[LibWhacker]

It's very hard to dispute the evidence that we were clobbered by a very large impactor 65 million years ago, or that the implications for life would have been catastrophic. The only question is how catastrophic. There is no doubt at all that 70% of all species were wiped out.

Personally, when it comes to describing the physical effects of such a collision, such as broiling hot skies, sulphurous emissions, the release of vast quantities of carbon dioxide, etc., I prefer to listen to the physicists and geologists who know something about the subject, and NOT fossilists whose understanding of physics often doesn't even rise to the sophomore level. Their professional jealousy is obvious and rather pitiful; they should not allow it to get in the way of good science, but do.

However, when it comes to describing the fossil record of the extinction, how long it took, which species disappeared, etc., then I admit I would prefer to listen to the palaentologists (to the extent that their version of things does not contradict the hard physical evidence). They make many excellent points it seems to me. But their endless tantrums don't make it easy.

The debate is interesting and important. I just wish palaentologists would stop acting like a bunch of spoiled, pouting, foot-stomping brats. They had their century-long chance -- and then some -- at explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs but never even came close.

[William Terrell]

Yes, but the fact is that, like all events and conditions millions of years ago, we have objects that can be seen as evidence and can mean what we think it means. I believe it's a conceit to think we can have anything but a very foggy fringe idea of time periods so long gone and covered, much less which caused what to happen.

They're all entertaining stories and mind puzzles, but there they stop.