Even if you are a skeptic, it is still very well written. [img]smile.gif[/img] Some extracts below the link.

Incoming

Interesting that there should be a boundary in the article named after me. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Ah but no-one things of the tiny tree ddwelling animals that may have been crushed by the big space object! When didn't he mention the tree dwelling animals? Who knows, seen as it was such a remote area there might of been a tree dwelling animal that lived there that no-one has ever seen before. But now I suppose no-one will ever know cause it's all flat and dead under a rock, not even fit for Uncle Billy Bob's famous road-kill-stew.

Heh, thank you Evil Al, it is nice to see someone thinking outside the box. The same reasoning stands for the question asked of students. "If a tree falls in the forest and no human sees it, did it really fall"? Your darned tootin it did. The animals who dwell nearby definately saw it, not to mention those who may have made their residence in that tree, or in the surrounding trees and local vegetation. Not to mention, those who were disturbed or possiby crushed under the tree when it fell. Then there is of course the insect who thrive in the area. I wonder why my instructors disapproved when I said that to state that "It is the epitome of human arrogance to declare that because no human saw the tree fall, that it did not indeed fall, we did not see the origins of the universe, yet we know indeed that there was an origin even though we did not see it. The microscopic and sub atomic didn't suddenly pop into existence just because we finally saw them. I could go on and on"! Nope for some reason they didn't appreciate me thinking outside the box at all. .