a query from andy

How dinosaurs probably had sex. It's kinkier with feathers.

On Sunday mornings I try to swing by the T.M. location in the Carew Tower to grab some coffee. I tell customers that I don't drink much coffee, but I've been coming to realize that I drink far more coffee than I let on. When I close I have about two cups of coffee at The Anchor each morning, and when I open I'll often drink every half-decent espresso shot I pull while dialing in the espresso grinder. On weekends I come to see how much I rely on coffee, because my day feels sluggish without it. And so, come most Sundays, I make the trip down to Carew Tower for my iced soy mocha with a splash of vanilla. Andy was working, and as he made my drink he asked me what I had on the agenda for the day. I told him I planned on doing some catching-up on my blog, that it's already August 5 and I haven't posted anything this month, and he recommended a post idea. And you know what? I like Andy, so I'm running with it.

Query: "Is it possible that dinosaurs were really our ancient alien overlords, and we overthrew them using a magic meteor?" I pointed out that it was an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, as the impact residue is of that type, and he pointed out that it didn't matter if it was a comet or an asteroid, it was a meteor the moment it breached earth's stratosphere, so he was right after all. Bantering aside, his hypothesis is one that demands to be taken seriously (seeing as people will believe anything these days, and who can blame them?). It can't be proven to be true or false, not once the word "magic" gets thrown in. And even if you somehow wiggle in time travel and John Hammond, you've still got a time loop to deal with (Hammond creates dinosaurs off dinosaur DNA; Hammond goes back in time to let his dinosaurs loose in the otherwise boring Mesozoic; and then the dinosaurs let loose get bitten by big-ass mosquitoes which become encased in amber to be found by John Hammond). Is it possible that this hypothesis is correct? Depending on your slant with epistemology, it surely could be. Is it likely? Even plausible? As if that matters! If we can't really know anything for certain anyways, why not believe what you like the most? Why not just believe that which is the most awesome? If that were the ruler by which I measured my beliefs, I certainly would've become a die-hard premillennialist. All that Armageddon, End-of-the-World stuff is pretty awesome. What we can know, even with plausibility, and much less with certainty, has its limits; and if we're ready to concede those silly bits of creationism about dinosaurs and humans living together as legitimate science, then why can't any brand of pseudo-science be welcomed into the fold? Maybe if Andy advocates his views well enough, perhaps find some amateur paleontologist named Kenny Ham to be his wing-man and spokesperson, maybe Andy could even have his own museum one day?