It probably killed off the dinosaurs too - much more likely than an asteroid, which we've been told did it. 'experts' eh? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-36945909
I think he means that is likely that lack of water killed dinosaurs too instead of the asteroid theory.
Actually, the asteroid is established fact. I think the only question is exactly how the asteroid killed off the species that it did (while not killing off others). Check this out: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715113558.htm Soot may have killed off the dinosaurs and ammonites Date: July 15, 2016 Source: Tohoku University Summary: A new hypothesis on the extinction of dinosaurs and ammonites at the end of the Cretaceous Period has been proposed by a research team. A new hypothesis on the extinction of dinosaurs and ammonites at the end of the Cretaceous Period has been proposed by a research team from Tohoku University and the Japan Meteorological Agency's Meteorological Research Institute. The researchers believe that massive amounts of stratospheric soot ejected from rocks following the famous Chicxulub asteroid impact, caused global cooling, drought and limited cessation of photosynthesis in oceans. This, they say, could have been the process that led to the mass extinction of dinosaurs and ammonites. ... ----------- Of course, this has nothing to do with the mammoths. Again, there is no known impactor that would have caused their extinction by any means.
Ah a link from a science source - well we can't argue with that, can we! There'll be quite a few more 'hypotheses' to add to those above, unless I'm much mistaken! 'established fact'!
Do you know what you're talking about? Doesn't look like it. No one questions that an asteroid hit. Scientists are always investigating and disputing details where appropriate, i.e. where a hypothesis is not very well settled (established by fact), and one such area is exactly how the impactor killed off the species that it did even while leaving plenty of others alive to repopulate and evolve into newer species. You might understand this if you actually read the link instead of carrying on like some kind of anti-science doofus.
So why does no one question it? Do you believe everything you're told or read, like a gullible child would? I'm not in the least 'anti-science' - where would we be without it? - I'm anti faux science; and although you think I'm a doofus, at least I can tell when someone is trying to fool me??
Oh, you're free to question the claim, but then you should at least investigate the evidence and the theories at hand before carrying on like this. Instead you whine at me for linking to a *gasp* science website. Absolutely do question and investigate what you're told. It's what scientists do for a living.
Yes, to secure a job for life by pure speculation and submitting stuff they can't possibly know in the hope that A) it will be believed, and B) to keep the 'research funding' flooding in. I read yesterday that the UK's research grants to the 'science fraternity' is 6 repeat 6 billion pounds sterling a year. Duplicate roughly that same figure from all the member states of the EU for 'experimentation' and we can see why they've been panicking at the thought of losing it because of Brexit. Not that I blame them - nice 'work' if you can get it, and I'd panic if I were one of them. Of course I question these preposterous claims and assertions - any sentient adult would. I'm only surprised you don't?
