Only people who read rags like the Daily fail or that piece of conspiracy ***** in the OP think science is “simple” or a lie Every time I click on that link it is trying to either tell me about the predictions of Nostradamus or it is talking about a “mysterious face on mars”.
Maaaaate On this forum we have even had flat earthers posting in the science forum Now THERE is a breed I thought had gone extinct
I already addressed that theory by asking why only the dinosaurs were rendered extinct when no other forms of life were.
I heard the climate was different and allowed for life to grow bigger, maybe it was climate change that killed giants and dinosaurs and perhaps dragons (who could breath fire) were hunted by humans and at least we had dragons? Maybe how a dragon breathed fire made it able to live in our climate. The little dinosaurs evolved into birds and penguins. Look at KFC, we wouldn't have KFC if all the dinosaurs were wiped out. Some evolved.
Why do you fallaciously assume that no other life forms also perished? Do you lack the curiosity to even do the research to find which others also died? Did it ever occur to you that when there is serious a food shortage creatures that need the least amount to survive are in a better position than those that need large amounts?
The problem here, yet again, is proceeding from a false premise. Other forms of life were rendered extinct. Over 70% of all the species on earth are estimated to have been made extinct. This included large numbers of plant species, fish, insects and marine invertebrates. In the case of the latter there is evidence of a massive extinction of ammonites in particular. Virtually no four limbed animals of any species weighing over 25kgs survived. All of this happened in a very short period of time. So, unless there were a series of viruses capable of wiping out not only the huge range of dinosaur species, but also insects, plants, fish, marine invertebrates and sundry other types of animals that explanation seems wildly unlikely. No such virus has ever been recorded to my knowledge. Few viruses manage to be lethal beyond one or two species, let alone jumping across the whole spectrum of life including plants.
Wrong! If you had bothered to do any research you would have learned that there were other species that died off! Since you didn't you just proved yourself wrong, as always!
I don't know for a fact that other life forms were not affected by the dramatic climate change. It seems improbable that only the dinosaurs could be affected by the chemical & temperature changes in the earth's atmosphere when many other plants & animals required the same conditions to exist. Check out some of the other prehistoric creatures that existed after the dinosaurs "Craziest Prehistoric Creatures You Won’t Believe Existed" http://definition.org/craziest-prehistoric-creatures-wont-believe-existed/
how many cows were around to fart back then and what did those cows eat in Jurassic and Cretaceous periods that might be more gassy than hay?
DUH! I always read about or listen to various subjects before making up my mind whether I agree with them or not; this particular time I didn't agree, and am convinced that my theory is much more plausible than the 'dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid' one, my reasons being as I've already stated, viz. an asteroid big enough to destroy an entire life form living on all areas of the planet would have to be so big (at least fifty thousand football pitches, which seems to be the comparitor these days for estimating spatial extent? ), that the impact would have shattered planet Earth as an entity, and b) that no other life forms were affected so disastrously. So instead of having the arrogance to ignorantly dismiss my theory out of hand because I didn't research it, I hereby counter it by suggesting that you read what there is to be read about the supposed event, and then follow my example by using your brain to analyse what you've read and draw your own conclusion on this topic - specifically that the established theory is utter nonsense, and mine makes for a far more logical explanation. After all, how many times has existing scientific 'evidence' subsequently been rubbished and replaced by a more plausible one? I actually believe that this irrational willingness to believe someone merely because they claim to be an expert in one field or another, is the result of the social-engineering drive to infantilise western societies. There can be no other reason that adults can be so gullible as to not question nor challenge what they've been told.
Only someone who knows nothing at all about how diseases work would actually believe that drivel. A deadly virus was introduced in order to eradicate the rabbit species in Australia. While it greatly reduced the rabbit population the virus itself mutated into a LESS deadly form for the benefit of it's own survival. In simple terms if the virus kills off the host species entirely then it kills off itself in the process. The virus, like all life forms, mutates and the less deadly version was the one that ultimately survived along with some of the rabbits. Too bad that allegedly "using your brain" never enabled you to figure out WHY your asinine theory was so WRONG you could drive an 18 wheeler through the massive holes in it.
What, you're comparing rabbits with dinosaurs? So what about my point of the asteroid destroying our planet then? Or if you think it was dust fall-out from a smaller asteroid which spread all over the planet (and if you believe that, you'll believe anything), how come that no other species weren't similarly suffocated to extinction, same as the poor dinos were? Have you thought about this . . . that the virus that killed them, far from (to use your words) 'mutating into a less deadly version' could well have mutated into an even more deadly form, could it not. How TF can you compare the two events? If you don't mind my saying so, you seem to be 'scraping the bottom of barrels' here to the point of making yourself look desperate in your determination to prove me (again using your word) 'asinine'.
A scientific theory is supported by extensive research, repeated experimentation and observation;what you have is an unsubstantiated opinion.
Yes but you appear to be reading sources such as “uk express” a cheesy tabloid if ever there was one Why do you think only dinosaurs were affected? https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html
