Uncommon Commentary #17: Asteroid Asininity

The reason for the dinosaurs' extinction is not known and probably never will be; the explanation most in vogue nowadays, however, is the one that I consider the least plausible of all, viz., that our prehistoric friends died out because an asteroid or meteoroid (not "meteor" or "meteorite") or comet or something struck Earth. Many scientists have a disagreeable penchant for speaking on matters of conjecture as if all the facts were known (at least to them), and this habit is never more irritating than when they and others behave as if the cosmic-collision conceit had won universal acceptance. Proponents never address what I consider to be the obvious objection (to this and to most other alleged causes of "mass extinction"): Why would this putative cataclysm have caused the extinction of all archosaurs (dinosaurs and their reptilian relatives) except for the crocodilian lineage, along with toothed birds and the nautilus-like ammonoids, but not of the many species that survived into our time, the Cainozoic Era?

Some concrete evidence has actually been put forth in favor of the supposition that I'm doubting, although, notably, the supposition came first. This evidence is that "The PT Boundry [sic] contains large amounts of iridium--unnatural to the usual earth composition…" (http://periodic.lanl.gov/elements/77.html) This inadequate statement refers to 1) the Permian-Triassic Boundary, which marks the onset of the archosaur-dominated Mesozoic Era, and 2) an element often found in asteroids. Since the demise of the dinosaurs took place at the end of the Mesozoic, it had nothing to do with the event suggested by that unusual abundance of iridium, but perhaps it resulted from the same sort of occurrence (even though no similar discovery has been made concerning the strata laid down when the dinosaurs went extinct, which happened 65 million years ago, give or take a few weeks). Such speculation does not, however, answer the question that I've raised as to how this catastrophe could have been selective. A disaster that poisoned the atmosphere, for instance, would have effected the disappearance of air-breathing animals, but not of fish and other creatures that extract oxygen from the water; it's inconceivable that any kind of condition would leave the crocodylians unscathed but lead to the perishing of their closest relations. There may be key information that I am missing, but, if so, defenders of the theory are at fault for not providing it. Really the whole issue is a bogus one, since, after all, extinction is normal, and survival for many millions of years is not; that's why the term "living fossil" applies to an exception to this rule. Too many scientists, unfortunately, suffer from an intellectual hubris that won't permit them to concede that there's anything they don't know. Tempting as it might be to declare that iridium has solved the mystery, it's hard to avoid concluding that the asteroid-impact is a palæontological deus ex machina, serving not to quash ignorance but to disguise it.

Uncommon Commentary #16

I certainly have no opposition to voluntary consumption of nothing but vegetables, but it's different when vegetarians portray themselves as morally superior to those of us who also eat meat. In addition to being egoistic, their position is hypocritical; after all, plants may not move around like animals, but they are fellow living things nonetheless.

Uncommon Commentary #15: I Slam Islam?

Well, do I? The question is too complex to be answered with either "Yes" or "No." Despite the flippant wordplay in the title, this article is a serious examination of one of the critical issues of today.
I believe that Christ is (as He told us) the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and so I take issue with the Moslem tenet that He is not the Savior but merely one in a line of prophets ending with Mohammed. Although Islam doesn't have the whole truth, however, it also certainly is not completely wrong. Muslims, after all, worship the same god as do Christians and Jews; they just have some curious beliefs about Him, such as the notion that we please Him by murdering instead of converting unbelievers. Practitioners of Islam are required to pray to Allah (which is not the personal name of the Deity, but simply means "God"; it's related to the Hebrew "Elohim") several times each day and to give alms to the poor, among other good works. In accepting this monotheistic faith, the people of the Arabian Peninsula took a considerable stride forward, for they had previously been idolaters. Moslems join true (i.e., pro-life) Christians in opposing (induced) abortion, which is the worst evil that the world has ever seen. In the first half of the Seventh Century AD, the East Roman or "Byzantine" Empire inflicted a decisive defeat upon the Sassanid Empire, ending centuries of conflicts between the Christian Greeks and the Zoroastrian Persians; Mohammedan historians deemed it a victory for Truth versus falsehood.
Why, then, is militant Islam a threat to the entire world? How can Moslems say that theirs is a religion of peace, while raising their children to become suicide-bombers? In their avoidance of answering these questions boldly, whether this stems from an innately ineffectual temperament or from a desire not to antagonize any large number of their constituents, politicians like John Kerry accuse Islamist religious leaders (as he did a few months ago) of "misrepresenting a legitimate religion." The Senator's statement, alas, is itself a misrepresentation. The Qur'an (Koran), indeed, ostensibly prohibits violence, but it also, in five suras (chapters), enjoins that Moslems "wage war upon all those who do not accept the doctrines of Islam." (Jihad, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition) I don't begrudge Moslems their willingness to fight for their faith—I wish that most Christians took their nominal religion as seriously as do most Mohammedans—but the importance of the "jihad" concept goes beyond the mere fact that it's a doctrine of holy war. When some of Mohammed's earliest adherents carried out something that was much like a modern terrorist attack, namely, the massacre of a caravan of infidels, they had to deal with the paradox presented in the second sentence of this paragraph; fortunately for the assuaging of their consciences, this atrocity occurred during the lifetime of the man whom they considered a prophet, who reassured them that "It was not you who slew them, but Allah who slew them." (Rand McNally Historical Atlas of the World, p. 41) Along with this exculpation for what the faithful of other major religions would simply deem a war crime, there is a provision for automatic moral exoneration: "In the belief of Moslems every one of their number slain in a jihad is taken straight to paradise." (Jihad, ibid.) The implication is an extremely dangerous one, i.e., anyone who dies during a holy war, regardless of which or how many sins he's committed, is immediately absolved of them. One can therefore do evil throughout one's life, and then, while shouting something like "Allah akbar!" (God is great), close out that life with another act of evil, such as crashing an airplane into a building full of civilians, without ever feeling the slightest pang of guilt.
To me, what's worst about the current excesses of Islam is the prospect that they will bring discredit upon all religion. Finally, the answer to my question in the title of this commentary is that, regarding how to treat with the Moslems, nothing has really changed since the days of the Crusades and of the Caliphate; we must simply side with them when they do right, and oppose them when they do wrong.

Uncommon Commentary #14

Why should attempted murder be punished less severely than murder, thus effectively rewarding someone for having failed in his attempt to kill?

Uncommon Commentary #13

If "feminists" oppose sexual exploitation, why have they always done things to promote it, such as helping to launch the "sexual revolution?"

Uncommon Commentary #12: Atmos-Pheremongering

I think that simply because Al Gore has recast himself as a (false) prophet of ecological apocalypse—Yes, “recast”; who ever heard a word from Gore about ecology until it became the trendy cause of the 1990's?—people assume that he has expertise in the subject of alleged climate change; he has none, though. He's just a demagogue who realizes that the dispensing of alarmist propaganda reaps great rewards (for instance, the multiplication of his net monetary worth, since leaving office, from $2 million to $100 million) from those whose ignorance makes them susceptible to hysteria, and who thus listen to him rather than to the real experts, i.e., professional meteorologists and climatologists, among whom his view not only has not ended the debate over "global warming" (contrary to Al G.'s arrogant pronouncement to the US Congress), but is actually losing said debate.

Uncommon Commentary #11

During his "major speech on race," Barack Obama said: "I can no more disown him (his "spiritual mentor," Jeremiah Wright) than I can disown the Black community." Now that he has disowned Rev. Wrong, has he also disowned the "Black community?"