(Commenting on an article about an asteroid killing the Dinosaurs)
"This is not "science." Scientific fact comes from things that are observable, repeatable and testable. This is conjecture based on an athiestic, evolutionary worldview."
46 comments
Oooo, very clever Jeff, you have turned around how science works, and went 'but but but see it doesn't work by your own beliefs!' Then you completely miss. Take my advice, don't ever think to procreate, just masterbate.
The fact that there are no dinosaur fossils in the geological strata above the "iridium layer", plus the fact that such a concentration of iridium is not normal for Earth, gives us evidence for an externally caused environmental change that the dinosaurs didn't survive.
So, does he wants to drop a 10km piece of rock on the earth and find out what happens?
But really its tiresome just to see the same ignorance of the scientific method over and over.
Scientific fact comes from things that are observable, repeatable and testable.
So I guess we should let Khalid Sheikh Mohammed go, since we have no eye-witness testimony and can't repeat or test whether he was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
"Scientific fact comes from things that are observable, repeatable and testable."
Well, that means you fundies can forget quoting the bible now in your retarded arguments against evolution and other scientific theories.
They're so confident about it too. OBVIOUSLY no one can know what happened a long time ago! ("Golly gee, a jillion years? Impossible!") OBVIOUSLY paleontology and geology are guesswork! OBVIOUSLY atheism influences and controls the conclusions of scientists in these fields! Then they all have a good laugh about it together
Including one calling scientists douchebags over the Cretaceous extinction. Now we know who knows better, huh.
No, you don't have to observably repeatedly crash asteroids into planets to test the science behind the death of the dinosaurs any more than you need to actually shoot someone dead in a police reconstruction to prove a crime happened.
You observably and repeatedly test a hypothesis' predictions . When this can be done under controlled conditions an experiment is preferable but not strictly required. Where controlled conditions are not possible, such as in asteroid strikes, you model some consequence of the hypothesis to arrive at a testable prediction such as shocked quartz, a crater of a particular size and age, etc. then you see if these predictions are correct, which would stand as confirmation of the theory.
Liberty University syllabi
Biology 101
Logic 101
Math 101
Literature 101
Nope! It's based on many testable things like a layer of iridium at the KT boundary and a big fucking crater off the Yucatan Peninsula. I won't even mention the abrupt disappearance of all non-avian dinosaurs.
BTW. Based on the iridium layer, the disappearing dinosaurs, and a host of other factors, scientists predicted that we would find that crater and even had a fair prediction of how big it would be and it's probable latitude. They were pretty damned close too.
observable, repeatable and testable.
Well, toss that bible of yours right out the window!
In other words, something observable, repeatable, and testable.
So what's the problem, again?
When already talking about science, "Science" had an article on the asteroid - dinosaur story on march 5th. Not an review, actual data and so on. You know, that stuff that is reproduced in science labs after collecting samples in the field, like in and around that crater in Mexico
(FYI: Mexico is a place where you get tasty tacos and cheap health care in case you happen to have an empty stomach and no health insurance. on the map you find it south of the USA)
Observable: The crater is there. A layer of rock rich in iridium (rare on earth, common in meteorites) is found all over the earth in the same timeframe as the meteor crater. Meanwhile, that timeframe is about exactly when dinosaurs go extinct in the fossil record.
Testable and repeatable: It is possible to calculate the effect an impact of that magnitude and angle on the earth given our current level of technology.
I see no problem here.
Apparently someone has never heard of evidence before. We can figure out past events, even one off events using said evidence. You know, like the kind of thing they use to convict murderers and put them safely behind bars. Well, think of this as a big murder trial for a murder that happened 65 million years ago with billions of victims. The EVIDENCE can be observed and tested and these tests can be repeated by multiple, independent sources and we can figure out who (or in this case what) the 'murderer' is.
And our developed scientific understanding of physics allows us to construct models of an asteroid striking the earth. Perhaps one day we'll have the power to actually hit a perfect fake earth with a perfect fake asteroid, but what would that prove? Only that it could, not that it did. See, we can't witness the actual event that killed the dinosaurs, so we are observing its effects and physical evidence left behind, all of which is not only consistent with, but indicative of, an asteroid, and so...
Oh wait a minute, you're a biased fuckwit. What am I doing trying to help you understand when you'd just get angry at me for trying?
image
Energy released by Shoemaker-Levy 9: 2.5 x 1022 J = 6 million megatons of TNT
(Tsar Bomba, largest nuclear device ever detonated had a strength of 50 megatons)
- We can calculate the amount of energy necessary to cause a global winter with the data collected from thousands of nuclear tests.
...but I'm wasting my time, right?
Of course you realize that this line of "reasoning" will completely turn the court system upside down. After all, if someone did not directly observe the crime being comitted, it cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is the perp. And we ALL know how reliable eyewitnesses are....
It's worse that that, Blaidd Drwg, if someone didn't actually see the crime commited several times and under controlled conditions then there was no crime!
Judge: Death by natural causes, case dismissed!claimed she was being stabbed is neither here nor there/
So I guess God is not a scientific fact? Why is it these idiots always have a double standard for science & religion? They always claim that the Big Bang theory couldn't be true because matter can't come from nothing, but they argue that God made the universe from nothing. They claim that evolution can't be true because man couldn't evolve from rocks, but they believe that God created Adam from dirt.
Scientific fact comes from things that are observable, repeatable and testable.
I'll take this as tacit admission that claims of a global flood and Jesus' resurrection aren't credible.
This is conjecture based on an athiestic, evolutionary worldview...
...actually, it's based on evidence .
So, the fact that we observe:
- Huge amounts of iridium and other materials commonly borne by meteors in the K-T boundary, everywhere in the world we find rocks of that age;
- A large meteor crater in the vicinity of the Yucatan Peninsula, that happens to date from about the same time;
- Lots of dinosaur bones just below the K-T boundary, and absolutely none above;
is all just a coincidence, then?
With all the due respect, religion is nothing of the three things you said, from Kant himself. The impact of the asteroids CAN. Poeing too much, man?
All of history is untestable by those standards. The past is certainly not observable, repeatable, or testable, at least until we invent time travel.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
