Re: New date for Chicxulub?

[Tommy Tyrberg <tommy.tyrberg@norrkoping.mail.telia.com>]

At 15:44 2006-04-06, David Marjanovic wrote:
> > The above claim that the data in support of a direct relationship between
> > the spherules and the iridium layer "doesn't make sense" seems much ado
> > about nothing.
>
> Better yet: The GSA abstract doesn't mention any radiometric dating. So 
> when there are several spherule layers plus the boundary spread over 10 m, 
> why can't they all (except the lowest), including the boundary, be reworked?


Or even more likely the whole ensemble formed in something more like 300 
minutes than 300,000 years. This seems to be yet another case of chronic 
gradualism. It seems that many geologists simply cannot conceive that near 
a 200 km impact crater in the hours after the impact sediments might *not* 
settle out slowly and peacefully in neat stratigraphic order.

It is worth noting that outside the Caribbean area nobody has ever found 
any trace of "multiple impacts" or that the impact layer is 10 meters below 
the K-T boundary.

Tommy Tyrberg