[meteorite-list] Mammoth Stew: take sticks, pull leg from fire

From: E.P. Grondine <epgrondine_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 10:37:25 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <611360.2851.qm_at_web36914.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Hi all -

So we have a mammoth leg boiling on the fire. We now
have to get it off, and its hot.

> The only person in denial here is you, who refuses
to > accept the fact that he can't possibly know with
any
> certainty what sort of cosmic cataclysms caused
> either dust layer.

There's one dust layer (10,900 BCE) and a rain of
molten iron (31,000 BCE)

>Ahhh, right. You go believe that. Darren's post
sums >up just about everyone else's opinion of that as
well.
>Legends are not science. They tend to have somewhat
>historical roots, but we're talking about science
>here, not a picture book about native american
>storytelling.

The complete inability of Europeans to realize the
extent of the oral corpus is remarkable. Historical
traditions are usually lumped together with
instructional tales for children, amusing jokes,
romances, hunting adventures, etc...

Think of it as a library, instead.

>What you have is a lack of proof for any known impact
> process, and you seem to want to attribute that to
an
> airburst.

Sterling brought up airburst as a teaching aid, I
didn't. Were their also airbursts at the same time as
the massive impact(s) around 10,900 BCE? In my
opinion,
yes.

The only proof Jason will accept is large holes in the
ground, or burnt bones. The indisputable
extra-terrestrial markers just don't sink in. That's
"Denial" with a capital D.

I observed earlier that in science, we don't mistate
evidence in order to invalidate a hypothesis; we also
don't mistate hyposthesis in order to invalidate them.
To which Jason replied:

>You're not saying anything here. The point is that
>you have no evidence. No evidence =/= airburst.
>I think you're going to find it hard to get me to
>believe much of what you say - especially when the
>sole things that my beliefs are grounded in are
>logic, the laws of science, and mathematics.

I would suggest that denial plays the main role in
Jaon's thinking. As far as his "beliefs" go, I don't
know if he's even gotten to the point of understanding
English rationalism.

> I have acknowledged multiple times that I see the
ice > impact as a (an albeit unlikely) possible
explanation > for the geologic evidence that has been
found.
> I repeatedly state that the ice impact is a
> possibility - you're the one who expected to find a
> crater given the evidence already discovered.

>You failed to include above the quote that clearly
> stated that you believed that a crater exists to be
> found. Maybe you've changed your point of view; I
> don't know, but you clearly stated that you believed
> that a crater exists to be found.

After all of this, Jason understands ice cratering,
though he still thinks boths impacts were "unlikely",
despite the undeniable extra-terrestrial markers.
Well, there's some relief.

What I hope for in the case of the 31,000 BCE event is
the recovery of large irons, maybe a crater. For the
10,900 BCE event I think that a market for impactite
samples may develop.

>Just because we don't have a solid explanation yet
>doesn't mean that a particular one of the countless
> possibilities that could explain it(however likely
it >is to have generated the effects seen) is
certainly
>the right one.

Just one question: What other possibilities are there
for either set of data?

>Now that we've established that I know more about the
>dynamics of an impact and meteoritics in general, I
>really don't see how you can honestly persist in your
>ramblings.

ahem.

>Oh - and I will admit; I'll perpetuate this damn
>thread as long as you agree to do the same by posting
>a reply.

good hunting, all
E.P. Grondine
Man and Impact in the Americas



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Received on Sat 22 Dec 2007 01:37:25 PM PST