PDA

View Full Version : Time is relative for CNN if it gets more attention



beskeptical
2002-Jun-28, 07:32 AM
According to this article, http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/27/ancient.rainforest.ap/index.html, the Earth recovered "surprisingly soon" after the asteroid of 65 million years ago instead of taking 10 million years as previous evidence had indicated.

But when you read further, newly discovered fossils indicate some large scale recovery only a mere 1.4 million years after the catastrophe.

Later in the article the implied timeline changes to "life immediately following the dinosaur extinction".

I guess "surprisingly soon" and "immediate" made a more comprehendable time frame for folks who get lost when too many zeros are attached to the numbers. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif Or maybe it gets more attention when those pesky scientists are wrong again.

Then again, maybe I'm too cynical. Perhaps it's just CNN's way of making that dry old science a little more readable for the general public.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: beskeptical on 2002-06-28 03:46 ]</font>

xriso
2002-Jun-29, 07:47 AM
On 2002-06-28 03:32, beskeptical wrote:
According to this article, http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/06/27/ancient.rainforest.ap/index.html, the Earth recovered "surprisingly soon" after the asteroid of 65 million years ago instead of taking 10 million years as previous evidence had indicated.

But when you read further, newly discovered fossils indicate some large scale recovery only a mere 1.4 million years after the catastrophe.

Later in the article the implied timeline changes to "life immediately following the dinosaur extinction".

I guess "surprisingly soon" and "immediate" made a more comprehendable time frame for folks who get lost when too many zeros are attached to the numbers. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif Or maybe it gets more attention when those pesky scientists are wrong again.


Well, it is quite amazing when you think about what happened. Tons of life wiped out, and then *boom* you get a whole bunch of new life-forms showing up pretty quickly. I think the Cambrian Explosion was more amazing, though.

David Hall
2002-Jun-29, 03:42 PM
Well, whaddayaknow. Castle Rock Colorado. I used to live in Castle Rock. Right next to the rock in fact, when I was in junior high school. My brother and I used to go climbing all over it whenever we had free time.

Didn't see any evidence of prehistoric rainforests though. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

nebularain
2002-Jun-29, 04:16 PM
Well, scientifically speaking, the past is still an unfinished mystery, and we have only so many pieces to the entire puzzle to work out an explanation with. Each new piece that is found is going to either enhance or somehow alter the picture we perceive it to be. Sometimes, even, errors are found in the new piece and it has to be re-adjusted. Give it some time. Further studies or discoveries may either refute or confirm this new finding. Enjoy the unfolding mystery!