Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8733 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-23-2017 2:09 AM
405 online now:
Dawn Bertot, Dr Adequate, GDR, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), XJTA (6 members, 399 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: timtak
Upcoming Birthdays: OnlyCurious
Post Volume:
Total: 801,831 Year: 6,437/21,208 Month: 2,198/2,634 Week: 386/572 Day: 3/99 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
10Next
Author Topic:   Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?
vimesey
Member
Posts: 779
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1 of 137 (722254)
03-19-2014 9:36 AM


I was reading an article about the recent research into a double asteroid impact in Sweden some 458 million years ago, and it got me thinking.

We have a couple of clocks which we can look at to confirm a non-YEC solar system - the moon and the earth.

The moon has around 300,000 craters with diameters of 1km or more, which are visible to telescopes on the earth. Presumably, someone, somewhere is counting how many of these craters are formed over a period of time (or at least could do). In order for YEC's 6,000 year timeframe to be correct, there would need to be around 50 one-mile craters formed, on average, each year, to account for the 300,000 we now see. Now, I haven't done the research, but I will bet whatever a YEC likes, that any such research will definitely not show asteroid impacts creating one mile craters in the moon every week or so. Does anyone know if such research exists ?

As for the earth, I read on Wiki that the earth has been struck at least 60 times by objects of a diameter of 3 miles or more. That is one heck of a fender bender ! (Apparently, the largest nuclear explosion we've created had a yield of 50 megatons. These little beauties yield an impressive ten million megatons each !) Some of them are so big they led to mass extinctions, worldwide winters etc. These are the sorts of bumps that can't go un-noticed in some remote corner of the planet - the one in Tunguska only had an estimated yield of 10-15 megatons. No, we're talking about the big mamas here.

So if we've had 60 in the past 6,000 years in earth, that's one every hundred years or so. That would be a jaw dropper of an exciting experience on our world, wouldn't it ? We'd have the history books brimming with exciting accounts of regular and major catastrophes, which mankind miraculously survives. Except we haven't, have we ?

(I'll be generous and concede that the sort of tsunami that one of these babies would create if it landed in the Mediterranean, could conceivably be mistaken for a worldwide flood, but that still leaves you with 59 to find, in the last 6,000 years).

Have YECers ever had a go at explaining these, does anyone know ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:36 PM vimesey has responded
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 9:12 AM vimesey has responded

    
Admin
Director
Posts: 12389
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 2 of 137 (722256)
03-19-2014 9:55 AM


Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Thread copied here from the Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.
    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 137 (722259)
03-19-2014 11:17 AM


Jorge on TWeb says they aren't impact craters, they're volcanic calderas. Don't expect YEC "explanations" to make any sense.
Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by vimesey, posted 03-19-2014 11:45 AM JonF has not yet responded

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 779
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 4 of 137 (722261)
03-19-2014 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by JonF
03-19-2014 11:17 AM


Yeah, it's funny how the moon, that well-known hotbed of volcanic activity, could have produced calderas, evenly distributed across its entire surface, none of which (when being formed) destroyed any of the calderas in near proximity to them ;-)

Still, they're circular, and look a bit like calderas, so it's probably enough to convince Jorge's average reader.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by JonF, posted 03-19-2014 11:17 AM JonF has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Faith, posted 03-21-2014 4:02 AM vimesey has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 5 of 137 (722267)
03-19-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by vimesey
03-19-2014 9:36 AM


Origin of asteroids in the Flood
My first thought when I saw this thread was something connected with the Flood (I had heard there was some sort of connection but I've never studied it so didn't know what), so I pictured the upheaval of the Flood also affecting the Solar System somehow, maybe an exploding planet was involved etc., and its debris crashed into Earth as well as the Moon and whatever planets have craters. This would imply a blizzard of asteroid impacts in a relatively short time, then, not some kind of periodic crashing of asteroids over millions of years. Turns out the mass of the asteroids wouldn't even add up to our Moon, so it wasn't an exploding planet.

I just googled this subject and found quite a bit of creationist thinking on the source of asteroids: Google "Asteroids Creationism"

I found one creationist website attributing the origin of the asteroids to Earth itself, specifically to what is described as a very explosive opening of the "fountains of the deep" as mentioned in the Bible, shooting rock into space. Here's a discussion of that theory

I've read some of the article but not enough to have a very clear idea of it. Just wondering what you'll all say about it.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by vimesey, posted 03-19-2014 9:36 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 03-19-2014 3:36 PM Faith has responded
 Message 10 by vimesey, posted 03-20-2014 7:50 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 16 by Diomedes, posted 03-20-2014 11:18 AM Faith has responded
 Message 18 by Dr Adequate, posted 03-20-2014 12:28 PM Faith has responded
 Message 23 by saab93f, posted 03-20-2014 3:13 PM Faith has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 6014
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 6 of 137 (722280)
03-19-2014 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
03-19-2014 1:36 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
I've read some of the article but not enough to have a very clear idea of it. Just wondering what you'll all say about it.

It seems that we are running into the same basic problems that your other posts have. You think that phrases which start with "I consider" or "I picture" somehow have the same weight as evidence from the real world. If I said, "I consider the moon to be made of green cheese," will this magically turn the moon into green cheese?

When you start to use these phrases, just stop and go back to square one. Keep working on it until you have phrases that start with, "This evidence demonstrates", or "the evidence is consistent with this mechanism".

To get back to your post, what evidence supports your stories?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:36 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 11:19 PM Taq has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 7 of 137 (722303)
03-19-2014 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Taq
03-19-2014 3:36 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
I don't have a position on the view I referenced, thought perhaps others here might. The point is mainly that the view presented earlier in this thread as the creationist view isn't representative. If nobody has an opinion then nobody has an opinion, but the creationist view appears to be something other than previously presented.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Taq, posted 03-19-2014 3:36 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2014 11:51 PM Faith has responded
 Message 24 by Taq, posted 03-20-2014 3:27 PM Faith has responded

    
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5540
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 8 of 137 (722307)
03-19-2014 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Faith
03-19-2014 11:19 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
I don't have a position on the view I referenced, thought perhaps others here might. The point is mainly that the view presented earlier in this thread as the creationist view isn't representative. If nobody has an opinion then nobody has an opinion, but the creationist view appears to be something other than previously presented.

If you have taught us nothing else, you have taught us that there is no single creationist view (although there is a dominant creationist method).

In terms of view, there is only that which sounds good to the particular creationist stating his/her view, and this is subject to change at any time for any, or no, reason.

The criteria seem to be: 1) the view must conform to the creationist's often unique interpretation of the bible/scripture/dogma, 2) the view must sound good to the creationist involved, and 3) no real world evidence is needed. The goal is not necessarily to convince others, but to reinforce the creationist's personal beliefs.

I'm sure you won't agree with this, but this is what I have seen in a lot of threads on several different websites. Creationists are doing religious apologetics, the exact opposite of science. But they have to try and convince themselves that their views are supported by science because science has a reputation for accuracy and they want to associate themselves with that even if it means destroying science in the process.

So, with regard to the moon and the asteroids, I have no doubt that YEC creationists will come up with a way that all of the impacts happened within a YEC framework, no matter how silly the reasoning or how far the facts have to be stretched.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" does not include the American culture. That is what it is against.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 11:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 03-20-2014 1:36 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 23953
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 9 of 137 (722312)
03-20-2014 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
03-19-2014 11:51 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
That Google page seems to suggest that the Flood as the source of the asteroids is a pretty representative creationist viewpoint although there may be variations. Volcanoes on the moon is not even hinted at.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 03-19-2014 11:51 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by JonF, posted 03-20-2014 8:01 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 779
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 10 of 137 (722314)
03-20-2014 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Faith
03-19-2014 1:36 PM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
I found one creationist website attributing the origin of the asteroids to Earth itself, specifically to what is described as a very explosive opening of the "fountains of the deep" as mentioned in the Bible, shooting rock into space. Here's a discussion of that theory

Let's start with that one. I've had a look at your link, and done some pretty basic reading around on this sort of topic. You've got some fairly basic problems with this sort of scenario. First off, we haven't seen anything remotely like this on earth - no rocks being shot with sufficient velocity from an initial single impetus, to make it into space (let alone escape earth's gravity thereafter). You're into pure speculation.

Secondly, the sorts of energy required to do this (given the gravity the earth produces, and the effects of friction from our atmosphere), would result in the disintegration and vaporization of any rocks which were subject to such energies, long before they even got out of our atmosphere, let alone reached the moon.

And even ignoring the disintegration problem, given the sorts of energy that would be needed to produce enough projectiles to create nearly 300,000 meteor strikes on the moon, as a result of such an explosion, we would be talking about a global catastrophe which would make a 40 day flood with sunshine and olive branches at the end of it, seem like a short spring shower. You're probably looking (at least) at the equivalent of hundreds of simultaneous super volcano eruptions - and just one of those would likely result in the ejection of enough sulphur into the atmosphere to cool global temperatures by 10 degrees for a decade. That's just one of them.

The problem you face with speculation, along these lines, is that you really need to think through all of the consequences of the scenario. The more you do that, the more you realise just how unlikely the speculation is, when compared with solid, tested, scientific theories, well-founded in evidence.


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Faith, posted 03-19-2014 1:36 PM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2014 4:09 AM vimesey has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3483
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 11 of 137 (722316)
03-20-2014 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
03-20-2014 1:36 AM


Re: Origin of asteroids in the Flood
Very few creationists believe Walt Brown's hydropants fantasy. He's so loony even the loonies think he's loony.

Waltie's asteroid fantasy is probably the stupidest of all YEC fantasies, and that's really saying something. His idea of how the asteroids migrated to their current position is laughable, requiring several Earth-volumes of water to be moved from the Earth into space, and totally ignoring a bigger issue of getting the asteroid orbits into the plane of the Solar system. The latter takes lots of energy applied perpendicularly to the asteroid's orbit.

(His original fantasy was just water shooting out and adding to the fludde. Glenn Morton pointed out that he, an earned PhD in mechanical engineering from MIT, had forgotten his basic thermodynamics. The water would have shot out as superheated steam at greater than escape velocity. So Waltie invented his asteroid fantasy to save his original fantasy. Of course he did so silently without admitting errror.)

But it does go to show that Coyote is right; YEC's, especially you, will buy anything that sounds good without any thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 03-20-2014 1:36 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9313
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 12 of 137 (722319)
03-20-2014 9:12 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by vimesey
03-19-2014 9:36 AM


Could asteroids lead to the extinction of YECism ?

I am sure you know the answer to this question is no. There is no fact, however blatantly obvious and however contrary to the description in Genesis, that a YEC cannot deny, explain away, or claim to be instead evidence in support of his beliefs.

Evidence that Genesis 1 and are not a description of our origins is available almost everywhere we look. This has been the state of things for over 350 years. A lot of it was turned up by Christians doing astronomy, geology, biology, etc. None of it convinces that special believer in the literal Bible worship that is the essence of the YEC.

Maintaining belief in the face of the evidence is itself a merit badge for some of the faithful. Some YECs, (not going to name you, DT, Z, MS) come here just to earn such credit. But for most YECs, Creation science is just a lark.

And if nothing else works, YEC can recite the following before praying for those people with Fallen brains:

quote:
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

or Job 5:13, or Proverbs 14:8, or 1 Corinthians 1:20, or James 3:15:

quote:
James 3:15

Such "wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic.



Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by vimesey, posted 03-19-2014 9:36 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by vimesey, posted 03-20-2014 10:15 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 779
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 13 of 137 (722320)
03-20-2014 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by NoNukes
03-20-2014 9:12 AM


Well, the title of the thread is more of a play on words rather than any expectation (or even hope).

It does strike me, though, from the Cosmos and Nye threads, that there does seem to be a bit of an uplift in science's fight for the public's understanding. Maybe there is some small hope :-)


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NoNukes, posted 03-20-2014 9:12 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2014 10:36 AM vimesey has responded

    
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2687
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 14 of 137 (722321)
03-20-2014 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by vimesey
03-20-2014 10:15 AM


Asteroids are real and what they do is real.

We already know the effect that reality has on creationists; ie, none.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by vimesey, posted 03-20-2014 10:15 AM vimesey has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by vimesey, posted 03-20-2014 11:12 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
vimesey
Member
Posts: 779
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 15 of 137 (722323)
03-20-2014 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by dwise1
03-20-2014 10:36 AM


Nil desperandum though !

There's always a fence sitter or two to save ! :-)


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by dwise1, posted 03-20-2014 10:36 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
1
23456
...
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017