Team of Scientists Affirm Giant Asteroid Theory . . . Despite Alleged Miscalculation of 64,994,999 Years

A leading group of scientists have concluded that a single giant asteroid killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago — finding overwhelming evidence to support the theory over alternative theories such as a massive earthquake or multiple asteroids. The team, however, failed to include a single creationist who could point out that, since the Earth is only 5000 years old, leading scientists like Sarah Palin have found that they are 64,994,999 years off.

The asteroid impacted about 6 miles in diameter slammed into the Gulf of Mexico and, according to the team, was “more powerful than all the atomic weapons on the planet going off all at once” — the equivalent to 100 million tons of TNT. It produced an impact crater that was 24 miles deep and 125 miles wide in Chicxulub, Mexico, on the Yucatan Peninsula.

The crater contains rock with concentrations of iridium and platinum, which are characteristic of the chemical fingerprints of the asteroid. The impact also is believed to have triggered a massive fireball and a massive earthquake.

For the full story, click here.

39 thoughts on “Team of Scientists Affirm Giant Asteroid Theory . . . Despite Alleged Miscalculation of 64,994,999 Years”

  1. Mr. Spindell,

    Did you actually read what I wrote? It doesn’t seem like it.

    My point is that God didn NOT trick anyone when he made the earth fully-formed and put a grown man and woman on it, even though they had no pasts, because he TOLD them the Truth, even as He has told us. You can believe the scientifically impossible sequence of creation recounted in Genesis, or you can believe the speculations of scientists. There are no two ways to go and remain intellectually honest. You are either an animal, and a product of chance, or you are descended from Adam. Pay your money and take your chances.


  2. BIL,

    Let’s just say you and I are going over old ground with Steve, and not doing anywhere near as good of a job of it.

    I’ve got a great volume called “The Bible According to Mark Twain.” The editors’ notes seem to be geared towards a more academic audience (if you get past the dry style, they’re very interesting), and I just skimmed through the incomplete writings. You should get a hold of it, it’s got a few true gems that are hard to find.

    On a side note, Orwell really had it out for Twain…

  3. “so God may gain glory when you find the tables turned, on That Day:”

    I won’t ridicule you but I will call your attention to the fact that your words are as close to blasphemy as possible and though I assume you’ve read your bible you have gotten nothing from it except for a creed that diminishes God.

    Do you really believe that the entity who created this entire, glorious universe is involved in playing tricks on people? Do you really feel that a might, omniscient God would gain glory in eternally punishing such puny creatures as we, after ticking them. God does not play games and you damn yourself by adopting a view of God that is so demeaning.

  4. Gyges,

    I’ll have to admit that is a gap in my Twain education. I take it that it (like most Twain) is worth investigating?

  5. BIL,

    Have you ever read that great classic of Twain’s “Letters From Earth?”

  6. Oh wow, I get it! The Republican party:
    Men with fetishes trying to stop communism from sapping and impurifying everyone’s precious bodily fluids.
    Finally, it is all starting to make sense.

  7. [youtube=]

  8. Well we have a US Senator from Louisiana with a diaper fetish. I don’t think it is even hurting him in the polls. Not to bash men, but there seems to be a lot a weird ones out there. I don’t hear about women with all these fetishes.

  9. ECookie,

    Be very careful of people that come in dayglow green. You cab never know about the fetishes one has.

  10. Buddha,

    You’re falling into the fallacy of radioactive dating – every good creationist knows that dates that come from radioactive decay aren’t valid. And of course the mice are to blame, after all, they’re the ones who had the Earth built…

  11. Slarti,

    Think of the Permian, man! What killed them and left their fake bones all about?

    And don’t tell me, “He who smelt it, dealt it” either.

    Blaming it on the mice, however, is perfectly acceptable.

  12. Mike Appleton,

    This was probably one of the most concise statements that I have read on here.

  13. Buddha said:

    “…making fake dinosaurs…”. James already noted that the Chicxulub impactor hit the dinosaur ark (the resulting explosion must have scattered the fossils around the world…).

    Mike A.,

    I don’t know (and frankly don’t care) about anti-evolution being injurious to religion, but I’m worried about the potential damage to science in our nation if people continue thinking that they can pick and choose what science they will believe and what they wont. It doesn’t work that way – if you choose to believe in science then you’ve got to abide by the results whether you like them or not. To say that an unopposed mountain of scientific evidence is wrong (search a research database for the term ‘evolution’ and see how many papers you find) while enjoying the benefits of the technology that science made possible (say by commenting on a blog post) is hypocritical.

  14. So, to recap, God loves us all so much He wants to trick us into disbelief and Q.E.D. into sending ourselves to Hell – a punishment His “loved ones” could have avoided if He’d just pick up the phone or show up on The Daily Show. But nooooooooooooo. He’s busy maintaining baryonic matter and still makes the time to run around making fake dinosaurs and appearing on toast and mildewed ceilings.

    Well then.

    That explains everything.

  15. Steve,

    I put up a website, with a blatant and deliberate error on it, knowing that people would read it and take it for the truth. I tell a small percentage of the people that will read the site about the error.

    Is there a deception?

  16. Steve von Maas, I have no desire to ridicule you or your beliefs. I will observe, however, that the treatment of the Bible as a combined history and science textbook is largely a modernist reaction to the work of Charles Darwin. Biblical literalism was not a tenet of traditional Christian theology and advances in the tools and methods of biblical scholarship over the last fifty years have rendered literalism even less defensible. Furthermore, the truth of evolution most assuredly provides no basis for a believer to conclude that God has somehow “deceived” anyone. The real tragedy is that way too many fundamentalist pastors with way too little education have managed to convince trusting people that religion and science are incompatible systems. The consequence has been injurious to both religion and science. There is no “sin” in the acceptance of evolution. But the enforced dumbing down of an entire generation of young people in the interests of preserving a false and fraudulent evangelical theology is a very grievous wrong indeed.

Comments are closed.