Look up yellowstone.dad wrote:Maybe it was, but I take it with a grain of salt for now. In the present, we don't see water coming up to water the earth, or other things coming up with it much, like salt, etc.
Perhaps in environments similar to yellowstone.dad wrote:The present is different in many ways. Things like a world of water and it's weight pressing down on the earth, and even things like possible chemical and other changes in some rocks. Chert is formed underwater, some think dolomite is formed in a process starting as evaporation in limestone, etc.
Where are they then?dad wrote:Water did come up, whether it was mainly localized in some ares, and spread out from there, or was evenly brought up, we don't know. If some areas were sources for this we would expect concentrations or elevated levels of some things in some areas.
What are you talking about? The evidence eliminates posibilities, making things more certain. Here is the full quote.dad wrote:Assumptions as to the cause of some of these are also less than certain.
For example, on a North Sea 'crater', this observation..
"They also eliminated salt intrusions from lower layers of rock, because the underlying Triassic and Permian strata were undisturbed. "
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rater.html
Thus leading to the conclusion that the crater most likely formed by some sort of impact."Stewart and Allen ruled out a volcanic origin because there were no magnetic anomalies in the crater. They also eliminated salt intrusions from lower layers of rock, because the underlying Triassic and Permian strata were undisturbed. "
Fair enough. We all do.dad wrote:So, I don't assume a present world type of intrusion, therefore, until the evidence is clear, I reserve judgement.
Wow taken way out of context!dad wrote:a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment. Furthermore the chromium isotopic ratios determined in the K-T boundary are similar to the chromium isotopic ratios found in carbonaceous chondrites.
Did you do this on purpose, this is very misleading, and tantamount to lying!
Here's the full quote.
"Chromium isotopic ratios are homogeneous within the earth, therefore this isotopic anomalies exclude a volcanic origin which was also proposed as a cause for the iridium enrichment."
The next line cotinues to explain how a certain deposit leads to evidence for the posible composition of this meteor.
"Furthermore the chromium isotopic ratios determined in the K-T boundary are similar to the chromium isotopic ratios found in carbonaceous chondrites. Thus a probable candidate for the impactor is a carbonaceous asteroid but also a comet is possible because comets are assumed to consist of material similar to carbonaceous chondrites."
That is not what olivine means! Did you also catch the term meteorite, meaning quite clearly non-terrestrial?dad wrote:http://www.armageddononline.org/impact_event.php
"carbonaceous chondrite ..
A rare type of stony meteorite which contains large amounts of the magnesium-rich minerals olivine and serpentine and a variety of organic compounds.."
http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... bchon.html
(Olivine something deep under the earth in case you didn't catch the relation.)
I am beginning to think that this is done intentionally! This quote was taken again out of context.dad wrote:Also, there are some strange things that require assumptions to try to explain.."
A borehole drilled into the Chicxulub structure hit 380 meters (more than 1000 feet) of igneous rock with a strange chemistry. That chemistry could have been generated by melting together a mixture of the sedimentary rocks in the region. The igneous rock under Chicxulub contains high levels of iridium
But the evidence for an extraterrestrial impact is so strong that it's a waste of time to try to explain away that evidence as volcanic effects
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/ ... wen1b.html
Thus there is strong evidence for short-lived but gigantic volcanic eruptions at the K-T boundary. Some people have tried to explain all the features of the K-T boundary rocks as the result of these eruptions. But the evidence for an extraterrestrial impact is so strong that it's a waste of time to try to explain away that evidence as volcanic effects.
Dad was trying to imply that there was evidence to explain away. However the evidence needing to be explained away was that for the meteoric impact, not that of volcanic explosions!
The evidence points to meteoric impacts.
With our current knowledge this is the best candidate. That's how science works.dad wrote:I simply wonder if anything else not in the present world processes could have caused shocked quartz. Maybe not, but just because present processes could not produce it, I haven't heard enough about it to be sure only a meteor could cause it. You seem to be but haven't really said much about it.Please explain, you lost me.
Then it should be quite easy for you to show empiracal data rather than opinions and what ifs, and other non-scientific tidbits.dad wrote:I could find a web site which claims just about anything,
I could find a book that says anything as well. A lot of current research is on the net. Representing experts and decades of work in many cases.
Why are you pressed to find other answers, is there anything other than your own beleifs which points to the probability that meteors are not the correct explanation???dad wrote:No, it likely is significant. Question is how?Are you absolutely certain that shocked quartz is not a significant detail?