CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY

[eridanus]

CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY

http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub

Anyone can dare to retrieve it and to ready. It is very interesting.
Well, at least for me for I am a retired man. Other person with a lot of
work cannot cope with this burden.

I had been talking with someone yesterday and it was mentioned this question
the famous CHICXULUB crater, or meteorite. This has resulted in a very
interesting controversy. This is the sort of controversies I love.
It is the equivalent of a football match for me. I love controversies.
eri

[RSNorman]

My impression, being neither a geologist nor a paleontologist, is that
there has always been controversy over "the cause" of the K-T
extinction. Your site is really nothing new.

There is no doubt that there was a massive asteroid or bolide impact
at the time. There is no doubt that there is a crater at Chicxulub.
There is no doubt that there were massive volcanic eruptions in India
producing the Deccan Traps. There is no doubt there was a mass
extinction event at or close to the time of all these events.

The problem is assigning a specific cause for the extinction. There
most lkely were a combination of causes. Possibly one was far more
significant but think of that straw and the camel's back. It is not
the final straw that did it but rather the accumulation of all the
previous straws that burdened the camel until just the breaking point.

Some other sites about all this include
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html

http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origins/origin-and-evolution-of-life/a-one-two-punch-caused-the-k-t-mass-extinction/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event#Alternative_hypotheses

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:30:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RSNorman
<r_s_n...@comcast.net>:

All good points; thanks. IIRC the Deccan Traps were
mentioned in connection with the K-T extinction only after
Alvarez produced his hypothesis, but I could be mistaken.
Also, and regarding Chicxulub, there was a paper referenced
here a couple of years ago which calculated that the IR from
the reentry of ejecta from the impact would have been
sufficient to kill most unprotected animal life.

>Some other sites about all this include
> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html
>
>http://www.astrobio.net/topic/origins/origin-and-evolution-of-life/a-one-two-punch-caused-the-k-t-mass-extinction/
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous%E2%80%93Paleogene_extinction_event#Alternative_hypotheses

--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bill]

I jumped to the last link, "11. Conclusions – Based on 30 Years of Research
" and found: "“How could so many be so wrong for so long” is the frequently
asked question. The answer is an exuberant belief in the impact hypothesis
as the only explanation for the KTB mass extinction led many scientists to
throw out the baby with the bathwater. The evidence was always there, but
disregarded, thrown out or re-interpreted as impact-generated."

We know the KTB hypothesis is true because it's become popular with
scientists, many of who have written authoritatively about it. So popular
in fact that there are always TV documentaries about it. No one can back
down now ...

Bill

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:49:01 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:

>eridanus wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY
>>
>> http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub
>>
>> Anyone can dare to retrieve it and to ready. It is very interesting.
>> Well, at least for me for I am a retired man. Other person with a lot of
>> work cannot cope with this burden.
>>
>> I had been talking with someone yesterday and it was mentioned this
>> question
>> the famous CHICXULUB crater, or meteorite. This has resulted in a very
>> interesting controversy. This is the sort of controversies I love.
>> It is the equivalent of a football match for me. I love controversies.
>> eri
>
>I jumped to the last link, "11. Conclusions – Based on 30 Years of Research
>" and found: "“How could so many be so wrong for so long” is the frequently
>asked question. The answer is an exuberant belief in the impact hypothesis
>as the only explanation for the KTB mass extinction led many scientists to
>throw out the baby with the bathwater. The evidence was always there, but
>disregarded, thrown out or re-interpreted as impact-generated."
>
>We know the KTB hypothesis is true because it's become popular with
>scientists

No, we know it's "true" because we've found evidence that it
(the massive bolide impact) occurred. Whether it was the
sole cause of the extinctions is a separate issue, one which
is still under discussion and investigation; the consensus
seems to be "no, but it was a major contributor". And all
based on evidence.

>, many of who have written authoritatively about it. So popular
>in fact that there are always TV documentaries about it. No one can back
>down now ...

And yet the controversy continues...

[eridanus]

i think this link shows there is more than "there is nothing new".
Of course, it was a meteorite, and it was the Deccan traps. But it was
needed a detailed field-work to make a High resolution picture of those
events. Gerta Keller has made so far, some insights on this question.
On the other hand, we have not a picture of high resolution about the
dinosaur fossils. But we can check on the foraminifera.
I have to leave now. I would come back in a hour
Leopoldo

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 10:45:44 -0800 (PST), eridanus

I should not have written "there is nothing new". Of course it is
always valuable to go over the evidence carefully working out just
where corrections need to be made and making sure that all the newest
data really confirms or refutes any hypotheses.

What I meant is that the controversy and debate and arguing, sometimes
quite heated, about exactly what caused the extinction of the
dinosaurs is rather old. And most of it relates to insisting on one,
single cause or at least one major cause. I prefer the "straw and
camel's back" notion where on single cause was merely the final step
in a process.

[eridanus]

El lunes, 16 de noviembre de 2015, 14:34:17 (UTC), RSNorman escribió:

I came back.
The question is not that I would had ignored this common facts or that existed
some controversy. I had not. But I missed a detailed account about this
question. And here I see the importance of this case. I wanted to know why
the controversy existed. In psychological terms, it is easy to understand
the origins of a controversy. And the controversy is not related to the
facts, it is a result of a collision of egos. Like in the case of the
theory of Wegener. We had already talked about this case a few years ago.

On the other hand, for some reason, I got burned after watching a video
in which was presented the case of the Chicxulub event. They were
presenting such an exaggerated catastrophe that I was sort of fed up. Of
course this cannot be the fault of Alvarez and his team.
Then some months later I watched another video that in this moment is not
present in youtube, so I could not present the link. The tittle of this
video was "What Really Killed The Dinosaurs?" and I watched it. I got very
impressed with this video. I downloaded several times, and I had stored it
in various sites of my computer and peripherals as back up.

Then, I was looking again for this case of the Chicxulub, to present again
the link of youtube, and I found instead some files of Gerta Keller. One
is a pdf, I had not yet read it. The other file is html, I only read it
lightly, for I was passing the material to make doc with pictures and
graphics.
I was interested in the details of the case. For I do not trust much...
or I do not like... to depend on "resumes". Quite often the resumes are
misleading or unworthy of trust, like it the case with some informs about
the "inheritable intelligence" that most people, probably you as well,
trust blindly.
It was you, if my memory do not fails, that was dismissing the importance
of "operant conditioning" that I have in great esteem. You presented as
alternative to behaviorism the "cognitive psychology" that in my
understanding is rather a red herring to detract the attention from the
Skinner sort of behaviorism.


I was reading from two different authors about the criminal behavior (in a
scientific sense) of eugenicists and supporters of the inheritance of
intelligence. Of course, they were selling a piece of ideology, more than
doing some scientific work. Jay Gould and Leon Kamin had written a couple
of books about this scandalous behavior. Then, the Garden of Eden is full
of poisonous snakes.


It is not the first time, that some part of science falls in the hands of
the bad people.

Then, I had learned not to trust in general a theory unless I know in some
detail the question. But even then, I must not forget that the best theory
can be wrong. This is my attitude.

But I had seen by the replies, that no one has a minimal curiosity for this
question as to read this files. I had downloaded some 77 pages on the file
"CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY".

To dismiss the importance of the work of Gerta Keller, you should at least
know what he was saying, and what was his work.

Eri

[eridanus]

I disagree with you. Both, the Deccan Traps was postulated to explain
the extinction of dinosaurs before Alvarez was speaking of Chicxulub.
Gerta Keller says at the beginning of her file, CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY
-------
In the 1980s as the impact-kill hypothesis of Alvarez and others gained popular and scientific acclaim and the mass extinction controversy took an increasingly rancorous turn in scientific and personal attacks fewer and fewer dared to voice critique. Two scientists stand out: Dewey McLean (VPI) and Chuck Officer (Dartmouth University). Dewey proposed as early as 1978 that Deccan volcanism was the likely cause for the KTB mass extinction, Officer also proposed a likely volcanic cause. Both were vilified and ostracized by the increasingly vocal group of impact hypothesis supporters. By the middle of the 1980s Vincent Courtillot (Physique de Globe du Paris) also advocated Deccan volcanism, though not as primary cause but rather as supplementary to the meteorite impact. Since 2008 Courtillot has strongly advocated Deccan volcanism as the primary cause for the KTB mass extinction.
---------

But I had read in some other places, the idea that both, a meteorite or some
volcanic event, was the probably cause of the extinction of dinosaurs.
You do not need to be the wise Salomon to start to look for a suitable
meteorite crater.
Then, as I said to Norman, I knew that existed a controversy. What I do not
knew were some details about the controversy. Then, to see which side
eventually is the winner, you need to know farther. And you would not know
farther unless you dig deeper into this question.
Eri

[jonathan]

On 11/16/2015 9:30 AM, RSNorman wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 04:12:59 -0800 (PST), eridanus
> <leopoldo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY
>>
>> http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub
>>
>> Anyone can dare to retrieve it and to ready. It is very interesting.
>> Well, at least for me for I am a retired man. Other person with a lot of
>> work cannot cope with this burden.
>>
>> I had been talking with someone yesterday and it was mentioned this question
>> the famous CHICXULUB crater, or meteorite. This has resulted in a very
>> interesting controversy. This is the sort of controversies I love.
>> It is the equivalent of a football match for me. I love controversies.
>> eri
>>
>
> My impression, being neither a geologist nor a paleontologist, is that
> there has always been controversy over "the cause" of the K-T
> extinction. Your site is really nothing new.

Of course it is, it strongly concludes with about
ten lines of research the impact could not have
been the source of the extinctions. And this is
a much larger and more comprehensive study than
any I've seen.


Conclusion

At El Penon the planktic foraminiferal record shows no mass extinction
or any other significant effects as a result of this impact (sections 6,
8). This indicates that the environmental effects of the Chicxulub
impact were short-term and cannot be detected at the 500-1000 year scale
of our sample resolution. It also means the catastrophic effects of the
Chicxulub impact have been vastly overrated and that this impact could
not have caused the KTB mass extinction. Another catastrophe must have
caused the KTB mass extinction. Increasing evidence points to Deccan
volcanism as this other catastrophe.

http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub/12-conclusions-%E2%80%93-based-30-years-research

[eridanus]

El lunes, 16 de noviembre de 2015, 20:49:17 (UTC), Bill escribió:
> eridanus wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY
> >
> > http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub
> >
> > Anyone can dare to retrieve it and to ready. It is very interesting.
> > Well, at least for me for I am a retired man. Other person with a lot of
> > work cannot cope with this burden.
> >
> > I had been talking with someone yesterday and it was mentioned this
> > question
> > the famous CHICXULUB crater, or meteorite. This has resulted in a very
> > interesting controversy. This is the sort of controversies I love.
> > It is the equivalent of a football match for me. I love controversies.
> > eri
>

> I jumped to the last link, "11. Conclusions - Based on 30 Years of Research

> " and found: ""How could so many be so wrong for so long" is the frequently
> asked question. The answer is an exuberant belief in the impact hypothesis
> as the only explanation for the KTB mass extinction led many scientists to
> throw out the baby with the bathwater. The evidence was always there, but
> disregarded, thrown out or re-interpreted as impact-generated."
>
> We know the KTB hypothesis is true because it's become popular with
> scientists, many of who have written authoritatively about it. So popular
> in fact that there are always TV documentaries about it. No one can back
> down now ...
>
> Bill

OK.
Let me ask you a question. For how long was dismissed the theory of Wegener
in its totality, while "radioactivity heat" was presented in 1903 by Marie
Curie and Albert Laborde on how a gram of radio produced so much heat as...
I copy from The Twenty Century Physics (1995) Volume One that

[referring to the debate on the origins of energy in radioactive materials]

<Hence the energy debate might have quited down were it not that, in March
1903, new fuel was added to to it by the discovery that radioactive energy
released surpassed in magnitude anything that had been known until then from
chemical reactions. In that year Pierre Curie and Albert Laborde measured the
amount of energy released within a Bunsen calorimeter by a known quantity of
radium. They found that 1 g. of radium can heat 1.3 grams of water from
melting point to boiling point in 1 hour!> Page 61 Vol. 1

These result caused a tremendous stir.
And Poincare in 1904 gave a lecture tittled, "The present crisis of mathematical physics" and said that "These principles in which we had
built everything are about to crumble?"
What I mean is that by 1910 it was evident that the "interior of the earth"
contradicting the statements of Kelvin, had good reasons to be hot. If it
were not an anathema to dismiss the cold interior of the earth, it would
not existed any problem to accept the theory of Wegener, and a Scottish student, Arthur Holmes, 1912 was on the staff of Imperial College, publishing
his famous book "The Age of the Earth in 1913". [He was 23 years old]
Holmes championed the theory of continental drift promoted by Alfred Wegener
at a time when it was deeply unfashionable with his more conservative peers.
The Theory of Wegener was finally accepted in 1965 with a the Christian name
of "Plate Tectonics".
Then, these are the main reasons for me to disregard some "kosher thinking"
in science. As Alvarez and his team, and late followers, were the first to
present the case of the meteorite, his team become the winner. Like Kelvin
in his day, the winner team was against accepting the very old age of the
earth and thew theory of Wegener. The main argument of Wegener was the
the approximate contour of the continents, that looked like they were close
together one day.
One problem with the theory of Wegener lay in the mechanism of movement,
and Holmes proposed that Earth's mantle contained convection cells that
dissipated radioactive heat and moved the crust at the surface. His
Principles of Physical Geology ended with a chapter on continental drift.
Part of the model was the origin of the seafloor spreading concept.

So, I favor Gelda Keller, mostly because he presented his cards over the
game table.
Eri

[eridanus]

El martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015, 14:24:13 (UTC), Bob Casanova escribió:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:49:01 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
>
> >eridanus wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY
> >>
> >> http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub
> >>
> >> Anyone can dare to retrieve it and to ready. It is very interesting.
> >> Well, at least for me for I am a retired man. Other person with a lot of
> >> work cannot cope with this burden.
> >>
> >> I had been talking with someone yesterday and it was mentioned this
> >> question
> >> the famous CHICXULUB crater, or meteorite. This has resulted in a very
> >> interesting controversy. This is the sort of controversies I love.
> >> It is the equivalent of a football match for me. I love controversies.
> >> eri
> >

> >I jumped to the last link, "11. Conclusions - Based on 30 Years of Research

> >" and found: ""How could so many be so wrong for so long" is the frequently
> >asked question. The answer is an exuberant belief in the impact hypothesis
> >as the only explanation for the KTB mass extinction led many scientists to
> >throw out the baby with the bathwater. The evidence was always there, but
> >disregarded, thrown out or re-interpreted as impact-generated."
> >
> >We know the KTB hypothesis is true because it's become popular with
> >scientists
>
> No, we know it's "true" because we've found evidence that it
> (the massive bolide impact) occurred. Whether it was the
> sole cause of the extinctions is a separate issue, one which
> is still under discussion and investigation; the consensus
> seems to be "no, but it was a major contributor". And all
> based on evidence.
>
> >, many of who have written authoritatively about it. So popular
> >in fact that there are always TV documentaries about it. No one can back
> >down now ...
>
> And yet the controversy continues...
> --
>
> Bob C.
>
> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
>
> - Isaac Asimov

one question is a crater and even the signs of a meteorite.
This is not in dispute, but perhaps the exact dating of the
crash. Then, you must not hasten on to say "this is the truth"
because things could be a little more complex that they look.
What have you read about this case?
Why exist a controversy? A controversy does not exist by a work
of the Holy Spirit.
Then, you must read the case. The data would tell you if this is
the truth, half the truth, or a quart of the truth.
Things are not very often odd or evens, sometimes the truth is more
complex to determine.
Eri

[eridanus]

I agree. But I welcome to read the papers presented by Gerta.
eri

[Bill]

Continental drift as a theory is pretty much established. I know it's true
because I saw a documentary on TV that said is was. As with the KTB,
there's a rush to find an answer and the first one wins.

Bill

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 5:24:15 PM UTC-5, eridanus wrote:
> El martes, 17 de noviembre de 2015, 14:24:13 (UTC), Bob Casanova escribió:
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 14:49:01 -0600, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by Bill <fre...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > >eridanus wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY
> > >>
> > >> http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub
> > >>
> > >> Anyone can dare to retrieve it and to ready. It is very interesting.
> > >> Well, at least for me for I am a retired man. Other person with a lot of
> > >> work cannot cope with this burden.
> > >>
> > >> I had been talking with someone yesterday and it was mentioned this
> > >> question
> > >> the famous CHICXULUB crater, or meteorite. This has resulted in a very
> > >> interesting controversy. This is the sort of controversies I love.
> > >> It is the equivalent of a football match for me. I love controversies.
> > >> eri
> > >
> > >I jumped to the last link, "11. Conclusions - Based on 30 Years of Research
> > >" and found: ""How could so many be so wrong for so long" is the frequently
> > >asked question. The answer is an exuberant belief in the impact hypothesis
> > >as the only explanation for the KTB mass extinction led many scientists to
> > >throw out the baby with the bathwater. The evidence was always there, but
> > >disregarded, thrown out or re-interpreted as impact-generated."

There were many other explanations for the K-T extinctions besides the
asteroid impact, the Deccan Traps, and the draining of the continents
and much of the continental shelves. [These three get star billing in
the Wikipedia entry linked by Richard Norman.]

One that was popular for a long time was a supernova occurring close
enough to our solar system to cause massive radiational and perhaps
even thermal damage. There were many others, but none of them
survived the triple impact of these three now-favored hypotheses.

> > >We know the KTB hypothesis is true because it's become popular with
> > >scientists
> >
> > No, we know it's "true" because we've found evidence that it
> > (the massive bolide impact) occurred.

For a long time the evidence was circumstantial, in the form of
shocked quartz and an anomalous amount of iridium. But even this,
combined with the sheer drama of the asteroid impact story, was
enough to make it the most popular theory. Of course, the search
for a large enough crater began immediately, and lack of success
even caused some to hypothesize that Iceleand is the surviving
remnant of the impact site. The age of Iceland, so it was claimed,
was just right.

Finding that Yucatan crater did convince some doubters, but not
very many, IIRC: its main role was that now it was clear that an
asteroid impact HAD taken place at the right time.

> > Whether it was the
> > sole cause of the extinctions is a separate issue, one which
> > is still under discussion and investigation; the consensus
> > seems to be "no, but it was a major contributor". And all
> > based on evidence.

<snip for focus>

> one question is a crater and even the signs of a meteorite.
> This is not in dispute, but perhaps the exact dating of the
> crash. Then, you must not hasten on to say "this is the truth"
> because things could be a little more complex that they look.
> What have you read about this case?
> Why exist a controversy? A controversy does not exist by a work
> of the Holy Spirit.
> Then, you must read the case. The data would tell you if this is
> the truth, half the truth, or a quart of the truth.
> Things are not very often odd or evens, sometimes the truth is more
> complex to determine.
> Eri

Indeed. My impression is that the supernova hypothesis was never
discredited -- it just fell out of fashion.

Scientists in general are too ready to jump on bandwagons or embrace
hypotheses on analogy by what they know. It is now fashionable to
write long stories about Lowell's hypothesis about the canals of Mars,
because few people took it seriously even at its height of popularity.

But there is very little mention of the fact that many astronomers,
perhaps even a majority, were convinced that there were regular
seasonal changes on Mars and that they were due to vegetation. I remember
at least one book from my boyhood, written by a professional astronomer,
that flat-out proclaimed "We know there is life on Mars." Arguments were
mainly about its nature. Some opted for something similar to lichens,
while others argued that the recovery from dust storms was so quick that
it had to consist of tall plant-like things from which dust readily blew off.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://people.math.sc.edu/nyikos/

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, November 17, 2015 at 7:39:13 PM UTC-5, Bill wrote:

> eridanus wrote:

> > So, I favor Gelda Keller, mostly because he presented his cards over the
> > game table.
> > Eri

Yes. I was really amused by that 12. at first, because all I could see
at first was:

Our conclusions based on 30 years of research regarding Iridium,
Impact-tsunami, Sea-level change, and finally, the Ultimate Proof.

After seeing the back-and-forth in the preceding 11 installments, this
line followed by complete silence might have made a very striking
finish to the whole display. But then saw "Read more" in red and
clicked on it.

I'll have to read the whole 12 sections when I have more time. It seems
like a very thorough piece of scholarship.

> Continental drift as a theory is pretty much established. I know it's true
> because I saw a documentary on TV that said is was. As with the KTB,
> there's a rush to find an answer and the first one wins.
>
> Bill

You may think you are a great satire writer, Bill, and the first few
times you tried this spiel of "we know because TV documentaries say so"
you might have had some appreciative readers besides Glenn and Martinez
and jonathan, but by now this line is getting mighty stale.

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina

[Bill]

Have you ever noticed that the Caribbean sea looks just like a footprint?
The heel is in Costa Rica and Panama and the big toe is at Cancun Mexico.
This bears a close resemblance to a left foot with the toes submerged.
Whoever made this foot print was several thousand miles tall and,
obviously, ate all the dinosaurs.

The alleged meteor impact was merely an enormous coprolite falling no more
that five miles. This is the only conclusion that matches all the evidence.
I may publish in the Journal of Exobiology and Creative Hair Styling if
someone doesn't beat me to it.

Bill

[jillery]

Actually it's called plate tectonics. Perhaps you should watch
something other than cartoons. Or even better, read an authoritative
book on the subject. Just sayin'.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[Peter Nyikos]

Man, you've got one deformed foot if that's what you think! Read on
for some more normal anatomy.

> This bears a close resemblance to a left foot with the toes submerged.

Have you ever noticed that Australia looks like the head and neck of
a monster ready to eat New Guinea, with the Gulf of Carpenteria
its open mouth?

And that New Guinea looks like a hand with the index finger pointing
towards Vanuatu?

<snip feeble attempt at satire by Bill>

Peter Nyikos

[jonathan]

It was a pretty big clue seeing the iridium layer
coinciding with the extinction, but that's not
direct evidence relating the two, it could be
and apparently is just a coincidence. Plus the
global effects of an impact is probably just a
few years or decades, it's not possible to date
that accurately with geologic time spans.

The extinction event probably spanned centuries
or even millennia.

The following quote from the paper sounds like it's
from the 1633 debate between Galileo and the church
only this time it's science playing the entrenched
defender of long established science.


"Unfortunately, this wide interest rarely resulted in
integrated interdisciplinary studies or joint discussions
to search for common solutions to conflicting results.
Increasingly, in a perverse twist of science new results
became to be judged by how well they supported the impact
hypothesis, rather than how well they tested it. An unhealthy
US versus THEM culture developed where those who dared to
question the impact hypothesis, regardless of the solidity
of the empirical data, were derided, dismissed as poor
scientists, blocked from publication and getting grant
funding, or simply ignored. Under this assault, more and
more scientists dropped out leaving a nearly unopposed
ruling majority claiming victory for the impact hypothesis.
In this adverse high-stress environment just a small group
of scientists doggedly pursued evidence to test the
impact hypothesis."

http://massextinction.princeton.edu/chicxulub/1-chicxulub-non-smoking-gun









> Eri
>
>

[jonathan]

I guess we should admire your efficiency, insulting
four people for the price of one.

[eridanus]

it seems to me the word "truth" is not used in Science. Something looks
reasonable and more or less settled, but they it is never a truth.
Truth is a word for religions.
The data could be more or less exact, and could push anyone to have some idea
or to postulate a theory. But we cannot say of a theory it is true or false.
But a theory can make sense, or not making any sense. And this refer to our
brain and way of thinking.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 13:05:26 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by eridanus
<leopoldo...@gmail.com>:

>I disagree with you. Both, the Deccan Traps was postulated to explain
>the extinction of dinosaurs before Alvarez was speaking of Chicxulub.
>Gerta Keller says at the beginning of her file, CHICXULUB: THE IMPACT CONTROVERSY

I stand corrected; thanks.

> -------
>In the 1980s as the impact-kill hypothesis of Alvarez and others gained popular and scientific acclaim and the mass extinction controversy took an increasingly rancorous turn in scientific and personal attacks fewer and fewer dared to voice critique. Two scientists stand out: Dewey McLean (VPI) and Chuck Officer (Dartmouth University). Dewey proposed as early as 1978 that Deccan volcanism was the likely cause for the KTB mass extinction, Officer also proposed a likely volcanic cause. Both were vilified and ostracized by the increasingly vocal group of impact hypothesis supporters. By the middle of the 1980s Vincent Courtillot (Physique de Globe du Paris) also advocated Deccan volcanism, though not as primary cause but rather as supplementary to the meteorite impact. Since 2008 Courtillot has strongly advocated Deccan volcanism as the primary cause for the KTB mass extinction.

As I noted elsethread, the controversy continues (as it
should; that's how science works), despite Bill's contention
that it's all about popularity contests.

>---------
>
>But I had read in some other places, the idea that both, a meteorite or some
>volcanic event, was the probably cause of the extinction of dinosaurs.
>You do not need to be the wise Salomon to start to look for a suitable
>meteorite crater.
>Then, as I said to Norman, I knew that existed a controversy. What I do not
>knew were some details about the controversy. Then, to see which side
>eventually is the winner, you need to know farther. And you would not know
>farther unless you dig deeper into this question.

Correct. Which is what the scientists involved are doing on
a continuing basis, again despite Bill's contention
otherwise.

[eridanus]

no problem