Joined: June 2007
|Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 06 2008,14:19)|
|Noted Scholar notedscholar is sometimes on PT and UD. he also has the blog 'science and math defeated' and the odds are is that he is a sock on a whole new level. fractally Poe or something.|
|The Hardest to Kill is the First to Die: The Singularity of Paleontology|
Have any of you ever noticed how absolutely implausible it is that the Dinsosaurs actually became extinct? Now, please note this: I am not saying that they did not become extinct. I cannot after all prove a negative - it would require searching all four corners of the Earth and below the Earth (we’ve already got above the Earth covered!). But consider the following:
Go outside. Find a bug and step on it. If you succeed, then you can be fairly certain that, barring extraordinary numbers, that particular species of bug could plausibly become extinct. Now go into a forest and find a large adult bear. Try and step on it.
If you succeed, you will have demonstrated at least the logical possibility of the C-T Extinction Event. However, you will likely fail. By the transitive property, if you can’t extinctify bears, and dinosaurs are harder to extinctify than bears, then you likewise can’t extinctify dinosaurs. QUED, my friends. … Or is it?
Clearly that conclusion is also hopelessly implausible! What, then, are we to do? According to influential logician L. Gamut, two implausible propositions, call them p and q, cannot stand each other for very long. Some kind of reflective equilibrium must be reached, al carte both R. Dahl and G. Habermas. Now I have no idea what to do about this. It could be that the implausible simply happened. But we are compounding implausibilities! The extinction of dinosaurs requires the negation of the force of all kinds of apriori evidence to the contrary.
Discussion: Which theory of Dinosaur Extinction do you favor? Post in the comments! If you’re not familiar with the subject, you can quickly explore the going theories here.
I'm sure there are several bear species which would be quite relieved to learn they cannot go extinct. Especially the ones which already are.
To rebut creationism you pretty much have to be a biologist, chemist, geologist, philosopher, lawyer and historian all rolled into one. While to advocate creationism, you just have to be an idiot. -- tommorris