Which rock killed the dinosaurs? The plot thickens
Scientists blame huge clashing asteroids for wiping out Earth's dinosaurs 65 million years ago.
September 20th, 2011
10:20 AM ET

Which rock killed the dinosaurs? The plot thickens

(CNN) - A 65-million-year-old murder mystery just got a bit more mysterious.

Which "family" of asteroids killed earth's dinosaurs?

New data from NASA's orbiting Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) throws doubt on a 2007 theory that blamed the death of the dinosaurs on fragments from an asteroid family called Baptistina, located between Mars and Jupiter.

Baptistina was a huge asteroid which crashed into another space rock millions of years ago, sending mountain-sized pieces flying in various directions.

Scientists had theorized one of those Baptistina fragments slammed into the Gulf of Mexico, triggering the end of Earth's reptile dynasty.

The earlier Baptistina estimates were off, says Lindley Johnson, program executive for the Near Earth Object (NEO) Observation Program at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "With infrared light, WISE was able to get a more accurate estimate."

Infrared light is electromagnetic radiation which humans sense as heat.

Reconstructing what really happened so many millions of years ago sounds very much like a script from a detective show.

Baptistina broke up into chunks about 15 million years before the dino-killing event, according to WISE data - which doesn't fit scientists' timeline.

In this crime of epoch proportions, that gives Baptistina a pretty good alibi.

Baptistina asteroids apparently were nowhere near the scene of the crime because it likely would have taken millions of years longer for them to drift into regions of space called resonances.

Resonances have gravitational forces created by Saturn and Jupiter which can shoot asteroids toward Earth - sort of like a pinball machine.

"It doesn’t completely rule it out as the source of the dino-killing culprit," says Amy Mainzer, who co-authored the WISE study. "But it does give theorists something new to think about."

What damaged the Baptistina theory?

Mainzer's team measured the size and amount of sunlight reflected from 120,000 asteroids, including 1,056 members of the Baptistina Family. From that data, they calculated how much time it took these asteroids to reach their current locations.

When Mainzer talks about the project, the conversation is sprinkled with vocabulary you might hear in a gangster flick or an episode of "Law & Order."

There are no "major suspects"  in the case, she says - now that Baptistina is in the clear. She plans to create "family trees," for thousands of asteroids - conjuring up images of FBI bulletin boards with photos of Mafia crime bosses connected by pieces of string.

"The first thing we want to do is look at the whole asteroid belt and really kind of go back to Square One and say, 'OK, what are the major families that we know about in the asteroid belt and which are the most likely culprits?'" she says.

Ironically, Mainzer's position in the project is labeled "principal investigator."

The asteroids in our solar system's main asteroid belt range in size from about 0.6 miles wide to 583 miles across. In fact, about once a year a car-sized asteroid strays toward earth and burns up while entering the earth's atmosphere, according to NASA.gov.

By the way, astronomers recently surprised Mainzer by naming an asteroid after her called "234750 Amymainzer."

"We did indeed observe it with WISE," she says. "It is a bit funny to have your namesake be a seven kilometer chunk of charcoal-dark rock!"

Fortunately, she jokes, asteroid Amymainzer poses no hazard to the Earth or its inhabitants.

What's next? Just like any good police investigation, you need to establish a credible timeline.

"We've got to go back in time as it were to reconstruct what happened using the huge amount of new information we now have thanks to WISE," says Mainzer.

"That's going to help point us in the right direction, I hope."

Post by:
Filed under: Dinosaurs • Discoveries • Hardware in Orbit • In Space • News
soundoff (806 Responses)
  1. To those who know everything

    Shut the frontdoor!! beach!

    September 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  2. flarnkingsgargle

    Satan planted dinosaur bones on Earth to cast doubt among the hearts of men. Duh.

    September 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Paul

      The 'Masons will punish you soon for betraying the secrets of the Illuminati! Say Cthulhu three times and snap in a circle...

      September 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
  3. Wobbles

    And again, the article is about the causation of the dinosaur's demise and within milliseconds the God-Not God Evolution-Creationism discussion begins.

    Reminds me of the old 'astronaut sees God' joke. The first astronaut to go beyond the orbit of Pluto returns and during his debriefing says "I saw God." Everyone is ecstatic and they crowd around, all asking what God is like. The astronaut replies, "Well–to begin with, she's black."

    September 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Jim

      But you have to admit, we are all having fun here. Right? How can anyone on-line discussions seriously.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
      • Jim

        Please ignore my typos (past, present, and future)

        September 20, 2011 at 3:25 pm |
    • split tail

      Ba dum bum ssst

      September 20, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • Arran Webb

      Dinosaur impressions in stones are not the proof of non-God.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:31 pm |
      • Josh

        That depends. Given the biblical assertion of the age of the world it very well could be.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • holy guac

        Obviously the people who wrote the bible never saw a dinosaur fossil. If they had, they probably would have written it into their story. Or they might have included a "Don't pay attention to those impressions left by creatures long dead, pay attention to the man behind the curtain, who you cannot see" disclaimer.

        September 25, 2011 at 4:30 pm |
    • Gregor

      lol

      September 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
  4. Ben Marble, M.D.

    Humans killed the dinosaurs (not rocks).

    September 20, 2011 at 3:18 pm |
    • Jim

      That is true. I saw it at the Creation Museum in Ohio!

      September 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
      • Mad Cow

        Alley Oop, Fred Flintstone, and Jesus Christ were neighbors. They liked to ride dinosaurs together. They lived in Bedrock and had a gay old time.
        YABBA DABBA DOOOOO!

        September 21, 2011 at 1:40 am |
    • Stu

      Oh come on, the dinosaurs are just a myth. Everyone knows they are just relics planted there by the devil to confuse us. The earth is only 10,000 years old.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • ohNOyouDIDNT

        lol if you do beleive that then, you really arent educated at all...and god created the earth in a week lmao science has taught us diffrent

        September 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm |
      • joe

        you are not a smart person

        September 22, 2011 at 9:28 am |
  5. Not the Asteroid may be some disease killed them

    Asteroid should have affected all life forms because they all breath air and not everything died however some disease may have killed them all. Remember Flu that killed estimated 100 million people. Something as small might have killed them all.
    Other theory might be change in environment as earth goes thru cycles overtime and may be they were not designed to adapt to changes in the environment.

    September 20, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
    • I dunit now

      I think it was the commmies that did them in

      September 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • Roz

        Naw, joining the tea party killed the dinosaurs. They devolved back into the primordial ooze.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:58 pm |
    • Lucyfur

      Ahhh yes, I remember that flu well.... good times, good times

      September 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
    • b

      I believe this random internet commenter versus scientists with collectively decades to centuries of research between them.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • vintage 274

      Huh? According to science, not ALL creatures were killed by the weather disturbances created by asteroids crashing into Earth. It totally depended on where the creatures lived and whether they were true reptiles like dinosaurs and thus needing to have ther body temperatures regulated by sunlight and how big they were, thus their need for large quantities of plant food (much killed off by the lack of sun). You can throw out all the personal ideas you want, but you haven't backed any of them with scientific fact nor do you seem to understand the multi-causational process that the asteroid theory embraces. A massive asteroid hitting the Earth would first wipe out life in the immediate area of impact; it would then set off tsunamis and great floods; it would send a massive dust cloud into to the air triggering loss of sunlight for years which would alter plant life, kill off plant eaters, and then kill off carnivores who fed on plant eaters; it would change weather patterns; it would weaken remaining creatures as the food chain was thrown off everywhere; and the remaining weakened species would be more suseptible to disease leading to the process of natural selection favoring those who could adapt to change and thus - BINGO! - evolution again. ALL of these processes are part of the asteroid theory; they are not separate ideas as you try to postulate.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:38 pm |
      • Lucyfur

        I didn't even read all of that mindless blurb, but I can tell you that you are taking this way too seriously my friend.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:43 pm |
      • Not the Asteroid may be some disease killed them

        Scientist needs to think out side of the box. Also my second theory of environmental changes is still valid i am not saying that asteroids did not impact the earth. They have and they will but if you body is not designed to adapt to the changes then it's not the astorid that killed them it was their lack of ability to adapt to change killed them. Also for theory you do not need spend millions of $ to prove something. As far as humanity's demise it will not be Astroid it will be either us or micro organism (bacteria) or virus will kill us all if we cannot get figure out how to fight it. Again with millions of $ spent there still not a smoking gun or proof it is still a theory and my theory cost nothing.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
      • NoMoreLabels

        Humans scan instead of reading comments...BINGO stood out though–congrats.

        September 20, 2011 at 4:31 pm |
      • Ben

        @Not the asteroid: You've just explained a hypothesis, not a theory. A theory is, by definition, inductive, meaning you need to collect data to create a theory. Also, a theory encompasses many equations, explanations, etc. which work together to explain a significant, complicated scientific idea. You have to have data, and you have to intensely analyze said data, to create a new theory.

        September 20, 2011 at 8:44 pm |
      • holy guac

        @NoMoreLabels – Oh no! Why did you have to point that out?! Now the rest of Vintage 274's posts from here on in will be that annoying all caps thing, like every single word of their thoughts is just so earth shatteringly significant. It's so obnoxiously self important, I really hate that. Only my opinion really matters, and only I am allowed to be that obnoxiously self important.

        September 25, 2011 at 4:38 pm |
    • ohNOyouDIDNT

      me personally i think our older wiser ancestors found this planet hundreds or thousands of years ago, and we wouldnt have been able to thrive here with gigantic perdetors killing everyone, so i think they were killed to make room for our arrival, how they were killed is one of the greatest mysterys ever

      September 20, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • Mark

        Yes, absolutely. I agree. The PERDETORS would definately have been hard to live with.

        Geez man. I read only two or your posts, and all I have to say is learn some basic grammar you bafoon.

        This is a period (.) Periods are used to end sentences and signal the reader that a new sentence is about to start.
        This is a comma (,) Commas are used to divide sentences.
        This is an apostrophe (') An apostrophe is used in contractions (example, do + not = don't)

        Commas and periods cannot be used interchangebly. Yes, you must start all new sentences with a capital letter.

        There was your first lesson. And for future reference, don't lecture others on the need to be educated until you remedy your own problem.

        September 20, 2011 at 4:57 pm |
      • yay an English nazi

        I always love it when people play teacher on the internet.

        Just for future reference...this is the internet. (.) is not a period....it's a small breast. Get with it!

        (And if you find any punctuation/grammar/spelling errors in my post, I DON'T CARE!!!) lol

        September 21, 2011 at 8:00 am |
      • Sickel

        Wow... Good job Mark. You should definitely take your own advice. You need to learn how to spell before you can teach anyone correct grammar. You just made your entire post contradictory with your own spelling and punctuational mistakes.

        Good Job.

        September 21, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
      • holy guac

        Uh, Mark – it's "buffoon." You're welcome.

        September 25, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
      • holy guac

        Sickel, just to let you know "punctuational" is NOT a word. A better phrase would be "errors in punctuation." You're welcome, too. Or, "you're welcome, as well." Both of those phrases work.

        September 25, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
  6. Dudley4018

    The fun part is that science is honest enough to say that even pet theories are sometimes proven wrong. Remember, unless a theory is testable, it is useless. Unless it is provable, it will always remain a theory, no matter how weak or strong the evidence, for just this reason.

    September 20, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Brandon

      "always remain a theory"? There is nothing for it to become once it is a theory. For example, heliocentric theory and atomic theory are theories, but they're generally accepted as truth. Also, contrary to popular belief, while testability and the scientific theory are common, they are not requirements for science. Much of astronomy, geology, and paleontology, for example, rely on observation because testability is often impossible in these fields. That doesn't stop them from being science.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:23 pm |
      • Brandon

        er... scientific method, I mean.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
      • James

        Hypothesis -> Theory -> Law.

        Theories are called theories for a reason.

        September 20, 2011 at 4:13 pm |
      • brett

        http://www.notjustatheory.com/

        September 20, 2011 at 4:53 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        @ James,
        Open a science text book again, I know you're using it to keep your kitchen table level, but it does have a bigger purpose than that. Look for the part that says "DEFINITIONS"... start with OBSERVATION, HYPOTHESIS, SCIENTIFIC LAW and SCIENTIFIC THEORY... then come back and repost your newfound education.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  7. MyTake

    Well said ;-)

    September 20, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  8. Schmedley

    Never mind all that science vs creationism stuff... I saw Amy Mainzer on The Universe on the Discovery channel and she's cute...

    September 20, 2011 at 3:06 pm |
  9. MyTake

    Your comments are pure ignorance ...

    September 20, 2011 at 3:02 pm |
    • fran glass

      whose?

      September 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
    • I dunit now

      I dated a girl named Ignorance once, but she wasn't pure.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:29 pm |
  10. Mercedes

    With all your respect; when "science" has failed to find a cure for a dying loved one, and all you have is the comfort of the "what if there is a heaven and God"....why not hold on to that hope and believe that your loved one is in a better place. I rather believe and find out there isn't a God than die not believing and find out there is a God. Nothing to lose; everything to gain. Science is science and it's constantly changing to benefit those who have an interest $$$$. God doesn't ask for your wallet...just a simple little prayer suffices. Love and respect all of you! Life would be so boring if we all agreed on the same thing…..God bless!

    September 20, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • fran glass

      that's all fine, but what some people are taking issue with here is the complete denial that science EXISTS and that religious books have more answers than research based on fact. Understand?

      September 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
    • Indeed

      God is indeed awesome. I'm glad my spirit has a home and a shepherd.

      But...

      I still believe in the theory that life evolved in swampy conditions on Earth – probably from a random chemical reaction. I can also believe that perhaps the Universe helped said chemical reaction a little bit... perhaps.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:07 pm |
      • Indeed

        Just remember: all absolutes are wrong.

        "They're. Now eye pheel butter."

        September 20, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
      • Lucyfur

        You sound very confused, sell me your soul and I'll tell you the truth.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:34 pm |
    • Herp

      lolwut.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • Kevin

      Almost EVERYBODY who talks about god wants your wallet.

      God is a human-invented exploitation and nothing else.

      Jesus was a cool dude. He was a left-wing hippy who was killed for saying we should all love each other and share.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • To those who know everything

      This is about science. These are calculated models. Yes they have an error bound, but at least its a testable theory. Please don't bring God into this. Science has come a long way. If you get cancer science will help heal you, god will be busy. When you talk to your family across the world, science will help you, god will be busy. The truth is God isn't real, so its useless to pray to something that isnt real. People pray when they are in a bad situation because people want to feel like they have some kind of control over teh situation, and that control comes from a god that's on their side. Let science help, and let god be busy

      September 20, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
      • Vipergtsrgt1

        I'll agree religions are made up, but God or some manner of deity COULD exist. Science is always changing. Life is always changing. Maybe verifiable (i.e.: holds up to the scientific method) evidence of God is out there and just hasn't been discovered yet.

        September 20, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
    • bewiser

      That’s not religion or belief. It is called hedging your bets.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
      • Mark

        Can also be looked upon as having an open mind...(gasp).

        I can hear all you "would be" scientists now...."An open mind?" "That's so...UN-scientific".

        September 20, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
    • NoMoreLabels

      HA! That's funny! Science never asked me for my wallet but the church certainly wanted 10% of everything I made.

      September 20, 2011 at 4:34 pm |
    • deez

      That line of thinking is called Pascal's Wager, and there's nothing wrong with it, as far as we know. It's like the "god in the gaps" approach doesn't really hurt anyone, it's just annoying to listen to. The space of discussion where that argument can reasonably be used is constantly shrinking but will never be 0 within our lifetime at least (people used to think Zeus made lightning, now they just handwave where 'we go' when we die, and where the universe came from, for the most part, unless they really want to ignore the facts in front of them and believe in young earth etc). the most annoying part of this is discussion in general is that people from both sides think of this as 'science vs religion' as if they're comparable (apples to apples), when really it's just 'reality vs imaginary.' you can either believe that the world is what we see it to be, or you can believe theres imaginary stuff that will never make sense in terms of the world we see. if you believe the latter, fine, but dont act like you have any reason based in reality to believe that way, because you'll never find a supporting argument in the real world.

      September 20, 2011 at 4:42 pm |
    • fimeilleur

      Believe what you want if it "makes you feel better". I'm sorry reality disagrees with your current state of mind. But if the religious community wants to impose "morality" on the rest of the population because they believe that it will please their god, well, I'm sorry but He's gonna have to present himself and make his wishes known personally. We're tired of the likes of Ted Haggart, Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker and the like (include the WBC here too) trying to tell us how to live, who to sleep with, and what to eat.

      September 20, 2011 at 7:02 pm |
    • klay

      "I rather believe and find out there isn't a God than die not believing and find out there is a God."

      so you'd rather live brainwashed only to find out that nothing exists after death and you wasted your life believing in something man told you was true?

      September 21, 2011 at 11:44 am |
  11. Jeff

    "...triggering the end of Earth's reptile dynasty."
    Correct me if im wrong, but weren't the dinosaurs NOT reptiles?

    September 20, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
    • Yep

      Indeed, reptiles were not dinosaurs, although some scientists indicate that they had (a) common ancestor(s).

      Reptiles have different hip structures, different organ structures, and different skin structures. Also, many in the scientific community indicate that dinosaurs were warm-blooded (where reptiles are cold-blooded).

      Fun stuff, science.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • whoisgalt

      You are wrong. Dinosaurs are considered reptiles. You may be confusing "reptile" with "lizard".

      September 20, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
      • Made you look

        Wake me when the scientific community decides what it thinks about dinosaurs' preferred climate, their cold-bloodedness, and their class.

        Thank you. I now return you to your desire to foist absolutes on others. You may resume hammering others just to make sure they know they're "wrong."

        Have a nice day.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:36 pm |
    • To those who know everything

      Dinosaurs are reptiles. Reptile means cold blooded animals, It was nothing to do with bone structures. Snakes are reptiles so are crocodiles and lizards. They each have different bone structures but all are cold blooded. Science!

      September 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
      • leecherius

        Feathers?

        September 20, 2011 at 3:42 pm |
      • brett

        dinosaurs are placed within the division of archosauria which includes the crocodilians and birds. It's very possible that many if not all dinosaurs were endothermic, but they do all fall under the class of reptilia.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:59 pm |
    • I dunit now

      and what does godzirra rook rike to you?

      September 20, 2011 at 3:30 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      They're referring to the death of the true Lizard King, Jim Morrison.

      September 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm |
  12. Believe It

    The thing that gets me about religion is: if you follow it then you can go around raping, beating, and killing people, and as long as you confess your sins at the end of the day and repent you'll go to heaven!!!!!

    But there is ONE sin that is UNFORGIVEABLE. To deny the holy spirit. Talk about fear mongering. Way to control the masses. A wise man once said, "Religion is regarded by common man as true, by the wise as false, and by the Rulers as useful." That is why there will never be an admitted atheist as president of the united sheep of america.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
    • To those who know everything

      well said, sadly you are correct.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
    • Josh

      That wise man was Seneca the Younger...btw

      September 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
    • NoMoreLabels

      I agree. Furthermore, 'In God We Trust' needs to be changed to 'In God We Thrust' because the religious certainly phuck the rest over continuously.

      September 20, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      Screw the holy spirit. There, can i go to hell now?

      September 20, 2011 at 6:44 pm |
  13. Giggle

    You truly make a strong case for freedom of speech.

    Really.

    No kidding.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  14. T---

    O.K. everyone, especially Wally. If I read the Bible correctly, then the world was populated totally by hebrews. Right? Adam. Eve. Cain. Able. Daughters who aren't even named. That was about 6,000ish years ago. While discussing the history of the hebrew (meaning genetically they were all identical) people, no where in the Bible does it describe sub-saharans, asians, aboriginals, inuit, meso-americans, micronesians, even gauls or celts. Why? And since evolution is at question by the creationists, how did the population of the planet go from 2 to 7,000,000,000 (with that flood thing in there somewhere) and move to every corner of the earth, with unique genetic characteristicslike skin color, body type, (even disease susceptibility) and cultures in well less than 6,000, probably only 5,500 years. Sorry, but even the most fundamental investigation can't reconcile those obvious facts through creationism. I personally like "Russell Teacup". IMHO all Gods, primitive or modern, are a construct of man's fears and apprehensions about how he fits in the universe, About his legacy. About the path he or she can't see. Faith is, and forever has been, the most powerful force in human history. That the arrogance of faith; in superiority; moral, racial, cultural, political, economic, etc. should dictate anyone's status, position, value, or voice is the first thing any of us should examine when discussing "GOD" and that means creationism.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • Grateful

      Your post makes a lot of sense.

      Nicely argued!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
    • Paul

      Oh, but you fearfully glazed over the subject of the ark, didn't you? What you don't know (O.K. everyone, listen up), is that the ark carried with it people who got off along it's flood route, whereby a little red stop sign popped out at every stop, signaling the egress of mankind. I am disagree with you about faith being the most powerful force in the history of humanity. A thousand years from now, we won't speak of faith, as much as Facebook.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
    • Tanach

      Oh good grief .. allegory people!

      And no, Adam & Eve weren't supposed to be Hebrews, Abraham (who lived in a time with OTHER PEOPLE) was the first.
      Basic Torah 101.

      So, the allegory goes like this – humans suddenly had an awakening, self-awarness. God says to them ok, you have a choice, stay where you are in the wilderness OR take a bite out of the apple and take on knowledge. REAL knowledge.
      But, warning, you can't go back!

      We know the rest.

      There are animals stronger, faster, live longer and maybe even smarter (from a technical standpoint) but we are the only creatures to have KNOWLEDGE. We can create, pass on, discover, etc. Much like God creates or destroys, much like God has choice (to create or not, to wipe out or not) we have choice unlike ANY other creatures.
      THAT is the allegory.

      Believe or don't believe but at least don't believe in the right facts.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:12 pm |
      • Paul

        Holy Cow! That has the be the first time I've seen the Torah referenced in any public forum since Nobel laureate Al Gore did that techie thing that has us all able to chat in here. I mean, Holy Cow! Welcome back Torah!

        Welcome back,
        Your dreams were your ticket out.

        Welcome back,
        To that same old place that you laughed about.

        Well the names have all changed since you hung around,
        But those dreams have remained and they're turned around.

        Who'd have thought they'd lead ya (Who'd have thought they'd lead ya)
        Here where we need ya (Here where we need ya)

        Yeah we tease him a lot cause we've hot him on the spot, welcome back,
        Welcome back, welcome back, welcome back.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:21 pm |
      • Carra

        Thank you!

        September 20, 2011 at 4:26 pm |
    • Jim

      I like it!

      September 20, 2011 at 3:13 pm |
    • Bryan

      As far as your argument from population goes a very low growth rate could produce 2 to 7 billion in 6000 years. Consider that it was very recent history that Earth reached 1 billion (ca. 1800).

      September 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
      • Jimbo

        Bryan is correct. "The most fundamental investigation" using basic math skills shows that a population can go from 2 to 7,000,000,000 over the course of 5500 years by simply doubling every 168 years (2^32.7 = 7billion, 5500 / 32.7 = 168). That is slow growth. For comparison, it only took the last 40 years for the population to double from 3.5 B to 7 B.

        September 20, 2011 at 4:41 pm |
  15. Billy

    Another Florida grad heard from. Go Gators.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
  16. Vanilla_Ice

    Yo, face-to-your-mother...

    September 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
  17. Believe It

    The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Yeah, christianity makes sense.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
    • fran glass

      but... but.... wait... that sonds crazy!
      :D

      September 20, 2011 at 3:00 pm |
      • fran glass

        *sounds! grrr...

        September 20, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
    • Steve-O-Matic

      Of course that sounds crazy. You have to look at it through catholicism, the one true religion, and LITERALLY eat his body. It makes much more sense that way.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:04 pm |
      • fran glass

        ahh so if i try some tasty jesus flesh i will understand? Awesome! haha :)

        September 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
      • Jim

        So, Christians are cannibals? Egad. I think some of my neighbors may be Christians. I better grab myself a gun and hide in the basement.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
    • To those who know everything

      sounds a little crazy when you put it all together like that

      September 20, 2011 at 3:26 pm |
    • kardiac

      Oh sure...now you want to bring facts into this discussion

      September 20, 2011 at 3:41 pm |
      • holy guac

        Why can't facts and faith just get along? And each claims the other is the trouble maker, it's like refereeing a couple of naughty kids.

        September 25, 2011 at 4:54 pm |
  18. fran glass

    uh... what?

    September 20, 2011 at 2:50 pm |
  19. Sigh. A closed mind is like a locked door

    I loved the science-esque nature of the article. It is a bit full of run-on sentences for my tastes – it was hard to read.

    But anyway...

    I really just wish closed-minded folks would stop posting regurgitated knee-jerk all-or-nothing mindless sheeple posts about a four-thousand-year-old earth and absolute divine creation.

    Did you know that one can believe in practical science and still be spiritual? (In addition, did you know that there is a difference between they’re, their, and there?)

    September 20, 2011 at 2:46 pm |
    • fran glass

      they also don't know about "your" and "you're".

      It makes me really worried that people have no idea of the MEANING of words they are saying when they say something like "there full of crap. these scientists don't know what their talking about. They'res lots of evidence to support the earth only being a few million years old. Your crazy if you think you're ideas are better than mine"
      i mean REALLY what do they think words like "you're" and "they're" mean? They just put all of that fancy talkin' punctuation in there to make it look pretty?!
      ugh!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:55 pm |
    • Mike

      Actually, most Christians do believe what science teaches us. The Catholic churches (Roman, Eastern/Orthodox), Anglican (Episcopal in the US), Luthern, and Methodist churches teach it is up to the individual on what they believe of science. And all Christians of those churches that I know, and non-Doms I know, accept the teachings of science. And we think that evolution is a pretty good idea also.
      I was actually discussing this last Christmas with my family (they are Baptists; I'm Catholic). We came up with: science is to teach us when, where, what, and how; history teaches us who, where and to some extent when; religion teaches us why.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
      • fran glass

        The catholic church teaches it's followers it's "up to them"? like the science of condoms preventing AIDS in africa? That science?

        September 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  20. allahuakbar

    Except for the theme of monotheism, the Qur'an speaks more of the coming Qiyamah – also known as the Resurrection, the Day of Judgment, Day of Gathering, and the Great Announcement – than of any other topic. "Confessing the Shahadah – "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is the Prophet of God" – and believing in the accountability of all humans before God are the cement which holds Islam together.

    Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), among other things, came to warn us of a time when truth would be known, when the thoughts and intentions of the heart would be revealed. He earnestly proclaimed as inevitable a day when accounts would be settled and when scales would be balanced.

    Fazlur Rahman, in an oblique paraphrase of sura 50:22, said that Judgment Day is the "Hour when every human will be shaken into a unique and unprecedented self-awareness of his deeds; he will squarely and starkly face his own doings, not-doings, and mis-doings and accept the judgment upon them. . . . "

    Something like a Final Judgment or Day of Reckoning is a naturally corollary of monotheism. If there is one God who knows all and sets standards of behavior for the world, there must be a time of judgment, or the edifice crumbles of its own weight."

    September 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
    • Andrew

      Why are you saying this on a science related article about what killed the dinosaurs? Hell, even if another asteroid were to hit us and kill us off, I'd say it's more "bad luck" than "allah passing judgment" or something akin.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:54 pm |
      • leecherius

        "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

        Albert Einstein

        September 20, 2011 at 4:00 pm |
    • Brendan

      Clearly, the dinosaurs where not following Sharia Law closely enough.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:45 pm |
  21. Steve-O-Matic

    The dinosaurs dying out was just god's way of punishing the them for allowing gay marriage. Look it up! It's probably somewhere in the bible.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
    • fran glass

      haha! :)

      September 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
    • To those who know everything

      hahahahah...

      September 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
  22. Roger

    Your quote:

    Sean says:

    "You do realize we weren't born Christians......" is a false statement. ......Christians (generally speaking) are a victim of geography..."

    _________________________________________________________________

    LOL...."victim"? how ironic a bias person would make such a claim.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  23. negrodamus

    I'll do everyone a favor: it was a combination of rocks, not one. They are as follows: Fraggle Rock; Punk Rock; Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, pet rocks, and MTV's Rock the Vote campaign.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
    • Nils

      White people like Wayne Brady.....because... he makes Bryant Gumbel look like Malcolm X

      September 20, 2011 at 2:49 pm |
  24. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    If Christians really want to get rid of evolution in schools they should just behave as they do on these boards. Anytime a scientific fact is presented steer the conversation towards the existence of God. That way nothing will get done and you'll be back in the dark ages before you know it.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
    • MyTake

      Look at the GOP nominees position on science ... we are closer than you think.

      September 20, 2011 at 3:08 pm |
  25. Tonelok

    @wally
    Look up an experiment called The Miller-Urey Experiment about 50 years ago. It was an experiment where they simulated an "early earth" atmosphere. Meaning, they collected gases, minerals and things (none living) that were present on the earth before life existed. They put these things together in a contained environment and introduces lightning (Common in early earth atmosphere) and observed what happened. After a certain time they took a look to see if anything had changed and they found amino acids (building blocks of proteins) had been created in the mix. These acids are the reason you exist.
    .
    See, when scientists have a question about the world, they view what happens (or the outcome), hypothesize as to the cause of the phenomena, test to confirm the hypothesis(or, if proven wrong, revise their hyposthesis and retest). It's called the scientific method. Read about it.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
    • NotNecessarily

      The experiment only tends to prove that amino acids can be createed from our atmospheric condtions. Nothing more. It does not prove Evolution or our existence. Conversely, the absence of amino acids would not prove Creationism.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:53 pm |
      • Chris

        It also shatters the Creationists' favorite little mantra, "How do you get something from nothing?" Well... there you go. That's how.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
    • MyTake

      The above is a great comment. However there are recent advance in biology which may result in the creation of "artificial" life. That is: A lifeform not seen in nature but given life in the lab. Read this: http://www. livescience. com/ 3214-life-created-lab. html

      September 20, 2011 at 3:14 pm |
    • TLJ

      Actually Stanley Miller's experiment only created SOME of the amino acids needed for life and it created some amino acids that would destroy life. It didn't prove life could begin from nothing. It did show how complex cells, DNA, and "life building" is as well as prove the probabilities of such a combination happening is statistically mind blowing.

      September 21, 2011 at 8:29 pm |
  26. KennyRogersNewphew(for real)

    Jesus Christ may be the son of God, but he still owes me $50. Pay up please Jesus, I am not a bank.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
  27. elle

    The copy editing in this article is sloppy.

    For example:

    Ironically, Mainzer's position in the project is labeled "principle investigator."

    The word to use is "principal investigator." Your editor should know that.

    Also: "She plan's to create "family trees," What's with the apostrophe? She plans to create...

    People sprinkle apostrophes all over their prose these days, and it's annoying. The editors should catch these errors so we readers don't have to.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:25 pm |
    • vintage 274

      "Principle investigator" is correct. In this case, "principle" means first or primary. The word "principal" only refers to the head of a school. Children are taught to remember this by the fact that a PRINCIPAL should be a kid's "pal." You are corect about the apostrophe, however.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
      • Vlad S.

        That is incorrect. As I mentioned in a post below, the PI on a study is the "principal investigator" because "principal" means "first", "chief", or "head". These are NOT the meanings of the word "principle". Please consult a dictionary. Here is one with the relevant words:

        "Principal"
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principal

        "Principle"
        http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/principle

        September 20, 2011 at 2:38 pm |
      • TERMINATOR

        You are all wrong. The reporter used the correct spelling of the word because he was QUOTING from what is listed on the actual study report. You are not allowed to change the spelling of a source that you are quoting just because you think the person who you are quoting spelled a word incorrectly. The author's only option would be to put [sic] after it to show it is an incorrect spelling. Changing the spelling (regardless of right or wrong) and leaving it in quotes would always be incorrect.

        September 20, 2011 at 5:41 pm |
  28. hillman

    the crack rock killed the dinos

    September 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
    • Paul

      and rock hoe killed the rack :P

      September 20, 2011 at 2:32 pm |
      • Paul

        doh! crack crack crack! :D another ruined joke

        September 20, 2011 at 2:33 pm |
  29. JesusC

    My children, I'm growing tired of all your bickering about evolution. We did evolve and still are evolving, the earth is billions of years old not a few thousand, the Adam and Eve story is bogus, Jonah and the whale (don't be so simple minded to believe this story). I just want you to love one another. END OF STORY!

    JC

    September 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • Vanilla_Ice

      Yo JC, word-to-your-mother...

      September 20, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • MyTake

      True dat!!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:24 pm |
  30. kerry

    instead of intelligent humanoid life on other planets, i hope we discover more dinosaurs!!

    September 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
    • TSS

      For real!!!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
      • Paul

        You forgot the 'z' in realz – don't do that again.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
  31. Shawn

    Seen a great tshirt the other day.

    Too dumb for Science? Try religion

    September 20, 2011 at 2:09 pm |
    • Jeff

      "seen" a great post just now. too dumb for English, try shawnese.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
      • Paul

        Oh Snap Shawn! Oh-snap! :D

        No further comment.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
  32. Rock

    mmm good pretzel

    September 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • split tail

      Agreed

      September 20, 2011 at 3:19 pm |
  33. AL in West Palm Beach

    Dinausors had feathers, they do run fast. Have you tried to catch a running chicken?
    They are tasty, go grab a piece of bbq chicken then we can talk.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
    • Paul

      Spoken like a General!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:07 pm |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      I would like to try whale legs. Ok so eating them is a joke, but actually whales do have leg bones. Wonder why God would put those there.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
      • Paul

        I think it used to help them kick toward the marble when playing hungry hungry hippo.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
  34. crawford

    Interesting all the heavy discussion on a "popularization" type article, not a juried journal piece. How else would you popularize something about physics with astronomy with history? The theology is irrelevant, Tyrants such as Stalin are tyrants and to be avoided no matter if one is religeous or not. Though the irrationality of arguement is entertaining.

    September 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
  35. Mark L. Luce

    This reply is to Mike. Mike, here is what The Encyclopedia Britannica has to say on the matter:

    Evolution, or the common descent of all living organisms, is a fact as well established as the facts that the Earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the Sun.

    But maybe you don't accept THOSE facts, either.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • wally

      There is no common descent, it's a lie taught in schools to rid schools of God ideas. Think about it, if you take the theory of evolution back into time far enough, you eventually get to a point where you must say that life came from a dead rock. No where have we physically seen macro evolution take place. Not even in the fossil record. Do the research and you'll figure it out.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
      • Mark L. Luce

        Try reading the article on evolution in The Encyclopedia Britannica. It is a very good review of the evidence for evolution, most definitely including macro-evolution. I have been privileged to hold fossils of Neanderthal Man and of Homo erectus in my own hands. What in the world do you think those represent?

        September 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
      • Josh

        Obviously you've never taken a microbiology class. MACRO evolution on a microbial scale is FAST. That's not that surprising when you have generation times numbering in minutes.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
      • yeeyuh

        dead rock? are you saying rocks can be alive too?

        September 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
      • vintage 274

        To be accurate, the scientific world widely accepts experientation from some time ago that demonstrates that the "spark" of life, i.e. amino acids, can be recreated in a lab with a mix of chemicals and electricity (ightning). It really disturbs me when people like you try to assert opinions into fact when you have no idea what the facts actually are.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:37 pm |
      • Mark C

        Wally you are, quite simply, a moron.

        The fossil record shows NOTHING BUT macro evolution.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:41 pm |
      • MyTake

        Oh, that is sooo precious ... an ignoramus AND a conspiracy nut all in one ...

        September 20, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
      • MyTake

        There is no such distinction in since as "micro evolution" and "macro evolution". This so-called distinction is what creatards use to further confuse the issue. The facts of evolution are clear. You can test them and get consistent results. Certain concepts of evolution cannot be tested (just as string theory) cannot be directly tested (behavior of dinosaurs for instance). That does not mean the entirety of the theory are just guesses. The the fact the species change over time is not in dispute by any scientist in the field. You can see it in the fossil record. It is further confirmed by the timeline of the fossils or bones using various radiometric dating techniques and by recent work in genetics. It is everywhere, only the truly ignorant deny this. The people who are denying this ARE not scientist. They are ignoramus' with an agenda.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:01 pm |
      • MyTake

        http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

        September 20, 2011 at 3:16 pm |
  36. Craig

    I'm not sure which rock it was....but I have it narrowed down to 3 candidates.....Chris Rock, Plymouth Rock, or crack rocks.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • Jarod

      Ha ha ha funny stuff......i seriously almost cried man.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
  37. Josh

    I'm confused by this article. Are they questioning, did an asteroid striking the Earth which lead to the extinction of the dinosaurs? Or are they questioning, simply where did that asteroid come from?

    September 20, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • wally

      The whole article is sci-fi.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • Doug

      Specifically, they are questioning whether one of the Baptistina fragments is the family of asteroids that caused the extinction.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
  38. rfgar042

    WOW!! I've never read the comments section of CNN before. I live in one of the so-called "fly-over states", but even so I was completely unaware that there are so many people willing to publically state that they do not believe in the basic principle of evolution. I always thought "creationists" were found only in tiny, isolated religious enclaves, and were more or less not engaged with the world because they were expecting the Second Coming at any moment, or were too busy handling snakes, exorcisng demons, etc. The comments on this article have been very educational for me.

    My perception that people who distrust empirical research and conflate science and faith was completely wrong, as demonstrated by the fact that right here are doznes of folks who can operate computers, form (mostly) coherent sentences, and don't seem to be living in communes driving horse-drawn buggies, yet say with apparent seriousness amazing stuff that seems designed to proudly demonstrate how unfamiliar they are with scientific terminology and methods; id est (to paraphrase), "evolution is just a theory," or "people who 'believe' in evolution are no different than people who believe in religious principles." Best of all: "conclusions drawn by the scientific community are always changing. If scientific ides were true then they would never change?"

    Thank you CNN readers for opening my eyes to just how widespread the "creationists" are. I'm definitely going to pay more attention at the school meetings to make sure your Medieval, "faith-based" world view doesn't infect the science classrooms of my children. I definitely want them to learn about religions . . . in the philosophy, theology, and history classes where such information belongs.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      I used to be the same way. I found this out when I stumbled upon the belief blog. You want to talk about the nutjobs that can still use computers, you should check that out.

      And while you're there, try arguing with one of them. It's part of the experience.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
      • Clark Nova

        Yes. If you're going to go to the fair, you should at least ride some of the rides.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
    • Curious

      What is your opinion regarding the origin of DNA? The first living cells would have needed the DNA instructions to have their amino acids arranged properly to form proteins. What are your thoughts? I usually only get the answers "God", "aliens", or "We don't know".

      September 20, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
      • I'm The Best!

        The different components of DNA are found in nature. They are also naturally attracted to each other to line up the way they do. Is it so hard to believe that eventually when they lined up one time they were in such an orientation to make proteins for a very basic single celled organism? Then it's just evolution from there.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:34 pm |
      • vintage 274

        You know what? I am NOT a Chistian and do not accept the Creation theory. But I will give you this - we simply do not know YET what was the defining moment or whether the entire mechanism was created by intelligent design. That being said, I should point out that even if one does believe in intelligent design, it is very easy to reconcile that belief with evolutionary fact. I read an interesting article on either Belief or Huffington Post the other day in which famous scientists (Christian and not) replied to the question of evolution vs creation. The eminent theologian in the bunch stated that his problem with the issue is not whether evolution occurred or not - that's been proven. He says the argument is really whether one believes in a God that created the world (including the evolutionary process) and then stepped back to watch it unfold (which is what our Founding Fathers as Deists believed) OR whether God has had a hand along the way and is still involved. He has that as an evangelical Christian, believers must accept that God's hand is still involved. None of the responders, despite their VERY disparate belief systems (or no belief system) could deny the scientific evidence of natural selection as evolutionary fact.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
    • wally

      You're teachers in school lied to you and you still believe it. How sad!

      September 20, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
      • Nathan

        I'm pretty sure YOUR teachers lied to you in school, when they thought you the difference between "your" and "you're."

        Nice job trying to bash someone's intelligence when you can't even produce sentences with 5th grade grammar skills... idiot.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
      • Paul

        I stand by everything Wally says....Btw, Wally, I want my 5 bucks. Paypal me, boo.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:11 pm |
      • i thought it was taught.

        I made it through all of 5th grade thinking that teachers taught me stuff, not thought it to me.

        Thanks Nathan ;)

        September 20, 2011 at 2:59 pm |
    • Paul

      Aw you spelled checked! No fair! Intelligent posts like yours are bringing down the neighborhood. You could have just had fun with the Creationists and asked them, "Are you sure you're not demon possessed? Are you really sure? When was the last time you checked. Maybe I'm an Angel that's come to warn you..." Now that's nonsense that turns pages, scrolls the page and gets people on with real life. Your post made me think and I'll never forgive you for that – never, never – ever, infinity. Disco! :P

      September 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
    • PeterT

      You're absolutely right ... And even more amazing is the fact that a lot of the believers paid good money to get an expensive education.
      How many more centuries will it take for humanity to evolve to the point where the comforting religious beliefs are remembered just as a byproduct of the thinking from a fearful sentient being.
      For creationist, here is something to think about. Why would your creator provide a setting for early human civilization where disease, suffering, wars and early death was the reality. Why not put them in 21st century where the standard of living has improved, and billions of people now inhabit the planet. Even if you just consider the timeline of history, you would see that it makes more sense that we evolved from some other primates.
      So it has been a long journey from the trees for 21st century humanity. Let's live in reality and burn the book, unless it helps you sleep at night. If so, they by all means keep believing in the stuff ...

      September 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
    • Mulciber

      Amen, brother!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:18 pm |
    • alanseago

      rfgar: Welcome to the CNN commenter community. I've been reading these comments for a while now, and it seems clear that CNN commenters are very different than Americans as a whole. Commenters are much more opinionated, and much more willing to be incredibly insulting to each other. I don't think you should form an opinion on the prevalence of creationism in America from the prevalence of creationism among CNN commenters.

      If I may suggest: you might want to read the comments to any article about politics. It is fascinating to read so many comments that are so bitterly partisan and so consistently insulting.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:42 pm |
      • Jim_Bob

        Its called a Keyboard Warrior – found all over the internet.
        http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=keyboard%20warrior

        September 20, 2011 at 5:56 pm |
    • Sean

      Ive went to Catholic high school and I still know a lot of people of faith.. I have never met anyone that denies evolution or claims the earth is only 6000 years old, clergy included.. The people on this board claiming things like that are just trolls out to make others look bad..

      September 20, 2011 at 2:58 pm |
      • vintage 274

        It's not an idea usually accepted by Catholics. Remember that most of these ideas came out of Protestant, Victorian England as a backlash against Darwin's theory of natural selection. Many Protestants don't consider Catholics to be Christians even. Yep, stupid. Catholocism uses the Bible as a reference tool. Protestantism is referential to the Bible. Evangelical Christianity seems to worship every word of the Bible as absolute truth. Evolutionary religion :)

        September 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • Lancelot Link

      In fact, there are so many religious wing-nuts running around this country that they've taken over one of our major political parties. I think it's the one with the elephant...

      September 20, 2011 at 3:09 pm |
  39. john319

    Notice that 'evolution' has always been described as 'theory of evolution' as opposed to, say, the 'law of gravity'. The 'law' is a scientifically proven concept whereas the 'theory' is not. Building a concrete agrument based on a theoretical concept makes the argument inherently weak, until the concept has been proven to be true. To develop the theory of evolution into the 'law' of evolution, scientist will need to provide more convincing evidences and facts. There are evidences that support against the theory of evolution such as the fossil of dinosaur and human found virtually next to each other. If you're an evolutionist, how would you explain this? How could the dinosaurs that became extinct far before human species ever existed be found in the same place? Theory of evolution is a fallacy and so is cabon dating.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:43 pm |
    • darkstar

      You seriously need to learn the difference between a layman's version of the word theory and a scientific theory:

      A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. A scientific theory can be thought of as a model of reality. The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

      • It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.

      • It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

      Additionally, a theory is generally only taken seriously if:

      • It is tentative, correctable, and dynamic in allowing for changes as new facts are discovered, rather than asserting certainty.

      • It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations—commonly referred to as passing the Occam's razor test. (Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criteria, but some theories are much less economical than others.)
      ...

      September 20, 2011 at 1:47 pm |
      • Doug

        Very well said. Thanks for such an intelligent, informative post. Now if only everyone would read it!

        September 20, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
      • RichG

        Great copy and paste job!

        September 20, 2011 at 2:08 pm |
      • Doug

        RichG – does it MATTER that it's cut and paste, if it is correct? LOL

        September 20, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
      • Marcus

        All of that and it still hasn't been proven to be fact. I tend to lean toward a belief in this theory myself, but fact is, it hasn't been 100% verified.......Yet.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • Steve

      It would be beneficial for you to research the definition of a scientific theory. It has essentially the same definition as a scientific law.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
    • checkmate137

      John, You've fallen into the common misperception that what science refers to as "laws" and "theories" is correlated with their degree of uncertainly. This just isn't so. As an example, we refer to quantum theory, which happens to provide the most successful understanding of small bits of matter ever devised. Phenomenal success. Every working physicist (with the exception of a few crackpots) accepts it as the explanation of how nature works. Yet it is still "just a theory."

      September 20, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
    • InFormed99

      Wow, it's always funny when non-educated try to make stuff up in the name of science. Gravity is ALSO a theory.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
      • Harry Caray

        There is more evidence supporting the theory of evolution than the THEORY of gravity. The THEORY of gravity is actually being questioned by some string theorists.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
    • blurcrazy

      It's surprising that people use the term 'Theory" and have no concept of what it means. First and foremost "is a well-supported body of interconnected statements that explains observations and can be used to make testable predictions". It is not to be confused with the colloquial use of the word theory. A scientific theory has been proven numerous times through various methods and observation. It also has not been disproven in any way. You statement about dinosaur and human fossils is completely bogus. Although I am curious to see what you are referrign to.

      Just because someone has no rational capability to understand the science behind evolution doesn't mean one can debunk what every sane, educated person is stating. Same typical nonsene that kept people insisting the Earth was the center of the universe, or the sun orbited the earth, or the earth was flat, or that women were biologically inferior etc.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:02 pm |
    • Ballox

      That reminds me of the time I watched an African-American homeopathic salesman on TV trying to explain to a huge audience that "doctors will try to push pills and drugs on you and often make an incorrect diagnosis. Often times, they don't prescribe you the right medicine. This is why you hear the phrase 'medical practice', because doctors practise medicine – they don't know fully what they are doing! They're just 'practising'!"
      Bad grammar is dangerous in the hands of those who can rally some followers...

      September 20, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
    • SwordofPerseus

      Dear John,

      I too am fearful of dating anyone outside my species, such as Cabons.
      Too funny my ignorant friend.
      Little Johnny; "Mommy what's Carbon dating" Mommy replies; "It's the Debbil tryun to fool you into believing in them smarty pants over at the University, that's all just lies" Little Johnny; "Ok Momma."
      Lose the King James book of funny and frightening stories and talk to a scientist, reading about it will only hurt your head.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
    • Chuck Wagon

      Not that old "theory of evolution" argument again. For heavens sakes. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Clearly evolution has taken place (fact) but there are several theories on how it occured such as Darwins gradualism or Steven J Gould's punctuated equilibrium. Fact the sun rises in the east but various theories on the place of the sun and earth until Copernicus. Different theories don't change the facts.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
    • 1plus1

      John319, There is no "Law of Gravity". There is a "Theory of Gravity".

      As to why remains have been found from dinosaurs and humans close to each other. Well.. it's something called erosion, which is a geological process by which wind, water, and other natural phenomena remove material from one place, and deposit it somewhere else. In short – the dinosaur that was buried under the ground was slowly cleared away by nature, then someone died. We find dinosaur fossils close to the surface today, sometimes with parts sticking out of the ground... that doesn't mean they died recently..

      When trying to determine an unknown about something, ask yourself – "What is more likely, based on what I know already?" Apply this to the virgin birth for example – Is it more likely that an unwed female felt shame about getting pregnant out of wedlock – because of the intense social scrutiny. Then decided to deny ever having sex, and that she must have been impregnated by the creator of the COSMOS. OR.. She and her boyfriend were young and horny, and had sex before marriage.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:21 pm |
  40. Vlad S.

    Just a minor point, but the PI on a study is not called a "principle investigator" but "principal investigator". Principal as in "first", not as in "fundamental law or truth", which is what "principle" means.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  41. Charles

    A few words in response to various comments: This article had little to do with evolution but with an event or events that occurred millioms of years ago, we can measure the age of various rock types and strata through radiometric dating and comparative methods.

    Stalin and Mao followed fundamentlist like ideologies (Marxist ideas about, historical dialectic and inevitable revolution) that have similarities in belief structure (not the particular beliefs) to fundamentalist religion (as in the "true believer.")

    Evolution is not something to "believe in" it merely describes what has happened and continues to happen among the various species on the earth including humans. It is observable among species that have rapid reproduction rates, we can see adaptations to various challenges occurring in our lifetimes.

    There should be no conflict in accepting that evolution exists as an observable reality and one's religious belief because the bible was never meant to be a literal account of how the earth or species or humans came about, it is a somewhat mis-translated series of myths, stories and metaphors that describe how groups of people lived and thought a few thousand years ago.

    All cultures have similar creation myths that are highly metaphorical and not to be taken literally. In the garden of eden story Eves sampling the fruit of the tree of knowledge is metaphor for the time when humans developed language and particulary written language which actually changed how humans percieved reality...they were now under the "spell" of the written word (was thought to be magical thus the origin of the word , spelling). This change in human consciousness or falling from it created self awareness and humans no longer had the ability to percieve as before.

    Age of earth: Anyone who is trying to use the bible to explain the particular real world origins of the universe and its species is behaving foolishly and immaturely. Go to a desert region where you can see and touch and sense the structure of the earth and observe it with a discerning eye. If you believe this all happened in 6 days you are a fool or you are not observing.

    Cave paintings of animals have been carbon dated to about 25,000 years ago. They are more attributable to the first known art rather than written language which did not appear until much later particularly an alphabetical written language which was truly "spelling" because it did not use symbols that resembled the object written about.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
    • wally

      Think about it, all dirt on this planet is the same age. Just because it's deeper, doesn't make it older. Any kid with a shovel can tell you that. Don't put so much confidence into the dating methods without researching the 'problems' with the dating methods. You will find that a lot of it is guesswork.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
      • InFormed99

        LOL, your comment made my day. You have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about do you?

        September 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
      • cody

        Yep, all the dirt here is 4.5 billion years old

        September 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Guesswork??? LMFAO. What an idiot. You don't know much about radiocarbon dating, that's for sure.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:04 pm |
      • Doug

        Ha ha ha ha! WOW – that is astounding.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:05 pm |
      • Clark Nova

        Hundreds if not thousands of tons of new 'dirt' fall on the surface every day as micrometeoroids, and has done so for more than 4 billion years.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
      • SwordofPerseus

        Uhh duuhh, Wall-e you are pretty funny, I just made soil "dirt" in a few years with composting in my back yard.
        Have you ever heard of the study of Archeology? No, not surprised. If you dig down you go back in time Wall-e, back in time to history!

        September 20, 2011 at 2:26 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        To the kid with the shovel... (aka wally) You are wrong on so many levels... molten rock that is expelled from a volcano (lava) is generally considered "new". As it cools, it draws particles and radiation from the environment and traps it there. The time it takes for the lava to return to the core of the planet is considered the age of the stone... not to mention the dust and meteors that enter the atmosphere from space as well, but they're pretty good at identifying these as well. Really, science, it's a pretty cool thing... you just have to open up a book that wasn't written by some superstitious desert dwelling shephard and you too can gain incredible knowledge and insight.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
      • @Wally

        Wally, all the 'dirt' on this planet is NOT the same age. Try taking just a simply geology class, and learn about plate tectonics. Every year, tons of 'NEW" material called magma is ejected to the surface of the earth from all these vents around the planet surface. These vents are called volcanos. New land is being made constantly. Magma then cools to form rock which then have to be weathered by wind and water for thousands of years to form 'dirt'. As the plates move, some of the plates are forced deeper into the ocean of magma by other plates...melting them. The entire process is dynamic. This process has been ongoing for hundreds of millions of years... probably the last 4 billion. When the earth first formed, it was ALL molten rock. The surface had to cool enough to create floating islands of rock- our current tectonic plates...and that process alone took a LONG time.
        Please please read some science books!!

        September 20, 2011 at 3:22 pm |
      • bryangrossman

        wait.... what?? all the dirt on the earth is the same age.... what the hell are you talking about? are you just making all this stuff you are saying up as you go? do you seriously believe the garbage you are saying? It sounds to me like you have no idea even how the Carbon dating method even works? are you seriously questioning radiation and decay rates? on what facts are you doing that? or are you just going to parrot something you read on a Creationist blog.. Actually looking at all the posts I have seen here you seem to like to post crazy stuff and then never respond when people ask what the hell you are talking about. I am sure you will ignore this post also.... Ignorance is bliss...

        September 20, 2011 at 6:24 pm |
    • CiA

      If you have ever read the BIBLE, you'd know that the seven days that are spoken about are not 7 days in human time. One day in the BIBLE is equal to 1000 yrs. This can be found in the bible. So if you go back 7000 yrs and realize that the earth was created and destroyed and recreated until the final product which would be us came to be it was all done in trail and error. Carbon dating isnt accurate. The BIBLE is. I dont dispute revolution but I do KNOW that nothing is an accident and tht GOD created everything!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Radiocarbon dating IS accurate. The bible is NOT. Everything is an accident and nobody created anything. And why would you be opposed to revolution? It's going on in Libya right now, it's a good thing.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:05 pm |
      • Trial and Error

        TRIAL and ERROR? Really??? You are saying then that GOD did not know what was going to happen so he made some trials...and made ERRORS? God made mistakes?? Is that riiight?? I think you just shot yourself in the foot, buddy.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:24 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Yes you have it ladies and gentlemen, A religitard who admits his god makes mistakes... Just don't tell Lady GaGa.

        September 20, 2011 at 5:13 pm |
  42. Shelby

    Guess what – it's done!!

    September 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
  43. Horvath

    I'm so thrilled that scientist are using testable, observable and empirical evidence for their conclusions.

    meatcnn@gmail.com

    September 20, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
    • wally

      No they are not. Do the research.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:58 pm |
      • SwordofPerseus

        Wall-e it seems you are mercifully free of the ravages of intelligence. Please, no babies from you. You will do more harm than good if you do.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm |
      • Jim_Bob

        Ewww, these trolls smell terrible.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:33 pm |
  44. MB

    Ugh
    UGH UGH
    UGH UGH FIRE
    UGH UGH, YEAH, I CAN TALK
    I HAVE EVOLVED ENOUGH TO SAY SOMETHING EDUCATED
    HERE WE GO.
    READY, SET, MEH
    LOL
    ROTFLBBQ
    LMFAO
    WTF.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • Ness1

      You don't sound intelligent. Keep evolving.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
  45. Mark Pitcavage

    I thought it was Kid Rock.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
  46. noel

    when they can explain the precambrian explosion to my satisfaction, i will then listen. otherwise they've proved NOTHING!!!

    September 20, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
    • WhatWhatWhat?

      Oh, but you probably think the bible explains things just fine. Science has to prove everything, down to the last nut and bolt, but you'd believe the lunatic rants of that stupid book over science. What an idiot.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:26 pm |
      • Actually...

        The Bible has been used for hundreds of years for archaeological purposes. Archaeological finds have supported the history of the Bible hundreds of times (Dead Sea Scrolls, Cyrus's Cylinder, etc.). Actually, archaeology has never proven the Bible to be inaccurate. It also says that calling someone an idiot is not good (as well as murder, lying, stealing, cheating on your spouse, etc.). Which lunatic rants are you referring to?

        September 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
      • darkstar

        Actually....

        No – the bible hasn't been used to prove any archeological findings whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the more they discover, the more of fairy tale the bible becomes. Just because it is ancient and has companion documents that have been found, it at all doesn't give any evidence for miraculous claims or that a sky-fairy named Yahweh exists at all. Christian Apologists are nothing but liars and you have been spoon-fed misinformation.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Thank you DarkStar. The bible hasn't proved anything, like you said. Anything that was found to support it was found by sheer luck. Who's the idiot now, huh?

        September 20, 2011 at 1:57 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        I'd also like to know where in the bible it says calling people an idiot is not good, or did you just make that up for creative effect, much like all the facts you point out in your fairy tale book?

        September 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
      • InFormed99

        LOL, the bible is a total joke. I saw the film 'The Titanic' from 1999. Since they actually found a real ship called the Titanic at the exact place where book said it sank then the whole book must be true. Come on wake up.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:03 pm |
    • Red Horseman

      Yea, that book written a few thousand of years ago by goat herders full of superstition and no scientific knowledge is a whole lot more believable. With faith like that, Santa Claus does live and there IS a boogey man living under your bed.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
    • RocDoc667

      It's the Cambrian radiation (or explosion), not the Precambrian.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:30 pm |
      • fimeilleur

        Just another nail in the creationist coffin... at least he/she/it didn't bring up the 2nd law of Thermodynamics...

        September 26, 2011 at 1:37 am |
    • John

      I'm sure the whole scientific community will be waiting on pins and needles for the day that you will listen.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
  47. noel

    more conjecture at best... SOSDD!!! on another note:
    btw-has warren buffet paid his taxes yet or is he still in litigation over his 2002 tax return... what a bufoon!!!
    tax the rich, feed the poor, 'till there ain't no rich no mo'!!! AL..... or jobs...

    September 20, 2011 at 1:15 pm |
    • JohnM

      Are you really an idiot or do you just like sounding like one?

      September 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
  48. Mark Samuels

    I really like the phrase, "In this crime of epoch proportions, that gives Baptistina a pretty good alibi," - using the homonymn "epoch" instead of "epic." This is the best of intelligent writing and the reporter should be commended.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:14 pm |
    • doughnuts

      I doubt it was a deliberate play on words. I actually think he misspelled "epic", and used the first word that spell-check offered him.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:50 pm |
  49. willy

    Dinasours had feathers. They were beautiful and taste like chicken. They ate all the primates. Delicious. I need lunch now.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
  50. Geologist

    Arguing with a Christian about Evolution is like trying to argue with a 6-year old. They will never understand the facts, logic, and reason behind the proof. The earth is billions of years old. The ocean floors are hundreds of millions of years old and are constantly moving due to the plate tectonics on the ocean floor. "The Great Flood" is due to the multiple heating and cooling events that have taken place throughout history. When the atmospheric temperature of the earth heats up, the ice caps melt and the water level rises. Common sense people. That is why in Indiana, we have so much limestone. Limestone is made from oceanic animals (shells, coral, etc...) that die and are deposited on the floor. Over millions (not thousands) of years worth of pressure and chemical changes, they solidify and turn into limestone. Now, how can limestone be the bedrock of Indiana if it has never been an oceanic environment? The ice ages cool the atmospheric temperature of the earth and the water turns to ice near the poles and the water recedes and we have the enviornment similar to today.
    Regarding dinosaurs... The Chixulub Structure is a crater of the coast of the yucutan peninsula where the meteor hit 65 million years ago. The meteor sent shrapnel up to Arizona. We know this due to the shocked quartz found in the crater and arizona. This shocked quartz is a change in the rocks due to intense heat and pressure that can also be caused by a nuclear bomb. There is a layer iridium through the entire PLANET from the asteroid that killed off many of the plants (food for dinosaurs) thus killing off the dinosaurs. This layer is called the K-T boundary which signals the end of the Cretaceous and beginning of the Tertiary (in science, they use the letter K to stand for the Cretaceous period).
    But I guess it's more plausible to believe there is a large white man with white hair and a long beard sitting up in the clouds watching over you that created the earth, heavens, and universe in 6 human days around 6000 years ago...
    It doesn't matter, because Christians will believe whatever they want to believe and pass judgement on everyone that isn't like them. As one of my Catholic friends always says, "There is NOTHING less christian than a Christian".
    I prefer to say, "Too stupid to understand science? Try religion"!

    September 20, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
    • Hey man

      Thanks for generalizing all Christians with your thoughts. I for one am a Christian, and I have no doubt that the earth is almost 5 billion years old. I love dinosaurs and science. Is it really so hard to believe that God made the earth this way ? There is not one place in the bible that talks about dinosaurs. NO WHERE. Yet there are hundreds of millions of fossils, dating back millions of years. I only speak for myself, but not all Christians belive that the earth ( hahaha) is 6,000 years old. China has writings that date back 7,000 years. That does not waver my faith at all. Thanks for reading

      September 20, 2011 at 1:22 pm |
      • klay

        "Is it really so hard to believe that God made the earth this way ?"

        If you were really a true christian, then yes, it would be hard to believe that the earth is 5billion years old...ya know, considering Genesis and all.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Wow, you've come a long way to believe all that stuff, but you didn't mention evolution. Maybe you believe that the Earth is old, and god made people only 6000 years ago, I don't know. But, just because you believe in an old earth and dinosaurs doesn't mean that you're any better than any other religious delusionists out there. For one thing, there is no evidence of a global flood, it didn't happen, and evolution, of course. But the worst thing is that you believe that jebus is the son of god and he came here to cleanse us of our sins. That's what it means to be a christian, and it's the single most delusional thing in the world. To say you believe in god, without jebus, would be fine, I guess. But once you call yourself a christian, you're showing how delusional you really are.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
      • Geologist

        If Christians don't want to be stereotyped, they shouldn't fit the stereotype. I'm glad for you that you are the exception to the rule, but I'm not going on blind faith that if enough people tell me something is true, then it is. You and millions of other people can tell me the sky is green, but it doesnt make it true. People here are commenting on ther "facts", well show me scientific proof that God exists. You can't.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:39 pm |
      • Guest

        Geologist, I won't question the statement that the sky is green, but it isn't blue either. We only perceive the sky to be blue. It is actually violet because violet is the shortest wavelength and scatters more than blue does, but our eyes are more sensitive to blue than violet. How's that for a metaphor?

        I am a Christian and, according to one of the commenters on this thread, my belief in Jesus (AKA jebus) is what makes me illogical to you. That's fine, because that's what makes me what I am and there's no getting around it. But I don't take the creation story in Genesis and the "great flood" and even Jonah being swallowed by the whale to be literal stories. They're literary devices that, when read properly, can reveal more about human nature than science ever can. Religion has crippled science for a very long time and that bothers me even more than it bothers you.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:55 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        So Guest, that's just one of the problems. You pick and choose which of the fairy tales that YOU are going to believe, and then you think that you're better than the rest. That's why there's so many religions in the world, because people just like you make up new stuff all the time. If it was true, there would only be ONE story and everyone would say the exact same things about it. If you believe that jebus is the son of god, you're delusional, end of story. If you just drop all that stuff about jebus and the silly ghost, people might actually listen to you. But not with those delusions they won't.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
      • Geologist

        My bad, Guest. You are right about the wavelengths. Darn you and your Science!

        September 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
      • Laura

        Faith...is something that I believe in. I read articles such as these along with peoples comments and I question things just as many do. I believe that there can be many explanations as to why this earth either seems older or IS older than what the Bible seems to indicate. The Great Flood could be the cuprit for causing the type of erosion that is explained by scientist to be millions of years old. 2 Peter 2:3 expresses that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day to God. I believe that Faith allows us to know that God is the beginning and the end and one of these days all of our questions will be answered. Some don't agree and some may call me simple minded or maybe even closed minded because I chose to live my life by Faith, but honestley it makes no difference to me. I know what I have felt and I know that is real. God is real!

        September 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
      • vintage 274

        So many "true Christians" here saying that the Bibe proves that the Earth is not old. Do you understand that the 6,000 year old Earth idea was put forth by a very earnest individual in the 1800s who tried to calculate the age of the Earth by using mathematical evidence from the Bible? He didn't do it very well. But his idea (unsubstantiated by any experimentation or science) is being touted as fact. His contemporaries later proved his math faulty, but that original IDEA that humans could actually KNOW how old the Earth is (in the absence of the scientific ability we have now) was so exciting that the falsehood stuck. Why it's again being accepted as truth 150 years later is beyond me. This same man calculated that the story of Noah and the Flood was absolute by LISTING the animals on board. Nice - except that Africa had been largely unexplored and the good people of the British Empire at the time (having never heard of species like gorillas, for instance) truly believed there were only 100 total species of animals in the world. They later tried to explain the discovery of new species through the theory of "punctuated creation," positing that God created the rest of the animal kingdom AFTER the flood. Widely accepted idea again, but this time unsubstantiated by the Bible even. Conjecture does not science make. Conjecture isn't even hypothesis since it can't be substantiated through experimentation. I find this evangelical backpedaling to the 17th century very frightening. To revert to the Victorians and their safe, snug (and ultimately flawed) way of looking at the world may make one feel safe in the chaos of life. But it's unrealistic in the long run and creates more chaos in the argumentation that follows. Evangelicals have drawn a line in the sand between believers and non-believers. And history has proven that such lines usually end in bloodshed.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:03 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Laura, I'm sorry, but you really need to go back to school, dear. You seem to know absolutely nothing, yet you are going to use that "knowledge" to theorize about the universe. Can't you see how dangerous that is? I don't think that you are smart enough to keep from killing yourself by accident, let alone trying to understand the evidence against religion. Maybe you could go and bake a nice cake for your spouse, and then clean the house before he gets home. Leave the heavy lifting to those more capable, thank you.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:15 pm |
    • yellowdog

      Awesome comment. Thank you.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • wow

      Personally, I don't have a problem believing in science AND God, after all, He also created science. A statement I recently heard I think will fit you well, "If you don't believe in God now, you will some day".

      September 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm |
      • klay

        Proof is still needed for the existence of God. Books written by 30+ people over 1500+ years is not empirical evidence. Until then, your words are nothing but speculation, at best.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
      • Sean

        “He also created science”

        Man created science moron. That’s not even in dispute. If you are wrong about something so obvious, what else might you be wrong about?

        sci•ence
           ˈsaɪ ənsShow Spelled[sahy-uh ns] Show IPA
        noun
        1.
        a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
        2.
        systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
        3.
        any of the branches of natural or physical science.
        4.
        systematized knowledge in general.
        5.
        knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:54 pm |
      • Jim_Bob

        Yes Sean, man created science and god created man so isn't it obvious that god would have created science if not by accident.... Intelligent design and all.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:43 pm |
    • Paul

      You seem to be a little hostile little creature. I got hit by the nuns, too pal. :P Look, I think it's best to bash religion universally, if you're into that sort of thing, rather than call out a specific group. I'm certain there are Christians that are smarter than you and have a greater capacity for empirical reasoning than you, yet they still have faith. Do you have any idea of the ruckus your type of public comments would have if you stated them at work or in a mosque or on the internet. Who is next on your bash back list? You just might get your email addressed banned from posting and have to create another email address. So don't be so annoyed. A real scientist would stop bashing those who are still asking questions they haven't found enough hard evidence to prove. I know the talk of Creationism gets annoying in a forum like this because it doesn't seem to fit. Sorry you have to sift for the real gems in our posts here. I'm sure you were really looking for extremely insightful and life changing content in the midst of the Creationist talk in this forum.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
    • Lee

      The only one I see passing judgement is the one calling Christians idiots.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:38 pm |
    • rambler

      Amen, Geologist, Amen!. The truth shall set you free. Fact always wins out over fiction.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • whatevs

      You sir are a buffoon. Not all Christians are this way. And I hope that not all of whatever religion, or lack of, you are, are as ignorant as you.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
      • Sean

        It’s actually been proven in poll after poll Christians know very little about the Bible and their own belief system. While Atheist and Agnostics having researched in depth tend to know much more. So who is the ignorant one?

        September 20, 2011 at 2:13 pm |
    • Tim

      I am a Christian and believe that God used the natural methods we see at work each day to create the universe. I think that's how God works–not through magic. I have yet to meet a fellow Christian under the age of 50 who denies dinosaurs existed.

      I do have a problem with modern science though. You either agree with consensus or you are crazy. There is no room for debate anymore, which is fundamental for expanding knowledge. We have gone back to the times where if you said the world wasn't flat, you were a heretic.

      A year or two ago I saw a PBS special on an alternative theory about what killed the dinosaurs where scientists examined core samples of glaciers around the world. I can't remember the specifics at the moment, but it was quite convincing and did not include meteoric bombardment. Where is that theory now? Forget it, it's not possible, we're back to consensus.

      Plus, as much as I love NASA, they need projects right now so furthering this theory only benefits them.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:46 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        There are several competing and/or supplemental theories out there, and they haven't gone away, like you stated. They are still there and they are just as valid, you just haven't looked for them. Most scientists agree that the Deccan Traps helped to do the job, but it was the Chicxulub event that sealed their fate. You should research the things that you are going to write about BEFORE you open your pie hole.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:20 pm |
    • Tom

      You might read some of the work of the Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin. It might change your opinion about what Christians believe.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:51 pm |
      • Sean

        I know plenty of Christians in my own family, friends and co-works. Why would I read ONE guys book to know the opinion of many? Exceptions (if you can even call him that) do not make the rule, but prove it.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:00 pm |
    • Roger

      Your quote:
      "Arguing with a Christian about Evolution is like trying to argue with a 6-year old. They will never understand the facts, logic, and reason behind the proof..."

      You do realize we weren't born Christians? We also studied and embraced evolution etc.... and miraculously even managed to obtain good grades during our enlightenment in spite of our preordained believer degenerate genes.

      What you have there is a presupposition and are basing it on "facts" pointed towards your presupposition. The only thing those "facts" prove absolutely is that you absolutely believe your presupposition is right.

      I have my own presupposition and your ranting of these "facts", which are subjected to faulty data in no way negates the truth of my presupposition.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:56 pm |
      • Sean

        “You do realize we weren't born Christians?”

        This is a false statement. Christians (generally speaking) are a victim of geography.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
    • wally

      II doubt you're a geologist.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:59 pm |
      • Roger

        LOL......and how do I being or not being a geologist erode the logic and reason of my response?

        September 20, 2011 at 2:15 pm |
      • Roger

        My bad. Your response was not intended for me. My apologies

        September 20, 2011 at 2:17 pm |
    • AN

      This article is nothing more than a chance for evolutionists to discuss absurd ideas about the past with which they have not, can not, and will never be able to observe, test, or repeat. They will put their "blind faith" in beleiving some rocks smashed the earth millions of years ago and that the dinosaurs were killed off as a result. Wow. Even better... these same ignorants will believe that life came from a simmering stew of oceans billions of years ago and yet today, with all of our technology we cannt produce or create life in the best simulated lab conditions... it is a big joke that most of our society would believe life popped into existence out of nothing... and then where did all of the information come from? Like DNA, etc? How is it that the evolutionists can look at the stupendously complex DNA and all the information it holds and think this happened by mere chance. Just given enough time anything is possible? The credulity an evolutionist shows is in itself mind boggling... more staggering the infitesimal chance life will arise by itself in all of its glory. Give Glory to God. Please, do some research and listen to the other side of the story... think about Creation. And if you decide to attack God's character, you afterall are confirming His existence because of if the Bible and God didnt exist, why would anyone need to take the time to attack his character?

      September 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
      • Geologist

        God does not exist so I'm actually attacking the character of the Christians and their beliefs. Christians have been judgemental for hundreds of years, so I'm allowed to be judgemental of them for an hour or two.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:31 pm |
      • vintage 274

        You talk about research, but you seem to lack understanding of what research involves. Research means sorting through stacks of material seeking truth that is verified by EVIDENCE. Science does that. Faith does not. There is no evidence for faith. The reasonable thinkers on these posts are those who argue based on fact. They do not discredit anyone's faith beliefs. They simply argue that faith posters who do not substantiate their claims with scientific fact or who mutilate science with half-truths have no real claim to truth. Believe in whatever god you want; follow whatever faith you want; but you have no research-based argument for the existence of God or of Creationism. No one does. Those who are not believers get very upset that the believers bash them on the head with their obvious need for answers which they find in faith. Believe what you wish. Just stop trying to shove it down the throats of those who follow other religious belief systems or who choose to follow observable facts until the existence of a supreme being can actually be proven. Just because you BELIEVE it, does not make it so. You cannot say the same thing about science. Science is not a belief. It is based on continuous experimentation that substantiates a hypothesis. You can deny gravity all you want, but you are still sticking to the ground; science has continuously and adequately proven the theory of gravity. It has also just as thoroughly proven the theory of evolution, yet you choose to discard one theory while espousing another. There's no research in the world that will back your cherry-picking the facts to prove your BELIEF or OPINION.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:27 pm |
  51. Kid Rock

    I di.

    September 20, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
  52. pwc

    i have a pet frog!

    September 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
  53. PlanetHULK

    ...in Soviet Russia, dinosaur kills rock!

    September 20, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
  54. Tom

    I am going to ask to put a moratorium on the Creationist talk. If someone tries to insist the Creation story is historically true, then ignore him. The Creation story was an allegorical literary work designed to illustrate God's supremacy over Man, Man's higher position than Women, and humankind's supremacy over the natural world. In addition, it served to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the "pagan" gods and to elevate God.

    All reasonable people can agree that it served a very useful and beneficial purpose back then to provide societal structure for people that needed it. The Bible and other religious works served as the foundation for modern law and justice. But, all reasonable people can also agree that it serves as no substitute for modern scientific inquiry, and if the Creation story needs to be reconciled with how the world was actually created and how life actually evolved, just look at it as a metaphor.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:59 pm |
    • JoeProfet

      I periodically visit evolutionists at the zoo. They are especially entertaining whilst they swing from their makeshift dwellings and probably the best part is when the zoo dumps bananas in there...just watching them study it looking for facts as to its DNA origin, etc. They must be under-evolved evolutionist because they haven't figured out how to order bananas from the internet. Silly monkeys.

      September 22, 2011 at 7:42 am |
  55. Paul

    I have irrefutable fossil evidence that nomadic tribes killed the dinosaur by driving herd animals like the buffalo as bait toward areas of highest areas of dino-proliferation. Now, I know I have that evidence here somewhere...under this growing pile of religious textbooks or in my box of Ebay sales confirmation prints.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
  56. Slider

    If a meteor actually hit this planet and killed off all the dinosaurs, how can you explain to me Jurassic Park, then? Dr. Grant has clearly proven they still exist...

    September 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
  57. PlanetHULK

    Blame it all on the scientologists...thanks alot Tom Cruise and your voodoo witchcraft!!! BWAHAHAHAHAHA

    September 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
  58. Chuck

    Who cares which rock did what. I would love to rock Amy Mainzer.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
  59. Joe

    The dinosaurse were actually raptured by Tyrannosaurus Christ.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm |
    • MyTake

      LOL - good one ...

      September 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
    • Judasaurus

      Now that's funny!

      September 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
    • smukers

      Hey Joe, Brilliantly Funny. L M F A O!!!!!!!!!!!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:43 pm |
  60. PlanetHULK

    The satellite that's going to crash into earth on Friday killed them. It went through a wormhole and killed them all 65 million years ago and now it is back to take care of us! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!

    September 20, 2011 at 12:51 pm |
  61. Que

    The theory of evolution is just that - a theory. According to "The American Heritage Dictionary," a theory is:

    A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
    Evolution is a set of principles that tries to explain how life, in all its various forms, appeared on Earth. The theory of evolution succeeds in explaining why we see bacteria and mosquitoes becoming resistant to antibiotics and insecticides. It also successfully predicted, for example, that X-ray exposure would lead to thousands of mutations in fruit flies.

    Many theories are works in progress, and evolution is one of them. There are several big questions that the theory of evolution cannot answer right now. This is not unusual. Newtonian physics worked really well for hundreds of years, and it still works well today for many types of problems. However, it does not explain lots of things that were eventually answered by Einstein and his theories of relativity. People create new theories and modify existing ones to explain the unexplained.

    In answering the open questions that still remain unsolved, the theory of evolution will either become complete or it will be replaced by a new theory that better explains the phenomena we see in nature. That is how the scientific process works.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
    • Joe

      Well said... Creationist have the idea that a scientific theory is the equivalent to a wild guess.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
    • MyTake

      Yes, as you see a theory is based upon FACTS and hypotheses which can be tested . The "just a theory" non-sense is the hallmark of people who the most ignorant about science. From the "The American Heritage Dictionary:
      1.
      lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: an ignorant man.
      2.
      lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of quantum physics.
      3.
      uninformed; unaware.
      4.
      due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: an ignorant statement.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:10 pm |
    • LuisWu

      True. But since there are mountains of evidence that supports evolution, the only "theory" part left is the exact mechanism of how evolution occurs. Just minor details.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
    • StudentOfCalvinAndHobbes

      I have it on irrefutable authority (Hobbes said it) that Scientific Progress goes; "Boink!"

      September 20, 2011 at 3:17 pm |
  62. MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

    The only argument of any consequence to the age of the impact is the credibility of radiometric dating. It's quite simple. You can learn it in a freshman level chem class.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
    • wally

      Not a reliable method. Skewed figures are discarded if it doesn't fit the presumed (ancient) model.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:53 pm |
  63. Thetruthwillsetyoufree

    In the begining, the world was filled with various gas. When a cave man named adam discovered fire, his friend eve came over and said she found magic. She bent over and let a rip over the fire! The world caught on fire and there was massive tidal waves, cavemen, women and children fled to the caves and the earth spun faster for it was the most terrible distruction one could imagine and the world became dark. Adam sadly turned to eve and said, "that wasn't magic, that was no magic..what th hell". Eve smiled back and said sorry, I just ate at Chipotle Mexican grill! To therorize the end of the world, worthless.....to make some humor of it all, Priceless! Keep smiling!

    September 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
  64. Jesus Einstein

    The argument against evolution is funny. Aren't we evolving everyday? Aren't we taller than our ancestors? Don't we live longer? Do we (all of us, there are some born with them) still have prehensile tails? Have our minds evolved to the point we're able to make pocket sized computers? Seems that we've evolved (some of us) quite a bit from our ancestors even 2000 years ago. These people who think Adam and Eve had the mental capacity to make Ipods are the same people who consider primitive societies who are still around today "cavemen" and "savages". If they are less evolved in your minds aren't you more evolved?

    September 20, 2011 at 12:47 pm |
    • Ben

      Im not sure that that is "evolution" so much as say development. By your arguement, every advancement in science, physics, whatnot is "Evolution". Its just education IMO. Im not really sure why people try and debate religion and evolution in the comment section of a poorly written article. I mean really...your not going to accomplish anything on either side.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm |
    • smukers

      Very Good, Jesus Einstein. Yes, you proved that our brains, our mind power, our physical beings, have certainly evolved, dramatically, in the past 2000 + years. It is certainly a "scientific fact".

      September 20, 2011 at 2:52 pm |
  65. Luke

    Where in the bible does it say the earth is only 6000 years old? I can not find this anywhere and I do not know any other catholics, nor many christians that believe this nonsense.

    The people who keep spewing this nonsense (here or celebrities on tv) garbage are the atheists claiming to be christians to make us look bad.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
    • Henry Miller

      In 1654, a Catholic bishop, James Ussher, used biblical information to "compute" the date of the creation of the universe as 23 October 4004 BC., thereby proving that your conclusions are only as good as, or are as silly as, your data.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
    • matt houston

      Count back from Ezekiel 4:4-7 : the fall of Jerusalem @ 588 BC to the division of Solomon's kingdom 1018 BC,
      to the end of his 40 yr. reign and the start of the Temple in the 4th yr. (37yrs) to 1055 BC,
      to the start of Solomon's Temple in the 480th yr. (1 Kings 6:1)
      to the Exodus 497 yrs previous bringing us to 1534 BC,
      to Abraham entering Canaan from Haran (Gen 12:10/Exodus 12:40/Gal 3:17) which was 430 yrs. to the day = 1964 BC
      Abraham was 75 yrs. old when he entered Canaan (Gen 12:4) so he was born around 2039 BC
      from Abraham to Noah's grandson (Shem's son) – Arpachshad's birth 2 yrs. after the flood was 290 yrs. (Gen 11:11-26) which places the flood around 2331 BC (now about 4300-4400 yrs ago),
      Add into this number 1,656 yrs between Creation and the Flood and you get about 3987 BC or 4000 BC...

      So using the Bible as a guide will yield results in the 6000 yr. range.

      You looked for the Bible to explicitly tell you the age of the world. You cannot think for yourself. No investigative skills. You just read and follow the words foolishly. The words in a book have many layers of information. You only read the first and most obvious layer. In any case, that book is wrong.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
      • smukers

        You are quoting a book of goat herder folktales. What's the point? Do you wish to introduce us to the wonders of writers of fiction? We already have introduced ourselves.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
    • Justin

      I believe this 6000 year old statement is derived from the lineage of the bible. person x lived x number of years and had this child at age 25. etc..... If you interpret the bible literally, I believe this date would be correct.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm |
    • crc

      All you have to do is count back through the geneologies to Adam and Eve, I did that myself one evening in college. The Bible is true from the front cover to the back cover. Anything that is allegorical is clearly labeled as such.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:03 pm |
    • Drowlord

      The bible has a lineage of people starting from Adam and eve, and it's complete with the number of years those people lived, and when they had children. It has been charted dozens of times and assuming that the information is correct (of course, it isn't!) the age of the earth is about 6000 years. I'm sure it would take you minimal effort to find such a chart and corroborate it against a bible, assuming you're too lazy to work it out yourself.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:11 pm |
  66. Elvis Pretzel

    Rock 'n Roll is here to stay, it will never die.

    It was meant to be that way, though I don't know why............................................Danny & the Juniors

    September 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
  67. bob

    i found a huge rock on uranus last night.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:40 pm |
    • Ouch!!!

      That was a dinggle berry.......

      September 20, 2011 at 1:00 pm |
  68. wally

    The ingredients to a fossil is rapid burial and lot's of water. Aging the fossils is guess work. More than likely, the dinosaurs died off during a world wide flood. If one researches thoroughly, instead of just believing what other people say, it's very difficult to believe that the dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago. Reports of dinosaurs are documents in recent history up to about 100 years ago–the only difference, is that they were called dragons. There are multiple documents and artifacts that support humans coexisting with these large lizards.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
    • snowboarder

      there are also reports of mermaids, ufos, and big foot. all credible to you i suppose.

      there is no evidence of a global flood.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
      • wally

        II guess you only read the newspaper. What a dummy!

        September 20, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • Global Flood

        Well actually, Science has shown us that there was a 'Global Flood'. It happens at the end of every Ice age as the polar caps melt and the oceans rise again. In fact, we are about to experience the same thing once again over this next few centuries. If you google earth maps – ancient earth, you will find different views as the continents drifted. Look at the earth circa 65 million years ago, and keep going. Many areas were covered with ocean, including the American Midwest...which is why you find fossils of SEASHELLS all over the place, and the reason we have limestone and limestone caverns. However, this global flood didnt last 40 days. The can last from tens of thousands of years to millions. When the earth cools again sufficiently for polar caps to reform as water ice gets trapped at the poles.. then more and more land slowly gets revealed. There is no way that ANY of this happens within a 40 day period of time.

        In addition, if you are trying to suggest that dinosaurs were wiped out during the Flood: Why wasnt Noah told to rescue two of each of those species? God had something against dinosaurs?? What about all the water dinosaurs? How did those die off during a Global Flood? If anything, they had more area to wander in! You cant drown creatures of the sea!
        Also, if Noah and his family were the only human survivors of the Flood, then there had to be a LOT of incest going on again for all of us humans to have come from his family. Lots of 'splainin to do!!

        September 20, 2011 at 3:46 pm |
    • DB

      The absolute ridiculousness of your comment has made my day
      thank you!

      September 20, 2011 at 12:45 pm |
      • LargeNcharge

        Boy, the sharks do have it good. It'd be good to be a shark.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:58 pm |
      • wally

        You find it ridiculous because it forced you to re-evaluate your position. You know that there's some credibility to what I wrote! It's easy to ridicule when you're ignorant.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:01 pm |
      • Chad

        @ wally

        You have no credibility. You state there are rumors of dinosaurs still living and that ancient mythology mentions dragons. Please show us some real, physical proof and then you can say you're credible. Without that you're just an idiot.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
      • wally

        Look it up yourself Chad. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't know how to do research because you blindly accept what you read in the newspaper. LOL. I feel sorry for you. But to accommodate the lazy, here are two example: 1) Old world map with the words "here be dragons" written on it in the African region; 2) Google this, "pottery with dinosaurs" and you'll find artifacts with dino's on it before dino's were ever excavated and before people (supposedly) knew what they looked like. The list is actually pretty long.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
    • Tom

      Wally, why do you disregard mountains of empirical evidence with nothing more than a note that they are "guesswork" but then rely on the testimony of people who report "dragons" and automatically link them as dinosaurs? Dragons, if they existed, were reported to breathe fire and fly. Dinosaurs by definition did not fly.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
      • wally

        Columbus reported seeing dragons. Google 'dinosaurs and pottery'. As far as the dating be guess work. Well, the other day I read an article about the oldest human tool ever found. It was dated by the age of the dirt it was found in (according to the article). So if I took that same dirt and bury my watch, does that make my watch old? I read that to my 10 year old daughter and she laughed when I got to the dirt part, and interrupted me saying, "And they call themselves scientists?"

        September 20, 2011 at 12:56 pm |
      • Tom

        Wally: Thank you for confirming that you will disregard any evidence that doesn't prove your point, and give blind credence to whatever evidence does prove your point.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:05 pm |
      • wally

        You say there's mountains of empirical evidence and I say much of it is circumstantial. I'm curious as to how much of the mountain you've researched. I'm sure you put a lot of confidence in those equations that most people cannot even understand. I would like for you to present a dating technique used to date a 300 million year dinosaur fossil directly. I think you'll find that it's not the fossil that's being dated. And I know that you will find there are scientists in the same field that say these dates are bogus guess work. It's documented, if you're willing to read it without bias.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:31 pm |
      • MyTake

        Actually, thinking people and scientist ignore "non-evidence ". Apparently you are not educated enough to understand what scientific evidence is ...

        September 20, 2011 at 2:14 pm |
    • LuisWu

      How utterly stupid.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:13 pm |
      • wally

        Right back at you.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:32 pm |
    • wally

      Funny, that people who have trouble with my comment, have no problem believing that millions of years ago, life formed from a rock in space–ignoring the law of biogenesis.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:44 pm |
      • MyTake

        It is clear that you do not work in any field of biological science.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
      • brett

        please state this law and reference who formulated it.

        September 20, 2011 at 5:04 pm |
    • runsnaked

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionOf course there were dragons..............and evil spirits, demons and a host of other mythical creatures during Columbus' time, that is not proof that dragons existed. People put into context what they see from what is known to them. If I were to believe that a Loch Ness creature existed and thought I saw it in the water, I could only describe it as an aquatic dinosaur in terms of its appearance and my own limited knowledge. In reference to the tracks of humans and dinosaurs found together at Glen Rose, Texas in fossilized stone........................the "dinosaur" tracks don't appear to be of an animal with considerable weight (such as Tyrannosaur) compared to the human print next to it, also its not on the same size scale. I know alligators and crocodiles have existed for millions of years and still exist today, the prints (to me) appear to be that of a similar animal. Did the animal that created the imprints at Glen Rose walk upright? Is there evidence of drag marks to indicate a tail also found there? I also recall that that area of Texas was also swampy and muddy (once having been covered with water) at some time in the ancient past. At the sites mentioned by wally, I didn't see a reference to the Chinese and their works of art. The dragon is a recurring theme in their works of art, but I don't recall any articles of the Chinese dragon being referred to as a dinosaur.
      My point here is that way to much "evidence" exists to prove or disprove one point of view or the other. One can read several articles dealing with the same subject and get two or more opposing opinions. Who's right, who is wrong........who knows. I did visit the sites you mentioned wally, I am not convinced nor unconvinced in your argument, have a look at this site to see the counter argument for humans and dinosaurs co-existing based on the "human" and "dinosaur" foot prints found at Glen Rose, Texas. We can argue our points of view from now till the day we die and no one is going to change his/her point of view, seems like a waste of time and breath to me. One last point and comment........none of this has anything to do with the article we were supposed to make comments on, live and let live and get on with your lives, frankly I don't give a damn one way or the other.

      September 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm |
  69. Erik

    It took 6 days for "God" to create the Earth, but if time hadn't been established yet, how do we know how long a day was? If the Earth is to between 4-6 billion years old, each day could have been a billion years of present time in length. Creationists don't think of this malarky, do they?!?

    September 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
    • lol

      Oh they thought of that unfortunatly in the bible man was made before any other animals and in the real world they appeared last.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:37 pm |
      • Read It Again

        Uh, no...God created everything else before he created humans. Humans came after all of the other fish of the sea, birds of the air, and animals on the land...kinda like the real world you mentioned.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
      • Tom

        Man was made before any of the animals? What are you talking about? Fifth day He created the animals on land. Sixth day, he created Man.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
      • just_saying

        except the bible says he created creatures and then man... jackass

        September 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
    • OrangePekoe

      Creationists think of nothing except the dogma they have swallowed from their church. They are incapable of thinking outside the tiny box they inhabit.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
      • Tom

        While I will agree with you in regards to Creationists, it behooves me to mention that not all Christians are like that. Take me for example. I have multiple degrees in biology and biochemistry, but I am a devout Christian. Did I just blow your mind?

        September 20, 2011 at 12:48 pm |
    • JPopNC

      The first thing God did was establish night/day and gave us that reference.

      Genesis 1: 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

      And also, it wasn't until Adam/Eve ate the apple and brought sin into the world that death came about, so nothing would have died before that time.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
      • Tom Paine

        Except that the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, so I'm not sure how one can measure a day on earth without the sun during the previous three days.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:04 pm |
    • Tom

      I don't necessarily believe in the Creationism story, but according to the story, God created day and night first by creating light and separating it from the darkness. So, "days" were created first. From there, it becomes possible to measure the rest of Creation by days.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:46 pm |
    • TonyJ621

      Malarkey, eh? Kinda like believing in a fairy tale laden book, written over the course of 2000 years, by men who individually put their 'spin' on so-called 'history'? The belief in a God is based in man's inability to deal with his own mortality caused by his self-inflated ego. I don't believe in wasting time, money, and resources to find an answer to a 16 million year old question, but 'organized religion' is malarkey itself.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:54 pm |
    • MyTake

      God created creationist for the amusement of thinking, learned people and for parents to show there kids what happens when one takes things too literally, don't think for themselves and avoid higher education. ;-)

      September 20, 2011 at 2:22 pm |
  70. closetiguana

    Classic Rock Radio killed the dinosaurs.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
    • sbast18

      Personally...I think it was rap. Caused them all to commit suicide

      September 20, 2011 at 12:35 pm |
      • In The House

        ...or was it a driveby???

        September 20, 2011 at 12:50 pm |
  71. Watcher

    Evolution is a theory based on teh scientific method. In the scientific method, an initial guess is made (or hypothesis if you will) and experiments and tests are conducted based on this guess. If the guess cannot be disproven, it may become a theory. So, Evolution is not proven, it is just not disproven... like God... just saying...

    September 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
    • Debbie

      You're putting creationism on the same probability level as evolution? Not even close. If you have any doubts, do two things:

      1) Watch the documentary about the Dover, PA school board case. In this landmark case, a conservative, Bush-appointed judge was forced to find in favor of evolution, because evolutionists presented two full days of testimony and creationists were unable to present one single shred of evidence. Here's the link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/intelligent-design-trial.html

      2) Read Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution."

      If you do those things with even a half-open mind, you will have no doubt that evolution is real and creationism is just a wish in the hearts of fundamentalists. To say they are an even probability is a joke.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
      • wally

        Oh yes, you can trust PBS. What a dummy!

        September 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
    • lol

      Sorry fossil evidence proves it to be true, while you have nothing to prove your belief system is fact lol

      September 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
    • Chad

      @ Watcher

      You really don't know how the scientific method works do you. If a hypothesis cannot be proven it either remains a hypothesis until someone else discovers a way to prove it or it is discarded for another hypothesis that CAN be proven. A hypothesis that cannot be proven or has no evidence that supports it does not, (I repeat for your small mind) DOES NOT become a theory.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:34 pm |
  72. Paul

    They don't even know that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs. Why would they wonder which rock did it?

    September 20, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • crookedarm

      I guess after the asteriod finished off the dinosaurs, it bounced back into space to be reunited with it's "mother" asterioid.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:16 pm |
      • Paul

        The asteroid bounced back into space and went out of bounds. My serve!

        September 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm |
  73. weezer

    they didn't die, at least not all of them. they surround us every day, they're called birds now.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:24 pm |
  74. Dave in Los Angeles

    The only thing more depressing than the Creationist contingent is the author's lazy research. Five minutes on any paleontology site will reveal that (1) dinosaurs were not reptiles, and (2) most of the well-known dinosaurs were extinct long before the referenced meteor event. Yes, children, there was an "age of reptiles" which was a long, long time before the "age of dinosaurs." The reason why we don't have many fossils from the "age of reptiles" is because there are these things called "earthquakes" and "volcanoes" which make a mess of things buried just below the surface. To put things in perspective, in terms of time, the "age of mammals" (that would be us) is like the period at the end of a very long book, and the human era within the "age of mammals" is a little scrape off the side of that period. All of this, and much more, can be learned at a place called a "library." Your town may or may not have one.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
    • Mavvv

      Man cant wait for CA to break apart and have U drift offshore. U type too much like smarty pants......

      September 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
  75. Kevin

    Lots of factual errors in this article. first we no longer say that the dino's died from the asteroid. they were already in decline by the time it hit, it was jus tthe nail in the coffin so to speak.

    second no one beleives they were actually reptiles anymore. they have more in common with birds then reptiles.

    thats all of the article i could read before i had to stop.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:22 pm |
    • Kamish

      How did Dino's evolve into birds if they were in decline & the asteroid got the rest of them???

      September 20, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
      • Kevin

        where did i say they evolved into birds? all i said is they have more in common with todays birds.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:53 pm |
      • brett

        The avian-dinos enter the fossil record before the KT boundary. They had already split off of the theropod dinosaur lineage, before the end of the Cretaceous. The avian dinosaurs just happened to be more successful at surviving the cataclysmic events and survived into the current day, while their larger relatives died off.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:57 pm |
  76. Mike

    Ah yes the religion of evolution. Some believe it some don’t. It is a belief just like any other religion that tries to explain our existence. They all look at what we have to day and try to explain it.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
    • lol

      It is fact, it has been proven time and time again through fossil evidence. The only people who do not think it is a fact are religious followers like yourself.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:21 pm |
      • Mike

        Then why did they CLAIM that the trilobite lived millions of years ago according to the “fossil record” and then them found hundreds of thousands of them alive and doing fine today. No change in them at all. There are so many holes in the religion of evolution it is beyond a joke.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:27 pm |
      • lol

        umm trilobites are extinct, no one found any, stop getting your "facts" off your preachers blog and go read a book.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
      • g0bl0x

        You're either extremely ignorant or extremely gullible. Obviously religious so probably both. Please, do tell me where trilobites have been found alive on earth. You can't do it? BECAUSE IT'S NOT TRUE

        September 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
      • JPopNC

        and how do you get "it's been proven"? And how did those facts change once it was determined fossils really didn't occur by millions of years of sediment building up, that they were caused by some sort of immediate catastrophe that trapped the to be fossil? It's really funny how all those "proven facts" had to be rephrased.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:39 pm |
      • Slider

        Trilobites have been extinct for some time now......

        September 20, 2011 at 12:42 pm |
      • Slider

        No holes in history... holes in your brain

        September 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
      • Tom Paine

        Trilobites do not exist today. You're probably thinking of the coelacanth, a primitive fish that was thought to be extinct and then discovered to still be living off the coast of South Africa. Not that remarkable; sharks have remained largely unchanged for millions of years. You can deny evolution if you like, but try to refrain from trying to discredit it with shoddy "facts."

        September 20, 2011 at 12:57 pm |
      • wtf

        I have a pet trilobite if anyone cares. Discovered the little guy sitting at the bottom of the ditch running along side my house.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • sharoom

        You are mistaken to say we've found the trilobite still alive today. But so what if we did? How does that in any way conflict with evolution? Evolution is driven when the environment begins to favor certain variations in traits of a population and selects for them. This means it doesn't HAVE to occur if the local environment of a species remains unchanged. Many species have remained stable throughout the eras.

        However, what is clear from the evidence is that evolution CAN occur and HAS occurred and the fundamental hereditary unit (DNA) that allows the process to work is present in all known species. That part of the theory scientists accept as fact. What remains unclear is HOW it occurred for every single known species. For example, what is the lineage of ancestral species and branches of diversification (phylogenies)? What factors influence how traits are selected for (fitness)? And this one is up in the air for the ethics folks, to what extent are we willing to take to harness it for applications in technology?

        September 20, 2011 at 4:45 pm |
    • Kevin

      all you have done here mike is to show your own ignorance on this subject. Sceince and religion are nothing alike. sceince uses evidence to come to answers, while religion uses its text and makes up answers.

      Evolution is a scientific theory that has much more evidence to support it then even the theory of gravity or Germ theory.

      Mike you can not afford to be this niave or willfully ignorant on this subject.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
    • Matty

      The religion of gravity, physics, medicine just pick the ones you want to believe. Take some basic science and get back to us.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:31 pm |
      • lol

        lol gravity is a religion? Go jump off a cliff if it is truly a religion you will float.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:34 pm |
      • brett

        gravity can only be religious if you consider evolution to be religious. They are both "theory". To a scientist, neither is a religious issue.
        http://www.notjustatheory.com/

        September 20, 2011 at 4:08 pm |
    • aochs615

      You never took a geology class did you?

      September 20, 2011 at 12:55 pm |
  77. Frey

    I killed them..It was me.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
  78. palintwit

    Sarah Palin believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old. She believes that early man parked their dinosaurs in the Roman Coliseum while they were in church.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
  79. rick perrytwit ... slack jawed bible thumper

    Teabaggers believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and that early man walked alongside the dinosaurs. They believe that early man rode dinosaurs to church every Sunday.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
    • rich

      So were does the Tooth Fariy fit into all this?

      September 20, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
    • trigtwit... America's favorite tard baby

      ...drool...

      September 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
    • nicole

      Watch your usage of words. There are young kids that read and post on this site.

      September 20, 2011 at 5:08 pm |
  80. somebody

    Good ole rock... Nothing beats rock.

    September 20, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
    • bart-fan

      well played

      September 20, 2011 at 12:12 pm |
    • Stuart

      Paper beats rock.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:36 pm |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      Spock trumps all. (Rock crushes scissors and sonic screwdriver.)

      September 20, 2011 at 2:45 pm |
      • @Quid

        Love this!
        Actually the Sonic screwdriver makes Spock orgasm. Sonic Screwdriver wins! It can be crushed with a rock though!

        September 20, 2011 at 3:54 pm |
      • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

        @@Quid: Touché!

        September 21, 2011 at 3:39 am |
  81. charlie sheen

    did someone say crack rock?

    September 20, 2011 at 11:55 am |
    • Ladeebugg

      LOL! Good one!

      September 20, 2011 at 4:11 pm |
  82. oh no, not again!!

    Lets prove evolutionist wrong........There is no recorded history of man before 4000BC. IF the evolutionist claim that the earth is BILLIONS of years old is correct, then there should of been some recorded history during that time of this meteor and of just time itself. But we have NOTHING.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:51 am |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      K-T meteor strike c. 65 million years ago
      First fossil evidence of anatomically modern humans c. 200,000 – 150,000 years ago

      65,000,000 is greater than 200,000 by a factor 325. Dinosaurs became extinct long before humans appeared. Your information is flat-out WRONG. Dinosaurs (non-avian ones, i.e. "birds") NEVER co-existed with human.

      GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:57 am |
      • Dr. Seibert

        GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

        Facts can be interpreted in many ways. Certainly you are aware of this from the 'glass is half full/half empty' scenario.
        The fact is there is water in the glass. It is up to the person making an observation to report their findings. Obviously you know some will report the glass being half full, while others will report it being half empty. The same can be said for science. Remember this: Science does not speak. Scientists do. That being said, scientists with different interpretations can look at the same facts and report different conclusions. The difficult part about the case you mentioned is it's not observable. Nearly all scientists, regardless of their beliefs, will agree on observable, operational science. Where they differ, mostly, is in origins. Unfortunately, we don't have the ability to go back in time and see how it all began, so we base our findings off of our worldview. Using the same facts, the evolutionist sees billions of years where the creationist sees thousands. It's not a matter of intelligence. It's a matter of a starting point, or a belief.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:02 pm |
      • sharoom

        If science is a belief, then it's the belief that the universe we live in must be self consistent and that any model we perceive of how the world works can be challenged and changed based on any emerging conflicting evidence.

        September 20, 2011 at 4:56 pm |
    • The Jackdaw

      What in god's name are you talking about? Did you fail EVERY subject in school?

      September 20, 2011 at 11:57 am |
      • lol

        bible schools don't teach ALOT of things.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:00 pm |
      • Anakaraya Ravenclaw

        they didn't fail every subject. Just math, history, science.... oh wait. yes they did.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • LOL

      We have the rock record, the fossil record, isotopic dating; combine these things and we have an objective history.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:59 am |
      • Carl

        Oh no not again you!! I guess it is too many FACTS for the small minded...

        September 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
    • lol

      Umm.. There has been evidence of civilazation before 4000BC and you do not need to have lived in that time and recorded it in order to dig up fossils, your such a tool.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • Canadian

      Are you suggesting that a dinosaur left a post-it note somewhere in the badlands of Montana stating, "FYI, big rock hit earth, killed us, okay, bye!" or that because no other living being before man left a written history of what transpired past 4000 BC that one must deduce NOTHING happened???

      FYI, there is no recorded mention of what happened in the middle of the pacific ocean 5000 feet below sea level yesterday......who knows, maybe God created a killer sea monster with 15 legs and killer fangs because he, she or it felt bored and whated to liven the ocean ecosystem up.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:01 pm |
      • Spartacus

        Best Post On The Board!
        and I am proud to be a Montreal Canadian.
        "Post it Note"
        I Love It...
        LMAO

        September 20, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
      • crookedarm

        I find this hard to believe because post-its weren't invented until 1979.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:22 pm |
      • Vipergtsrgt1

        That was the bright spot of my day. Thank you. :-)

        September 20, 2011 at 4:04 pm |
      • Nancy

        I so freakin' love Canada. If one of those bible-thumping, Creation-touting, evangelical shills ends up elected President of my country, I think Canada is my best bet. Let's face it, your Conservatives make our liberals look stuffy!! :D

        Oh, and I'm totally opposed to the backward slide in education and literacy that's taking place in America today. If we don't manage to re-program the evangelicals, we may find ourselves forced to endure more witch trials... those people are just downright SCARY.

        September 21, 2011 at 12:56 am |
    • Sean Russell

      How would there be recorded human history millions of years ago when there were no humans millions of years ago?

      The earliest written proof of man on the surface of the moon is 1969 (Apollo 11. You do believe we went to the moon right? Or is that another lie?) By your rationale, that would mean that the moon didn't exist before 1969.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
      • crookedarm

        That was area 51, not the moon. :-)

        September 20, 2011 at 1:25 pm |
    • Davethecanuck

      Successful... but weak attempt at trolling..

      September 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • virgonightingale

      And where's your proof that God created everything? The Theory of Evolution is far better supported by facts and research than the wishful thinking of the Creationist Theory. Blind faith will only leave you... well, blind.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
    • I'm The Best!

      You mean like cave paintings and stuff like that? Because I'm pretty sure those exist. Around 4000 BC is just when there was a written language so people could start writing stuff down. Before the Egyptions came up with hiroglyphics the human race did everything by just talking to each other.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
      • crookedarm

        Just by talking to each other, their political system was already "light years" ahead of ours.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
    • Sean Russell

      Actually, some of the earliest human settlements date to 9000 BCE.

      Where is your evidence that the earth has only been here 6000 years?

      September 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • Ca Ed

      PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE tell me that you don't live in the US and vote.

      However, that would explain a lot.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
    • Ultimate Boeing 747

      Surely someone must have been following this asteroid on Twitter, right genius?

      Um, God told me to tell you to sit in the corner and try not to touch anything. The grown ups are talking.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
    • Kevin

      let me get this right. Your arguemnt against evoltuion is that we do not have any recorded history of man before 4000 years?

      are you really that stupid? first off your wrong, we have cave paintings that date back over 10,000 years. second we have tools that date back 30,000-40,000 years.

      man did not start recording his history until we developed language and writing.

      evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains this fact. educate yourself fool!

      September 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
    • snowboarder

      "There is no recorded history of man before 4000BC."

      this is patently false. where did you come up with such ridiculousness.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
  83. bob

    i like pie

    September 20, 2011 at 11:46 am |
    • Billy

      i like that you like pie. good for you.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • MASTRODAMUS

      Yeah, I like sticking my fingers in a nice warm fur pie every now and then.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:07 pm |
    • Holly

      That is probably the most useful post in here.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
    • antibob

      Pie hates you, and your family!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
  84. omg your funny

    Evolutionist were here *at least 1* when the meteor hit...thats how they know so much about it!!!!! Fact folks~!!

    September 20, 2011 at 11:41 am |
    • lol

      whats funny is that you follow a book admittedly written by a king.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:45 am |
    • D WOLFE

      OF COURSE THERE ARE GAPS IN THE EVOLUTIONARY EVIDENCE. BUT IT DOES SEEM MUCH MORE COMPLETE AND BELIEVABLE THAN A MAGIC DESERT SKY FAIRY CREATED THE WORLD IN 6 DAYS 6,000 YEARS AGO AND THEN RESTED ON THE 7TH DAY AND WATCHED ADAM AND EVE RIDE TO CHURCH ON DINOSAURS.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:08 pm |
      • lol

        There is no gaps, the gaps are made up by religions, the evolution evidence is very clear and as more fossils around 200,000+ years ago are uncovered it has become almost crystal.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
  85. lol

    Chris Rock?

    September 20, 2011 at 11:41 am |
  86. omg your funny

    Funny how evolutionist on this topic are going ape sh*t over people talking about creationism. Good lord folks, everyone is entitled to an opinon! You evolutionist are comparable to the Crusades...Believe in our way or die!!! but u dont have swords so u just stick to flaming online.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:40 am |
    • lol

      Last I checked no one was killing people of faith other than themselves. all over the news christians and muslims killing everyone, not one atheist :)

      September 20, 2011 at 11:43 am |
      • wesely

        Joseph Stalin was an atheist, so was Mao Zedong and how many people got killed because of these two?
        over 80 million

        September 20, 2011 at 11:52 am |
      • lol

        I said today moron, bringing up PAST history is dumb, lets talk about the spanish inquisition, the DARK ages (yes you have an entire thousand years named after you) the crusades... need I go on?
        you named 2 people while I can name entire era's throughout history in which religion did far greater attrocities to innocent people.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
      • Sean

        @wesely

        Post your source that proves they killed in the name of Atheism.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:09 pm |
      • Anakaraya Ravenclaw

        this is to "Wesley": Unless they were killing over religious beliefs. whatever belief system they have doesn't matter.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
      • Watcher

        Evolution is a theory based on teh scientific method. In the scientific method, an initial guess is made (or hypothesis if you will) and experiments and tests are conducted based on this guess. If the guess cannot be disproven, it may become a theory. SO, Eolution is not proven, it is just not disproven... like God... just saying...

        September 20, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
    • Vernix

      Evolution has scientific proof. Creation has stories written thousands of years ago that have been translated and misinterpreted so many countless times. I think I'll stick to believing in something that has proof.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |
      • Maggie

        You know what I love about the bible, it remains constant.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
      • sucka punch

        @maggie the only thing about the bible that remains constant is it's a book. There are Numerous interpretations and "editions" of the bible.......

        September 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
    • NFly6

      The difference here is that science isn't subject to opinion, belief, or faith. It's facts. You don't have to believe in them. They're just what's happening.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:50 am |
    • Roxie -- Louisiana

      Yes, you are entitled to your "opinions" but you are NOT entitled to make up your own facts. Evolution by natural selection is a scientific fact upon which all of modern biology is based. LOL You are funny indeed.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:55 am |
      • Mike

        Evolution is a theory. It has never been proved. You believe in the religion of evolution. Some do some don’t. That’s fine just don’t call it fact.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:16 pm |
      • lol

        Sorry Mike it is NOYt a theory it has been proven time and time again through fossil evidence.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
      • Mike

        Your telling me that some guy puts a date on some fossil and claims that it is millions of years old by carbon dating and that is fact. LOL They found a fossilized hat that was made in the late 1800’s and the carbon dating put it at 2 million years old. Try again. Evolution is just another religion with its followers.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:22 pm |
      • lol

        Whoever said that about carbon dating made it up or it was done a long long time ago, the instruments used today are very accurate, you also do not need carbon dating when you know what era something was in by the sediment it was found under, you know nothing about science.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:26 pm |
      • lol

        they know it is fact based on carbon dating + sediment layer + radiology + objects found in same layer etc etc etc... you such a dumb tool Mike

        September 20, 2011 at 12:28 pm |
      • Mike

        You will be faithful to your religion of evolution no matter wat anyone says or shows you. I prefer not to follow any religion. They are all man made and full of holes.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:32 pm |
      • Sean

        @Mike

        The fact you attempt to link evolution to religion shows how little you understand the concept. And a rather obvious act of desperation. I’m sorry that find this new world of scientific fact freighting.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:35 pm |
      • brett

        Mike, they only you use carbon 14 dating for artifacts that are around 60,000 years or younger. There are several other types of radiometric dating, using isotopes with much longer half lives, for dates much further back in time.

        September 20, 2011 at 5:33 pm |
      • brett

        also for mike...

        http://www.notjustatheory.com/

        September 20, 2011 at 5:35 pm |
    • Davethecanuck

      Quit feeding this troll already.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:05 pm |
    • Steve O

      Evolution is an opinion the same way that gravity is an opinion.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
    • Sean Russell

      OMG
      Name one person- just one- who has been killed by because they don't believe in evolution?
      Are you trying to be ironic by comparing the voices of reason and science the the crusades? You mean the medieval crusades? Where Christians KILLED people for not believing their religion?

      Unfortunately, the truth is people have been killed for believing in scientific fact by so-called 'religions of peace'. It is Christians who threaten non-believers with death. It is Christians who think that non-believers shouldn't be allowed to vote or even live in this country.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:23 pm |
      • MrWright62

        I would hardly call politicians christians, or men of God. Not that i am completely disagreeing with you, but you cant generalize because of crazy people claiming to be christians

        September 20, 2011 at 12:30 pm |
      • Judas Priest

        I killed a six pack and a fifth of Bacardi in the name of evolution.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:50 pm |
    • Herby Sagues

      Evryone is entitled to their own opinion. No one is entitled to their own facts.

      It is not about fanatism. It is about trying to aboud people teaching innocent kids things that have been demonstrated false and that distort the kids view of the world, denying demonstrated facts and replacing them with fairy tales.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:29 pm |
  87. John

    Which Rock killed the dinosaurs? Jesus Christ obviously :)

    September 20, 2011 at 11:40 am |
    • lol

      Jesus was born a rock?

      September 20, 2011 at 11:50 am |
      • lol

        I think he missread in sunday school, Jesus was born in Iraq.... lol

        September 20, 2011 at 11:51 am |
      • John

        Jesus Christ wasn't born, he is the Alpha and the Omega :) http://bit.ly/r8URhG

        September 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
      • lol

        I thought god was the alpha and omega isn't that written on the first page? have you ever read your own book of worship?

        September 20, 2011 at 12:06 pm |
    • John

      my bad, He was "born", but very much unlike our n'shamah, He has always existed..

      September 20, 2011 at 12:14 pm |
      • lol

        Wait how can someone be born yet always exist? That is an oxymoron. You really have not read your own bible have you lol christians are so dumb lol

        September 20, 2011 at 12:17 pm |
      • John

        If you are seriously open to research as a true student/scientist would be, I challenge you to look up and read some of these topics. http://www.comereason.org/contents.asp good luck on your journey

        September 20, 2011 at 12:38 pm |
      • Arj

        Just like a person plays an act on the stage, God plays a role in this universe. Similar to the player existed before and after the play, God exists before and after the incarnation. Not only God, all of us exist before our birth. As we are also playing part in this play.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:49 pm |
  88. NeoSHNIK

    Don't vote Obama if you want to save dinosaurs.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:40 am |
  89. Dan

    I'm always amazed when different groups of scientists work out different scenarios of something that happened billions of years ago and argue about the results. Absolutely anything could have happened, but they're pretty sure that it happened the way they theorize. Well, my theory is that this whole universe is just a figment of my imagination and when I finally wake up, it'll be gone.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      I'm not sure I read anything about an argument here. Not everybody argues when they learn things.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:37 am |
    • LOL

      Well Dan, thats how Science seems to work. If we all "believed" the same thing, which would likely be wrong, then there wouldn't ever be any new thoughts, some of which that may end up being right.

      And in this case, it was new information that caused this change in thought.

      And if you think anything could have happened a hundred million years ago then you probably just don't get it. Read up on geological time, 65 million years ago just isn't a long time ago relative to the age of our earth.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:51 am |
      • Me

        Just to put it in perspective...

        The earth is about 4.5 million years old. Let's say that's a full life for time's sake. 80 year old average life span of a person.

        so, 4.5 mil=80 year old person, where the present they are now 80.

        65 million years ago would end up being, oh about, a MONTH AND A HALF AGO. not too long in the whole life of the earth so far.

        September 25, 2011 at 3:02 am |
    • lol

      They are not theorizing they are looking at the evidence and discussing, scientists rarely argue when working on the same project, they are not a religion.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:52 am |
    • Yea Right!

      Yes, as Robert Jordan said "Some day we shall awaken from the dream"

      September 20, 2011 at 11:53 am |
    • Sean

      That’s the great thing about science. We keep learning and when new information is available we add that to the pile. Creating a more accurate picture of what actually happened. That includes making corrections

      September 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • Judas Priest

      When I wake up, you will be gone.

      September 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
      • Frankie Lee

        You still got that wad of tens?

        September 21, 2011 at 5:52 pm |
  90. Motive

    "What's next? Just like any good police investigation, you need to establish a credible timeline." Shouldn't they also establish a motive? :)

    September 20, 2011 at 11:29 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      Everybody knows that rocks hate dinosaurs.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:30 am |
    • craig

      Another bit of information needed to cement this case is motive.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |
    • sherlock

      The asteroid was committing suicide because it was so cold and lonely in space.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:43 pm |
      • Nils

        it missed the earth so much, it missed it's wife

        September 20, 2011 at 6:13 pm |
  91. Commonsense

    There is proof that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. So, if an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, it would have killed the humans too.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • Jeffrey Root

      LOL. That was a funny joke. Do you have anymore of those?

      September 20, 2011 at 11:25 am |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      The Flinstones was a cartoon. That was not actually real. And the dinosuars at jurassic park don't count.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:28 am |
    • NOT MY CHAIR

      is your proof the Flintstones? you do know that's not based on facts right?

      September 20, 2011 at 11:30 am |
    • Duce

      Commonsense is a brilliant... 7 years old, who just saw the flintstones for the first time.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:41 am |
    • alan

      Yeah, and they they used them in rock quarries like modern day bulldozers. I hope you are kidding, but if you aren't, I would like to know what religion fed you that crap, so I can stay away from it.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:46 am |
    • MM

      By all means, provide this evidence. I could use a good laugh today.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:59 am |
    • Troll or No?

      You trolls are getting good.... I can't tell if you're just that stupid, or a magnificent troll.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:02 pm |
    • The Professor

      May I suggest you all go see the movie "Paul"? Highly enlightening look at the general scheme of things IMHO.

      September 20, 2011 at 1:12 pm |
    • So, now wait...

      ...lemme see, uh, if humans are still alive, doesn't that prove that they DIDN'T live at the same time?

      Your non-sequitorian logic escapes me.

      Although, Fred's excavator at the quarry...

      September 21, 2011 at 6:01 pm |
  92. Real Science

    C'mon people, we all know that Bush killed off alll the dinosaurs. Big rock my backside....

    September 20, 2011 at 11:21 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      A big rock with Halliburton stamped on it.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • Troll or No?

      backside = ass?

      September 20, 2011 at 12:03 pm |
    • Clark Nova

      Asteroids don't kill dinosaur. Gravity does. An asteroid is just a tool.

      September 20, 2011 at 2:56 pm |
      • Clark Nova

        Curse my cheap Chinese keyboard. Dinosaurs.

        September 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm |
      • High velocity...

        ...bullets don't kill people, expanding propellant kills people!

        September 21, 2011 at 6:09 pm |
  93. Judgement Day

    The Governator went back in time and killed them all......he asked them for John Carnar....and all he got was RAWR RAWR!

    September 20, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • phearis

      *rolls eyes* You mean: John Connor?

      September 20, 2011 at 11:35 am |
      • Troll...

        He was using the phonetic spelling of Connor... in the "Ahnald" voice... idiot. Everyone else is rolling their eyes at you, for being an idiot. Stop trying to out e-peen everyone on the internet. YOU ARE A NOBODY.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:10 pm |
      • But, wouldn't that be...

        ...Cahnah?

        September 21, 2011 at 6:12 pm |
  94. Al

    No rock killed the dinosaurs. They were oblitereated in the great flood as were millions of other species. . I suggest these "scientists" read a book called. "It's a Young Earth After All." Written by real scientists, not speculators.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:12 am |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      I suggest that you get a real education, use the brain that your creator gave you, and stop taking mythology and superstition (i.e. religion) as established fact.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:16 am |
      • Jake

        One of the first things we learned in law school was 'If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If they are not on your side, pound the table.' You just pounded the table, bringing no real defense to your position.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:46 am |
    • Sean Russell

      Sorry Al, but this is the SCIENCE section- not the kooky religions section. Go back to your book of fairy tales and superstitions.

      Just wondering, when you watch "the Flintstones", do you think it's real? Hint: it's just a cartoon- for kids.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:17 am |
      • omg your funny

        So someone else idea is laughable? ARe u always this intollerent or is this your 1st day? Explain why there were fossils of fish found up in the mountians....Explain why evidence exist of humans and dinosaurs living together...you cant. All you have is a THEORY. And a theory is not a fact.....its a guess...a hypothosis....so calm down. Pour your self a glass of koolaid and chill out!

        September 20, 2011 at 11:36 am |
      • The Jackdaw

        OH MY GOD YOUR FUNNY should be OH MY GOD I"M A FRIGGIN MORON TOO!

        September 20, 2011 at 11:38 am |
      • Troll - with large feet!

        While your at it explain how Noah managed to get two of every organism onto the boat, every virus, every cell, every animal. I expect when he gathered the Ebola virus he must of killed a few there, smallpox, Black Death. Sorry for being accurate but we can't even be around some of that now. Maybe the same god that felt sorry for him didn't feel sorry for the rest of the innocents he smited (if that's a word).

        September 20, 2011 at 11:47 am |
      • Anonymous

        I think the fact/evidence you're looking for is called Carbon Dating.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |
      • lol

        of course your idea is laughable, on this article all you see is facts and refrences to facts, go to a religion blog and all you get is speculation about a magic man with some magic hands that created everything lol
        I believe in the great spaghetti before any modern religion.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:48 am |
      • Sean Russell

        omg your funny (omg you're funny)
        Yes, his idea is laughable; as is yours. If you want to keep believing fairy tales- by all means go right ahead. I suppose you don't believe the 'theory' of plate tectonics either? I suppose earthquakes and volcanoes are a sign from god and not geologic plates running into each other?

        Sorry to disappoint you but evolution has been proven through the discovery of fossils and other evidence. Where is your evidence that some supernatural being that is responsible for all this? Where is your evidence that this was all done in just six days?

        BTW, the word is intolerant- not intollerent. And yes, I find it very difficult to tolerate ignoramus' such as yourself, who continue to spout off a bunch of superstitious nonsense. Join in us in the 21st century, please. Though, unlike you and the rest of your religious ilk; I am not threatening you with death just because I disagree with you.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:50 am |
      • brett

        @ omg you're funny,

        http://www.notjustatheory.com/

        Someone actually created a website dedicated to the ill guided "just a theory" claim which you and many other creationists continuously make.

        September 20, 2011 at 5:51 pm |
    • Kcough

      Al,
      Real Scientists sounds like the right wing talking about real america. Please spare me who you think is a real scientist or a real american.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • The Jackdaw

      Yes, Jesus hunted all the dinosaurs into extinction so that he could make room for his super-monkeys. Get a clue buddy. Pseudo-science proposed by religious nut-bags is no science at all.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:22 am |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      I hope this is a joke, but just in case... So a world wide flood killed the dinosaurs and there is no evolution. How then, if all the water on earth was mixed into one giant saltwater ocean, do you explain the existence of freshwater fish today. Did Noah have fish tanks on the ark? And why didn't God smite him too, considering he did not get 2 of every dinosaur? That was direct disobedience.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:24 am |
      • Sebulba

        Let's not forget that the entire "world" at that point barely even consisted of the Mediterranean region. Also, didn't they just find some fossilized dinosaur feathers in the Canadian Badlands?

        September 20, 2011 at 11:41 am |
      • JL

        I believe some creationists theorize that prior to the flood, all or most water was fresh. Since the flood, salt has accumulated in the oceans since that's where it ends up in the water cycle. Noah did take two of every dinosaur kind aboard the ark as commanded. Most of the dinosaurs aboard the ark presumably died soon after the flood due to climate change (global flood triggered one and only ice aged). Some dinosaurs survived, but were hunted and killed as they did not make good neighbors. Legends of killing dragons exists in cultures all over the world today and is evidence of the truth in Genesis. Now if you think this story is far fetched...you just got through reading an article about which rock killed the dinosaurs 60 million years ago.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:15 pm |
      • 1plus1

        JL,
        Legends from around the world about people slaying dragons is proof that people and dinosaurs existed at the same time?? Well.. with such a low standard for evidence, it's no wonder you believe – unbelievable things.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:41 pm |
    • Mark

      Thanks Al...

      The geological evidence for a world wide flood (as described in the Bible) is there, if the "scientists" are willing to look at it. But, it doesn't fit the paradigm that the evolutionists prefer. You know...the Earth is 500 gazillion years old, and man evolved from primordial poop.

      Objective science has shown that the geological evidence AND the fossil evidence most closely fits the "flood" model. But, most scientists AREN'T objective. They don't look at the evidence and draw conclusions. They start with the conclusion and force the "evidence" to fit that model. Thus, we have baseless and eronious theories such as "evolution".

      September 20, 2011 at 11:24 am |
      • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

        if there were a worldwide flood, that means all water, salt and fresh would be mixed. Based on volume that would be one big saltwater ocean. Meaning all freshwater fish would have been killed. Without evolution you cannot explain the existence of freshwater fish today. Fit that into your paradigm.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:32 am |
      • The Jackdaw

        Please read a scientific journal instead of getting your information from teh 700 Club. Thank you.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:33 am |
      • Seraphim0

        Care to cite some credible sources, there, Mark. Please?

        September 20, 2011 at 11:33 am |
      • UncleM

        Mark and Al – You have been brainwashed by your religious buddies / parents. You are an embarassment to a modern society.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:34 am |
      • Mark

        In response to the same old, worn out phrase...."No credible, serious scientists would ever believe creationism, blah blah blah". Here are just a few. Enjoy.

        1. Christian B. Anfinsen, (Ph.D. biochemistry, Harvard University, Nobel prize for physics)–
        I think only an idiot can be an atheist.

        2. David Berlinsky (Ph.D. mathematics, Princeton University)–
        The theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought. It is large,
        almost entirely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.

        3. Michael Denton (M.D., molecular biologist)–
        Ultimately, the Darwinian theory of evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic
        myth of the 20th century.
        The overriding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of
        evolution was all but proved 100 years ago and that all subsequent biological research–
        paleontological, zoological and in the new branches of genetics and molecular biology–has
        provided ever increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas. Nothing could be further from the
        truth.

        4. Isaac V. Manly, (M.D., Harvard Medical School)–
        [Evolution] is a fairy tale myth.
        Society has suffered as a result of this adult fantasy.
        Evolutionists claim their theory is scientific. Where is the science? I can assure the reader
        the American Kennel Club would not certify an ancestor of your dog based on evidence such
        as paleontologists present.

        5. Saltationist SØren LØvtrup, Professor of Embryology, University of Umea, Sweden–
        I believe that one day the Darwinian [gradualist] myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in
        the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question: how did this
        ever happen?

        6. H.S. Lipson, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology–
        …to my mind, the theory does not stand up at all….I think, however, that we must go further
        than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is
        anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not rejected a theory that we do not
        like if the experimental evidence supports it. (Physics Bulletin, May 1980, p.138)

        7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History
        Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–
        …the theory of evolution is impossible.

        I have plenty more. I can also provide citations if you'd like.

        These guys sound pretty credible to me.

        All you other hacks...list your credentials please.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:42 am |
      • Mark

        What the heck...I'll do these too,

        8. Ken Hsu, Geological Institute at Zurich, former President of the International Association of
        Sedimentologists–
        We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It’s about time we cry “the emperor has no
        clothes.” (“Darwin’s Three Mistakes” Geology, Vol. 14 (1986) p. 534

        9. Louis Neel, Nobel Prize for physics –
        …the progress of science, no matter how marvelous it appears to be, does not bring
        science closer to religion but it leads to dead ends and shows our final ineptitude at
        producing a rational explanation of the universe.

        10. Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize for physics–
        Creation is supported by all the data so far.

        11. Thomas C. Emmel, Ph.D. in Population Biology, Stanford University, Professor of Zoology,
        University of Florida, Gainesville–
        To me, the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense universe that
        lies around us…. the evidence is all too pervasive for me to think otherwise.

        12. P.C.C. Garnham, M.D., D.Sc., recipient of the Darling Medal and Prize, Emeritus Professor of
        Medical Protozoology, University of London–
        …by faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist.

        13. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, holder of three earned doctorates in science–
        …the theory totally lacks experimental or theoretical scientific basis!
        …this type of [evolutionary establishment] credulousness far surpasses all the religious
        credulousness and superstition on this entire planet Earth.

        14. Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National
        Center of Scientific Research in France–
        Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups

        September 20, 2011 at 11:47 am |
      • LordFlashheart

        The "World wide" flood is mentioned in almost all religeons that sprung up around the Indian ocean area of the planet. The "world" as the bronze age follks saw it was much smaller than we know it to be now. The flood was in fact a sunami and we have even locted the comet that crashed into the ocean likely causing the sunami. I know it's hard for some, but they cleverly hide such information in books (books that were written recently, not in the bronze age).

        As for the dinos...well we'll nail that one down too (we humans are smart that way). This is another great step in the right direction.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:49 am |
      • Sean Russell

        Mark,
        You merely listed a bunch of people with quotes why they don't believe in evolution. None of them offered any EVIDENCE to back up their assertions.
        Please show the evidence- not just quotes. I could quote people to back up my position- but that's not going to do any good is it?

        September 20, 2011 at 11:56 am |
      • MM

        Please provide evidence of any and all of your statements. I'm guessing that by not objective, yo mean not agreeing with you. Which is none of my concern, to be honest. I go with facts. You go with ... whatever it is you claim to have on your side.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:04 pm |
      • lol

        To bad nothing in here suggest what you just stated.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
      • Guester

        Many of your references are, wrong, old, taken out of context.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:13 pm |
      • Steve O

        Just glancing at your list there Mark, I can tell you that Berlinksy, Denton and Lovtrup and not creationists. They are critics of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but none of them deny the fact of evolution. I'm sure a little digging would prove that most if not all on your list are in similar boats. You're being intentionally misleading by taking quotes out of context and claiming that these scientists are creationists. Why would someone need to lie or mislead to support their argument if their argument were the truth?

        September 20, 2011 at 12:44 pm |
      • Anna

        Mark, you just cited a bunch of "scientists" OPINIONS as your objective evidence? I didn't realize that was how science works.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:28 pm |
      • TERMINATOR

        Not a single one of those scientists whose OPINIONS you quoted have ever written a single study published in any scientific journal that refutes any aspect of evolution. And as a scientist, I'm pretty sure they all know what that means about their opinions.

        The fact that you think evolution can be disproven by OPINIONS (of anyone) rather than scientific studies shows you really have ZERO concept of how the Scientific Method works. And I'm afraid those scientists you quoted would be forced to acknowledge that rather salient mistake.

        September 20, 2011 at 5:49 pm |
    • AGuest9

      Al, you're looking for Belief blogs, apparently. This isn't it.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:24 am |
    • D Russell

      Right......Just let me say that you can have your own opinion (based on the supernatural or UFO's) if you like, but you are not entitled to your own facts or definition of science or scientists.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:26 am |
    • kevin

      Have you considered all the other species "obliterated" at that time may have fallen off the edge of the flat earth??....... What utter hogwash...no serious, credible scientist could ever support creationism!

      September 20, 2011 at 11:26 am |
    • AGuest9

      Mark, there doesn't exist enough water in the solar system to create a flood to cover the entire surface of the earth.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:26 am |
      • Me

        umm...actually, yeah there is, it's just in the rings of Saturn. kinda far away.

        September 25, 2011 at 3:17 am |
    • Dave

      I've read portions of that book, AL, and it isn't even close to being an objectively scientific argument. It's a desperate grasp to support a pre-established belief ... capitalizing every biblical reference should have been your first clue. There is no scientific analysis (formulas, etc) to support the assertions, and there are no direct references to any scientific studies ... only a few links to other equally unsubstantiated conjecture. If you didn't already believe the conclusions of that "book" before you read it you'd have scoffed at its supposition.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:39 am |
    • Vernix

      Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event

      While flooding might have been one factor, it was not the only disaster.

      Amazing what a little bit of education will do to the general public. Time for people to get a taste of reality and flush the religious fantasy books.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:57 am |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      @Jake: One of the things that you should have been taught in law school was that non sequiturs such as yours are no substitute for a valid argument.

      FACESLAP!

      September 20, 2011 at 2:48 pm |
  95. Andy Post

    You know there's some pretty good evidence that the asteroid impact in question wasn't the agent that wiped out the dinosaurs. When I was young the asteroid theory was considered radical and the science community took it seriously. Now we've got the opposite problem. The fossil record doesn't support this theory. The die off seemed to have happened close to but before the asteroid hit (dinosaur fossils stop before the iridium layer). Maybe we should start backing off the asteroid theory until we can explain that.

    September 20, 2011 at 11:03 am |
    • Andy Post

      Sorry, that should have been "no one in the science community".

      September 20, 2011 at 11:04 am |
      • Chance

        Agree, that theory (including mainstream coverage) has been pointed out to be one of many near extinctions back then. And if anything has actually been downplayed to not actually be the extinction event. Over the past 10 years.
        I'm pretty sure that the latest theory was the super volcano (because of the layers they found and the mass graves in NA)
        There are still a few others out there. (this is just cnn at its best (always fumbling and behind). Tbh this entire article is kinda moot; thats like saying CNN backs this theory exclusively. Kinda like when they posted time travel isn't possible because Chinese scientist proves you can't go faster then the speed of light....again like that's the only way...

        September 20, 2011 at 11:20 am |
    • dieseltdi

      Yes there is mounting evidence that the "big rock" really wasn't the killer that was once thought. As a geologist/paleontologist, I always had a problem with the "one smack that killed all" thinking. We now know that many of the fundamental "effects" of the collision simply did not occur – no massive tsunamis, no rain of firey particles causing worldwide fires, no long term winter, no nitric acid rain AND we know have verified dinosaur fossils from ABOVE the iridium layer. Not to mention that there seems to be be more than one iridium layer. Problems, problems problems.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:15 am |
      • AGuest9

        Not problems, opportunities!

        September 20, 2011 at 11:30 am |
    • Wzrd1

      Between climate change triggered by continental drift, the Deccan Traps eruption, two asteroid impacts, the pre-stressed species ended up dying off, as they could not adapt to the huge triple whammy.
      But, scientists tend to hold their treasured theories as dearly as the devout religious hold their views. :/

      September 20, 2011 at 11:21 am |
      • sharoom

        That is a human fallacy. We sometimes cannot accept to be wrong. But the scientific theory holds the higher ground because it accepts conflicting empirical evidence, is changed accordingly, and then re-examined.

        September 20, 2011 at 5:20 pm |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      One of the main issues that's rarely addressed is how so many organisms survived the K-T extinction event, e.g. avian theropods and mammalian synapsids, not to mention the various types of fish, arthropods, plants, etc

      September 20, 2011 at 11:29 am |
      • Uh-Clem

        Man, woman, child, all are UP AGAINST THE WALL OF SCIENCE.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
    • crookedarm

      Maybe we should back off of the asteroid theory until an asteroid is found on EARTH that was capable of wiping out all of the dinosaurs. As far as I can tell, once asteriods impact somewhere, they have a tendency to stay put and not return to their "mother."

      September 20, 2011 at 1:42 pm |
      • TERMINATOR

        crookedarm – You do realize that when an asteroid impacts the Earth at like 32,000 mph, it disintegrates into tiny particles hardly larger than size of a grain of sand? And that those particles then become buried in layers of sediment over time, not to mention are now perhaps 20 feet below the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico where the asteroid hit. Man, the people in here are major league idiots.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:04 pm |
      • brett

        Chicxulub, is the most likely candidate for the crater. The meteorite itself was obliterated upon impact.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:20 pm |
  96. Keel Hauler

    Considering the demonstrated "quality" of our present global society, there are days when I think a giant asteroid impact might be a good thing. "Reality TV" alone is a good reason....

    September 20, 2011 at 11:03 am |
    • MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

      And an asteroid impact would make great reality TV.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:20 am |
    • AGuest9

      Sadly, Keel Hauler, over the past few weeks, I tend to agree.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:31 am |
  97. Oldbear

    Interesting, but how does this help identify potential problems for earth in the near future-1-10 years?

    September 20, 2011 at 11:02 am |
    • CW

      Yes. All science should only have a 1-10 year horizon...

      September 20, 2011 at 11:06 am |
    • sksk

      Agreed...all science should come to a halt unless it pertains specifically to issues the earth may have in the next decade......

      September 20, 2011 at 11:18 am |
    • JDT

      potential problems within 1-10 years? If there is a problem within 1-10 years from now, it is already too late to do anything about it. So, here is your solution... put your head firmly between your legs and kiss your a$$ goodbye. Problem solved.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:19 am |
    • LOL

      Science should not be restrained to solving humanities problems short term problems...

      Because such problems are created by humans; they will not cease as long as there are lazy, selfish people.

      September 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
  98. Josh

    The crack rock!

    September 20, 2011 at 11:01 am |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      The Crack Fox!

      September 20, 2011 at 11:32 am |
  99. Miron Huhulea

    "She plan's to create"? That's the most creative use of the possessive case I've ever seen. Unfortunately, no major news organization - CNN, BBC, WSJ - is free from these kinds of egregious grammatical errors anymore.

    September 20, 2011 at 10:56 am |
    • AGuest9

      Such is the result of hiring the kids who received a C- in English Composition as writers. They'll work for less money.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:34 am |
    • Leprakawn

      The sad thing is that they still get by the editors, but there are many of us who spot them instaneously. Good catch, Miron Huhulea!

      Yet again, some of the other commentators obviously miss the concept:
      Kamish: "How did Dino's evolve into birds..."
      Kevin: "where did i say they evolved into birds? all i said is they have more in common with todays birds."

      September 20, 2011 at 2:06 pm |
  100. Chris

    I thought the small theropods survived and evolved into birds....

    September 20, 2011 at 10:54 am |
    • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

      You thought right! And the mammalian synapsids diversified. IIRC, it's believed that most of the existing mammalian orders had already evolved by the time of the K-T boundary.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:15 am |
    • wikiIeaks

      actually nothing evolved into birds. true, there were flying dinosaurs, but there is nothing to suggest the feather evolved. It was non-existent forever and then all of the sudden it was there. So it seems more logical that instead of coming out of nowhere, it was created, along with the bird species. Even dinosaur fossils were absent for millions of years, then all of the sudden, there they are....ALL of them, doesn't fit the evolutionary theory of evolving over millions of years at all. and once again, rather than assume they just popped out of nowhere, I think it's more logical to conclude they were created all at one time. Oh yeah, the bible would support that idea also.

      September 20, 2011 at 11:23 am |
      • Quid Malmborg in Plano TX

        Your beliefs are entirely without logic, rationale, or evidence to support them, and you've no idea what you are talking about. That is as irrefutable as evolution being fact. Truth out, and have a nice day.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:31 am |
      • AGuest9

        You need to get your head out of your bible and look up Archeopteryx.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:36 am |
      • NOT MY CHAIR

        is it Bible or aliens? because the alien story seems a little bit more plausible than god... unless your god is a clever alien that tricked stupid people

        September 20, 2011 at 11:42 am |
      • Duce

        Plenty of dinosaurs had feathers and before that had feather-like hairs there oh sultan of knowledge...

        September 20, 2011 at 11:42 am |
      • LOL

        Think about it...

        Fossils being absent does not mean the dinosaurs are absent. Think about how rare a non-underwater landslide occurs, that happens to trap dinosaurs, and it has to be in the right conditions so that fossils form, and not only that, for people to find later...

        Despite the gaps, your conclusion of "everything at once" doesnt make sense. Fossils are found in rock units that are depostied at different times, = different ages, thats a fact.

        September 20, 2011 at 11:56 am |
      • LordFlashheart

        Wow, just wow. It's 2011 do try to keep up (if you can't keep up, the trick is to bang the rocks together).

        September 20, 2011 at 11:58 am |
      • lol

        read a book dinasours are now thought to have had feathers.

        September 20, 2011 at 12:11 pm |
      • sup

        people. there is actually more proof about creation than evolution. think of our bible like your archeology books. btw archeological evidence actually proves creation mor than evolution. by an an architect bible. its provides proof for every single reading in the bible. no link has been found between monkeys and people. actualy scientists say that humans are more related to bananas than monkeys by dna.

        September 20, 2011 at 1:07 pm |
      • The Professor

        Please go see the movie PAUL and bring a crying towel with you, you knuckle dragging rectal itch!

        September 20, 2011 at 1:17 pm |
      • Paul

        OMG, was that me, did I create everything in 6 days?!? I made you – I made you all from Play Doh! And now you're stuck here reading our posts! I am so sorry! Oh, and that wasn't an asteroid, that was my brother playing with matches that killed the dinosaur. Disco Inferno!

        September 20, 2011 at 2:51 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Sup should be committed to an insane asylum. Either that, or he just crawled out from under a rock, and if he doesn't sharpen up, he will be committed to an insane asylum.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:20 pm |
      • Arran Webb

        Evolution theory will in the future be ideology and it will have characteristic of belief not unlike religion. Darwin will be the prophet. Devout evolutionists already behave like faithful zealots. As the Greeks read creation in the stars the evolutionists read it in the rocks.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:28 pm |
      • WhatWhatWhat?

        Hey Arran, let's do an experiment. Let's say that this equation represents religion, 1+1=3, and this equation represents science, 1+1=2. Now, think carefully, which one would you be a "faithful zealot" of? Evolutionists, as you say, are zealous because humans have found the answer to the question, but Delusionists, as I say, refuse to believe that answer. Thus (spoiler alert!), they still believe equation 1, when in fact equation 2 is correct. Who wouldn't be zealous of the truth? And I mean the REAL truth, not what some fairy tale book says.

        September 20, 2011 at 3:59 pm |
      • Dk

        Wikileaks my ass. We all know it was aliens lady, get over it.

        September 20, 2011 at 4:16 pm |
      • Roz

        More proof for creation than science, sup? Show me the proof. So far, creationists have only posited theories and arguments. They haven't proved anything in the lab or with scientific testing and peer reviewed studies that have held up. All their arguments have been: "But, the bible sez..." The existence of Jesus can't even be proven. The earliest writings attributed by anyone about him were 40 years after his death by allegedly one of his disciples. Considering that life expectancies for males in those days was 29, that's going a stretch. But, no mention is in Pilate's or in the Roman's records of the execution of such a person. Or in any other writer who lived at the time. Everything is anecdotal and decades after his death. Myths of virgin births, especially on the 25th of December, predate the story of Jesus by several hundred years. In the story of Zoroaster, who was born of a virgin, he was baptized in a river, tempted in the wilderness by the devil, cast out demons, healed the sick, made the blind see, and made a couple of people rise from death. In the story of the Egyptian Horus, also born of a virgin, the infant god's birth was heralded by a bright star, he was paraded in a manger with a child portraying Horus through the streets at the time of the winter solstice (Dec. 21). Herat tried to have him murdered, but her mother had a warning from Heaven and escaped with him. He was crucified and resurrected after three days. Attis of Phrygia, born of a virgin mother, had his followers eat bread symbolizing his body. He was crucified from a tree on Black Friday and resurrected three days later.These stories predate the story of Jesus by over 500 years and before. I've seen creations do nothing more than give paltry arguments from their bible, but so far, they haven't proved anything in a lab or rendered any viable testing to prove their conclusions.

        September 20, 2011 at 6:52 pm |
1 2 3

Contributors

  • Elizabeth LandauElizabeth Landau
    Writer/Producer
  • Sophia DengoSophia Dengo
    Senior Designer