I continue to be amazed how any news group discussion invariably degenerates
into a bunch of name calling, semi-flame wars (sometimes actual flame wars),
and a bunch of silly abuse.

Meteorites, asteroids, and comets might leave trace elements (like iridium),
but there is ample evidence for massive volcanic action (such as the deccan
traps), and given plate tectonics and the separation of the continents from
Panagea, we could reasonably hypothesize truly intense earthquakes at times
in earth's history. I am not a geologist, but I suspect there are earthquake
signatures that could be found and dated which would support massive
earthquakes.

This thread started, however, with the assertion that perhaps the dinosaurs
were killed off by a huge tsunami. The question then becomes, could any
truly huge tsunami (or even a series of huge tsunami), regardless of the
cause, do sufficient damage world-wide to kill off the dinosaurs (recalling
that dino fauna have been found in South America, in the arctic, in the
American west, in Australia, etc.) Right off the bat, it doesn't seem
plausible.

e.




"Wally AngleseaT" wrote in
message ...
On 31 Dec 2004 23:27:20 -0800, "don findlay" wrote:


Wally AngleseaT wrote:
On 31 Dec 2004 18:09:52 -0800, "don findlay"
wrote:

Meteorite impacts leave evidence, like trace elements in the right
places, and at the right "depths". Earthquakes don't.


LIPS over millions of years are are "not evidence", but trace elements
on Tuesday are?? Is this the logic we're up against, Commander?
This encounter will be difficult.

There's a **** more evidence for meteorites than your silly
"Inflatable Earth" theory.

Sorry about that.

--
Maj. General, Fanatic Legions.
Commander of Southern Hemisphere Forces.

Find out about Australia's most dangerous Doomsday Cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm