Re: A bolide did it! No... not really.

["David Marjanovic" <david.marjanovic@gmx.at>]

I hope I don't start a meta-discussion, but...

> >> I often think that the theory... the need... for impacts [...] has
become such an effective cloud of judgment, that other, more viable
alternatives [...] are gingerly tossed aside as support for *The
Impact-Induced Event*, no matter how circumstantial that support may be, is
sought out with an almost religious fervor, and when found, is taken as
evidence after the fact for an already foregone conclusion. <<
>
> > Hey, hey. No ad homines "arguments", please. :-) <
>
> Hey, hey. That isn't an *ad homines* argument. I see the viewing of it as
being one the adoption of a defensive posture. :-)

It is an ad homines argument, because instead of pointing out the
circumstantial support, in other words instead of discussing the evidence,
you discuss the people who (fail to?) interpret it. This, however, can never
be an argument against a hypothesis. That it's bombastic doesn't
automatically mean that it's wrong. :-)

(For the record... I don't have much of an opinion about what happened in
the 6th century. Some direct evidence for an impact would be nice, but is
certainly more difficult to find than direct evidence for a volcanic
eruption. On the K-T, you know my opinion. :-) )