a 60 foot high "chick" with fluffy baby-feathers coated with the rotting blood and entrails of its victims and flesh-caked teeth the size of stalactites is one that haunts my dreams to this day.
Oh. You want cites? Ah.
Look! A bunny! Look at the bunny! (runs away)
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh. You want cites? Ah.
Look! A bunny! Look at the bunny! (runs away)
Oh come one, that's not even trying...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus#Skin_and_feathers [wikipedia.org]
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
Do you know what 2 week old dead dinosaur smells like? Maybe they could scavenge for awhile but after that I'm sure the mammals would be too disgusted.
You obviously haven't met my dog.
I submit as evidence:
1 dog owned by IndustrialComplex
1 cat litterbox also owned by IndustrialComplex
Conclusion:
IndustrialComplex is disgusted.
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Interesting)
Still disgusting, though.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the cat faeces to be more nutritious than dog food, cat food would have to be significantly more nutritious again.
Have you any idea exactly how much ash there is in cat food...?
Re:Cavemen? (Score:4, Insightful)
To find a bunch of dinosaurs that survived what the entire insect population could not, is an extrodinary claim. However I don't think the scientists themselves are explicitly making this claim, I think they are just reporting their evidence and asking "how could this be?".
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Informative)
It's a bit telling that the study is published in an obscure web-only paleontology journal called "Palaeontologica Electronica". I'm not saying that good work can't be published in obscure journals, but I would argue that if you had really strong evidence for post-Cretaceous dinosaurs, you wouldn't publish it in a journal that nobody's ever heard of. You'd be publishing in Nature, Science, or PNAS. That suggests that he published here because he didn't have a lot of options, because the scientific community was pretty unreceptive to evidence presented in this study. Obviously, the conventional wisdom isn't everything. Geologists hated the idea of continental drift, and the asteroid impact hypothesis got a very cold reception before the Chicxulub crater was found. But it's worth asking whether the evidence here is any good or not.
First off, it's not as if they've suddenly discovered dinosaurs where nobody expected them. Paleontologists have known for decades that these rock beds contain dinosaurs (as well as typical Cretaceous mammals). It's just that everyone else has always interpreted these rocks as being of Cretaceous age, rather than post-Cretaceous. What he's doing is arguing that the rocks are older than we thought.
Second, what's his evidence for saying these are post-Cretaceous rocks? The best evidence would be a marker bed- if you could show that a skeleton lay above the iridium layer formed by the fallout of the asteroid, then it would be pretty much unrefutable. However, the iridium layer has *not* been recognized in this area. The second best evidence would be a layer of volcanic ash which can be dated using radioactive dating. There are no ashes under the bones which are younger than 65.5 million years old (the date of the impact). In fact all the ashes under the bones are around 75-73 million years old. So his evidence is the pollen grains. He says they look like post-Cretaceous pollen, not Cretaceous pollen. That doesn't seem terribly convincing in my mind. Given that the mammals seen in the same rocks are pretty clearly Cretaceous type mammals, the fossil evidence is contradictory here. His other evidence is something called magnetostratigraphy- the Earth's magnetic poles reverse every few hundred thousand or million years, with series of normal and reversed polarities. If you can match up a series of polarity changes, you can *sometimes* figure out how old the rocks are. But it's not a very precise method, and it's a bit tricky to figure out where a particular sequence going "normal-reversed-normal-reversed" fits into the geological record. It's a bit like trying to figure out the time and date by whether your neighbor has his house lights on or off, or whether the trash has been picked up recently or not.
In short, it would take a lot more than this one paper to overturn the consensus that has resulted from one hundred years of scientific research. I mean, if someone published an experiment tomorrow saying that Einstein was wrong, what would your reaction be? To reject Einstein? Or to think that the experimenter might have screwed up? Currently, the bulk of the evidence says that the extinction took place 65.5 million years ago, and that (with the exception of birds) the dinosaurs didn't make it.
I think you meme... err, mean... (Score:5, Funny)
in the time it takes to post this comment another 2 "Cave chicks go Rex riding" websites will have been created.
I think you mean "2 Girls 1 Rex"
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Insects are easier to kill than dinosaurs. Or, so I assume as I've never actually tried to kill a dinosaur by smacking it with a newspaper.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
The amphibians were going to gain control, but when the reptilians attacked, all the frogs surrendered.
Maybe. (Score:3, Informative)
Jesus sure did. [flickr.com]
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Informative)
So does that mean skimpily clad cavewomen really *did* ride around on dinosaurs? mmmm...
Not really. It says they made it to the "Paleocene", i.e. the epoch adjacent to the Cretaceous. To have meet any cavemen they'd have had to survive through the Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene all the way to the Pleistocene era. That would still be around 60 million years.
I also highly doubt cavemen (or cavewomen for that matter) had the skill or technology to time travel back to the Paleocene. Afaik only genetically enhanced laboratory mice can do that.
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
So what you're saying is that they didn't make the 'cene.
Re:Cavemen? (Score:5, Funny)
Bingo, just to fix the time line a bit, humans were thought to have split from apes roughly 6-7 million years ago...except for some valued coworkers here.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I also highly doubt cavemen (or cavewomen for that matter) had the skill or technology to time travel back to the Paleocene. Afaik only genetically enhanced laboratory mice can do that.
The Neanderthals did.
However, they decided that it was easier to use their time machines to go back in time and settle on a continent which is now Antarctica. They built cities underground so that they could avoid disturbing their own ancestors as they continued to develop. Just when the asteroid that wiped out the Dinosaur
I keep dinosaurs in my garden (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I keep dinosaurs in my garden (Score:5, Funny)
Does it make them angry?
Re: (Score:2)
My wife's parents have a dinosaur in their house called a cockatoo. They used to have 2 of them and when they both squawked (screeched might be a better term) together they would answer the phone: "Hello, Jurassic Park."
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
only I call them "chickens".
Tyrannosaurus Clux
Yes....of course... (Score:3, Funny)
Still with us (Score:5, Funny)
They are still with us, working for some IT departments. Have you never seen an IEsixosaurus?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
no, but I've seen a one-eyed dinosaur-- doyathinkhesaurus
Re:Still with us (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Still with us (Score:5, Funny)
No, but there's a machine in the sever room capable of Tri-teraflops.
Even more in middle management (Score:2, Funny)
Lots of dinosaurs hiding out in Corporate America's middle management layers. A few make it to upper management or to the executive suites.
Q: What do you call a company with too many dinosaurs in the executive suites?
A: Bankrupt. *cue rim-shot*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Bankrupt" is a funny way of spelling "a great candidate for a bailout".
Other findings. (Score:5, Interesting)
Just a day ago, I read another article claiming that the impact predates the extinction event by 300000 years [spacedaily.com]. The last thing hasn't been said about the dinosaurs, that's for sure. I really like the way David Polly puts it in the article (the one linked to by /.): "Finding conclusive evidence, however, is a difficult matter when the crime scene is 65 million years old".
Re:Other findings. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other findings. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem with the "already in decline" arguments is that there are statistical effects [wikipedia.org] that make sudden extinctions look gradual. This has pretty much been demonstrated to be the case for Late Cretaceous dinosaurs (I don't know about ammonites).
People want to cling to the K/T extinction being a mystery for some reason. It just isn't anymore. If you want a good mystery, the Permian-Triassic extinction event [wikipedia.org] is bigger, and still (relatively) unexplained.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's not the whole argument.
The show I saw pointed out that there were fewer and fewer fossils being found the closer they get to K-T event. The claim was that there are twice as many known fossils 5-6 million years before than there are 2-3 million years before. I don't know if your suggested statistical side effect explains that.
And they pointed out that lots of frog species seemed to survive pretty easily even though they are very sensitive to acid rain, forest fires and other such things that would
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they pointed out that lots of frog species seemed to survive pretty easily even though they are very sensitive to acid rain, forest fires and other such things that would have happened if the K-T impact was the primary explanation of extinction.
We know from relatively solid physical evidence what the size and composition of the KT impact object was. We know its effects were world-wide, and we know those effects would have caused acid rain, forest fires, etc.
What we do not know is how the world-wide fro
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Other findings. (Score:5, Insightful)
People want to cling to the K/T extinction being a mystery for some reason. It just isn't anymore.
"There appears to have been some mass extinctions around this time. A huge asteroid impact could cause that. Here's evidence of a huge asteroid impact around that time. Case closed."
It seems that in some branches of science, we accept "plausible" as "proven". Sure there may be some pretty good evidence that an asteroid impact caused mass extinctions, but are there any other explanations? Here's a case where someone points out some data inconsistent with the prevalent theory, and we say, "it doesn't NECESSARILY disprove the theory, so we can ignore it". In other branches of science, we would strive for, "we can ABSOLUTELY explain this data", or we'd have to change or qualify the theory.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, but it really seems like you're talking out of your arse. You do not prove things in any science, you come up with falsifiable theories, and test them out. The more falsifiable the better. It is also clear that you are not at all familiar with the research in the area. The bolide impact theory has a lot of interface with the data, and is immensely falsifiable. It has enormous explanatory power, and is not at this moment falsified by any data.
Could it be wrong? Sure it could! But coming up with little
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunatly a lot of people don't like that idea. Not because of the science but because it puts us an other chip down. So most people are willing to accept evolution, but they take comfort their ancestors who resembled mice were in some way so much more superior then those giant monsters, and could survive a mass extinction while those huge monsters couldn't. We are just getting to the point where we can grasp that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, however we kinda are wishing they were more birdlike b
Obvious solution... (Score:2)
"Finding conclusive evidence, however, is a difficult matter when the crime scene is 65 million years old".
Two words - Horatio Caine.
Re:Obvious solution... (Score:5, Funny)
"Tyranno-saur-us, but did anyone ... [puts on shades] ... see them?"
[The Who] Bwaaaaaaaaoooo ba ba! (etc)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know when he takes his glasses off, and looks to the side? He's reading cue cards. Watch for it.
It's obvious once you're aware of it.
Re:Other findings. (Score:5, Funny)
I'm confused. Is that larger or smaller than a metric fuckload of evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At the moment, the King's edict is that the imperial fuckload is larger. However, a metric shit-tonne remains larger still. You could pour 4,516 gill of treacle into a barrel and it would only weigh about half a shit-tonne.
Re: (Score:2)
But, expressed in LOC's that would be?
Re:Other findings. (Score:4, Funny)
How many cubic handbreadths of dark ale equals one arse-load again? I have 68 furlongs to drive home and I need to know how much Guinness to bring. I know I can drink about a third of an arse-load in 26 furlongs, but the stupid store here sells by the cubic handbreadth and my phone does not have the proper conversion tools. Damn technology does everything in the world as long as it isn't useful.
But of course (Score:5, Insightful)
"some dinosaurs survived the extinction event(s)"
If some dinosaurs hadn't survived it/them, we wouldn't have birds.
Re: (Score:2)
The subject of the summary says "some large dinosaurs..." (emphasis obviously mine) which makes your objection (and all the other ones just like it) fucking stupid. Don't quote (or make up quotes) out of context to serve your ego.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:But of course (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's what gets taught in schools unfortunately.. especially the 'decided to evolve' bit, like a dinosaur woke up one day and thought it would grow some feathers for a change. Many people retain this view through adulthood.
Ever heard the whole silly 'a cow fell into the sea and became a whale' idea? Straight out of school textbooks.. I can remember being taught it myself.
The problem education makes is it dumbs things down for children then ignores the issue when they grow up - then some nutjob comes alon
Re:But of course (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, evolution should be taught like evolution.
Simple concepts first, when they are young.
More complex concepts later, when they are older.
But definitely, teach them simple concepts.
You don't start sex-ed by teaching them about the Stork bringing children. You tell them that when a mammy and daddy love each other very much, and want to have a baby, they hug in a very special way...
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You tell them that when a mammy and daddy love each other very much, and want to have a baby, they hug in a very special way...
That's good, start lying to them young. That's really worked out well for us so far.
Re:But of course (Score:4, Funny)
well, "hug in a very special way..." sounds much better than "What didn't get shot into mommy's face became you" or "You are what didn't leak out"
Or in your case, "Your daddy was the one who could afford mommy for the whole night"
not a troll (Score:2)
I can see that the ageists are trying to quiet me down again. "Troll" does not mean "something with which I disagree". Perhaps if you remembered what it was like to be a kid you'd remember how frustrating it was to get bad information. Maybe if you thought about the fact that children are tiny humans you'd think about the long-term consequences of telling them something that isn't true as if it were fact. I'm not proposing that anyone out there should teach their children the specifics of reproductive biolo
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't trying to indicate HOW you should teach sex-ed to very young children.
If anything I was making the same point you were trying to make, that lying to them at an early age is a bad idea. (I used the Stork to represent that position in my post.)
The point was to use simple concepts first, then get more complex over time.
I suspect you were flagged as a Troll because you seem to have deliberately missed the point of the post, and snarkily decided that "hugging in a special way" would not be suitable as a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Thinking back to my school years, I learnt about Newtonian physics before I learnt about special relativity. Was that wrong? Certainly not.
Well, sticking with the example at hand; Newtonian physics work in every case the average person will ever encounter. But telling children a "special hug" can result in children can only cause confusion. Next thing you know they'll be afraid to hug their hairy-nosed uncle. While the person who constructed the example has attempted to defend his poorly-chosen example [slashdot.org] it is a particularly excellent example of the kind of thing we're talking about here, so I'm going to stick with it. Besides, I don't believe h
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Awww crap.
What am I going to do with these 35 Anal bead sets and ball gags? I was supposed to teach 3rd grade Sex ed this week...
Dammit! Let me guess, you're going to tell me that scat and explaining the dirty sanchez is out as well..
Damn you Conservatives!
Pleoscene Age (Score:2)
Surprising? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they don't show much difference, I have to wonder what, if anything, this says about the K-T event itself; whether it created a long-term climatological change in addition to a catastrophic change evidenced by the K-T geologic boundary. I'm also intrigued by the fact that these specimens were found in Colorado/New Mexico, which is pretty darn close to the best impact site candidate. I'd expect any animals that survived to be much further away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm also intrigued by the fact that these specimens were found in Colorado/New Mexico, which is pretty darn close to the best impact site candidate. I'd expect any animals that survived to be much further away.
I suppose its possible that they migrated there from further away. I wonder if the impact created opportunities for animals further away to move towards the impact site, similar to the way floods can improve the fertility of soil.
Re:Surprising? (Score:4, Informative)
You don't have to be so insulting!! (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, some of us did survive the "alleged 'K-T' Extinction"! And your suppositions bring us *much* hilarity.
Our day has come!
Oh, yes...try and laugh, humans; But in bitterness you shall weep!
We have usurped your world's economy with 'Flintstone's Vitamins'!
Be prepared to bow down to your new Tasty Dinosaur Overlords!
signed, Dino.
*sees Fat Freddie, and runs for driveway* "Yaap!1 Yip! Yappy-kiyay, motherfscker!"-fires AT-4 against Fred-n-Barney*
Re:You don't have to be so insulting!! (Score:5, Funny)
Everyone who reads Dilbert already knows this. They're hiding behind the couch.
Re: (Score:2)
The couch, while being shaped/passed off as a cake, is....a lie!!
So, none of you have had the 'couch cover' working as you had assumed.
Start running, the timer has started.
*note: if you wait for the couch to explode...you are sadly, way too late*
BTW, don't fsck with a Real Engineer(tm)! (not talking about software/electrical-pseudo/wannabe engineers...how lame!)
Oh, careful where you jump to avoid the booby-trapped couch that is rigged***....;-)....[don't bother wasting inadequate brain-power on what's beyon
Re: (Score:2)
Hide behind your couch, Dino!...Heh! Heh! Oh, yeah, you are perfectly safe! Heh! Heh!
Circa:1979-1980 in E. Berlin...Good Riddance, you STASI bastards!
Yow! Zippy, is that you?
cautionary notes from a paleo geek (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They survived because of God... (Score:5, Funny)
I mean geez people haven't you been keeping up with the latest issues of Creationism Quarterly!
This stuff is "Peer-reviewed by degreed scientists" it says so right on the website!
It has "Scholarly articles representing the major scientific disciplines" scientific disciplines like: biology, chemistry, theology, creationism! Duh!
"Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: intelligent design, a recent creation, and a catastrophic worldwide flood"!
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html [creationresearch.org] /sarcasmbrainmelting
Some things are just untouchable by parody... (Score:5, Insightful)
Holy shit, batman. I thought you were joking. It turns out it was reality tickling my funny-bone.
I especially "like" the quote "Emphasis on scientific evidence supporting: [...]". They're saying up-front "we're here to give you a skewed and biased impression of how the real world works, independent of whether the real world supports our biases".
I can rephrase their bulleted list, too:
"For 45 years(1), we've been spamming the whole world(3), sullying the name of all major sciences(4) and cheating quality control systems(2) in order to convert you to our preconceived notions(6)."
("(n)" refers to the nth bullet)
Abybody who knows CowboyNeal... (Score:4, Funny)
Some Large Dinosaurs Survived the K-T Extinction
Abybody who knows CowboyNeal would see this as old news
metastable climate (Score:4, Informative)
It continues to dismay me how many really don't get it. The impact, or impact+major vulcanism (BTW, what order were those in, and could the impact have pinged the earth hard enough to initiate a major volcanic event at whatever the interval?), didn't kill the dinosaurs by direct effect. They didn't all die in a week or a month, or, even a few decades, centuries, or millennia, most likely.
What happened was a significant enough change in climate in nearly all habitats, over a short enough period of time, that the vast majority of major fauna, particularly dinosaurs, and a lot of the flora simply could not adapt to the new conditions, nor migrate to a location that suited them (nor build bubble cities in which to weather the change). If the birth/death ratio slips below 1 long enough the species is extinct. If it is only slightly less than 1 because the available nutrition is not quite good enough, or there's enough hard dust around to reduce lung efficiency, or the temperatures don't allow eggs to brood quite as well, or some such, then it can take a VERY long time to kill off populations in the tens of millions. Small regions of "better", if not quite "good enough", might easily sustain a very slowly declining ecosystem for hundreds of millennia.
Bottom line, though, is that there are a LOT of dinosaur fossils below the iridium-enriched layer and VERY few, and those not for very long, above it.
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil records cannot be show extinction dates (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Shift in the Earth's rotation? (Score:3, Funny)
A few days back, the [god-damned-mother-frikken] History Channel did several hours on predictions of the future and more specifically, December 12, 2012 and I got sucked right into it. By the time their series finished for the night, I was wrecked inside with this horrible feeling of doom. (They put together these very compelling presentations with pictures and music...really sets a dramatic mood! and when you are staying up too late... well even the most resistant people can fall victim I think.)
In any case, the most interesting theory surrounding the projected end of the world day is that the rotational axis of the earth will change resulting in massive geologic events. What's more, they suggested that the earth had gone through this kind of change before and was a potential cause of the mass extinction events in the past.
I don't claim to know much about all that, but I have to remind myself that this was the FIRST time I had heard about rotational axis shifting (but not the first time I had heard of magnetic polar shifting) and definitely the first time I had heard of rotational axis shifting being cited as the cause of mass extinction events.
Who knows more about this than I do? Got anything to debunk or verify what I recall from late-night TV watching?
Re: (Score:2)
12th Dec 2012 ... end of the long cycle count in the Mayan calendar - A time of celebration and considered to be a time of change (like most cycle ends in the calendar) but also considered lucky to witness, research indicated the Mayans considered that nothing significant would happen on this date, except the next cycle would begin, and history would start to repeat from 11 August 3114 BC so expect people to be building some large buildings in stone (Stonehenge, Newgrange, ĦaÄar Qim etc ...)
Re: (Score:2)
You think that gave you doom.. Go play single player story mode in Frontlines:fuel of war..
I'm sitting there listening to the cut scenes going... "Wow", they hit some stuff pretty well on pure coincidence alone!
I'm waiting for global World war three. I got my headshots pretty consistent, and If I get hit I just need to hide for 15-20 seconds to heal back up.
and yes, I give a old video game prophecy as much credence in accuracy as some futurist-doom fluff piece on Discovery Channel.
Isn't .... (Score:2)
Quantum Mechanics... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Quantum Mechanics... (Score:5, Funny)
it'll probably emerge that quantum mechanics is behind the survival of these select few dinosaurs.
Quantum Mechanics can't save the dinosaurs. For a job this big, we need String Theory.
Wait a second... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you live through a bomb blast but die 3 days later because of shrapnel in you liver, did you really survive the bomb blast?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damn Time Travelers, & circular time travel lo (Score:4, Funny)
Here is the theory,
Scientists in the 1980's Wondered why no Dinosaurs after 65 MYA, so they found the K-T event impact crater and assumed it was the event that killed off all of the Dinosaurs.
So later in 2040's when we invent Time Travel, people of course want to go back and see the dinosaurs, so they all go back to the day before the K-T impact and watch the dinosaurs and they figure, hey since they will be relatively extinct tomorrow then why not shoot them and take a few trophy's back with them, plus they are good eatin'....
So by the next day when the Asteroid impacts the Earth most all of the dinosaurs have been hunted to extinction in one day from all of those time travelers going back to the same day before the Asteroid. A few pockets of Dinosaurs Survived the massive hunt because the time travel machines don't work quite right in some areas of on the earth due to magnetite deposits in certain areas. Those few dinos that survived the day before massive hunt and the Asteroid impact didn't have enough genetic diversity to survive and thus died off a little after 65 MYA.
So we killed off the Dinosaurs to make true the extinction we have always had in our fossil record.
The good news is that besides hunting they took some live Dinosaurs forward to the 2040's and they are being bred to replace chicken which have gone extinct due to the avian flu.
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't lump the idea of dinosaurs and humans coexisting in with creationism. While many creationists erroneously point to evidence of coexistence of humans and dinos as supporting creationism, this is pure nonsense. By the same token, the fact that creationists believe that humans and dinos coexisted doesn't have anything to do with whether it's true or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Creationism is just Christianity Lite anyway. If they actually read the entire book they wouldn't get so obsessed with timescales.
Re: (Score:3)
If they actually read the entire book they wouldn't get so obsessed with timescales.
You're assuming that they are mentally equipped to deal with the inherent contradictions, some of which are deliberate and in fact whole books of the christian bible consist of apologia/revision of older books. You can't treat the Bible like a manual, and that's the mistake that too many make. No amount of reading or rereading will help if they can't get over this one simple issue.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean seriously, human/dinosaur coexistence and creationism both fly in the face of scientific evidence, and because creationists cling to the former so desperately to find some way to wrap their tiny heads around the fossil record, they have effectively made it a subset of their own claptrap. Who cares? Why would anybody want such an unsound 'theory' to stand by itself anyway? Nobody's rushing to
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
That's a new mount option, right? I'll start using that right away, I don't want my filesystems wasting time updating those shark stamps on my files.