|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Well, water is sprayed on dry dirt in dry parts of the country to keep down dust storms from building project areas. Same principle. Wet dust more likely to stay put than travel far in the atmosphere. Leaving aside the gigantic hits that would incinerate everything on earth according to Randy's calculations Landing in deep water, especially at an oblique angle will reduce ejecta but it puts lots of steam into the atmosphere.
Message 85, the idea is that even if the heat is so enormous that no amount of water can affect it, and it causes steam and other heat effects, still those effects would be confined to a limited area, and the cool water both in ocean and atmosphere (which even after the rain stopped must have been full of moisture) surrounding the hit area would cool things. Yes I know climate is a worldwide system, but I see no reason to expect a lethal climate change or a long-lasting one. You are missing the point. The steam goes into the atmosphere radiating heat in all directions. For the steam to condense and fall as rain it must release its latent heat of vaporization. Each gram of water that condenses will release enough heat to heat 333 grams of air by one degree.
Intensity of what? Randy has the right idea but I don't think he did it right neverthless -- take the known craters and calculate the intensities involved. But since we AREN'T burnt to a crisp and Noah's ark DIDN'T get parboiled, aim to calculate for what would allow for the YEC scenario to be true -- scatter the hits over the next two or three millennia, most intense at first and slowing down over time. We aren’t burned to a crisp and Noah’s ark didn’t get parboiled because the impacts that left the craters we see were spread out over 2 billion years and those that occurred during the heavy lunar bombardment were 3.6-4 billion ago. If these hits were scatter over the next 2 or 3 millennia after the flood don’t you think someone would have noticed at least some of them?
NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE HIT, but at whatever distance the heat meets the cool of the ocean and the atmosphere, which would be determined by the size of the hit, and the water-soaked world of the FLood SHOULD, it seems to me, have some effect in reducing the expected global effect that everybody is predicting by SOME measurable degree. Not with so many hitting in such a short time.
One of the ones that is KNOWN to have hit earth? Why wasn't ALL life incinerated by it? Why is there no evidence of such incineration? That would kill a lot more than the dinosaurs. We shouldn't even be here to talk about it. When the Vredefort strike occurred 2 billion years ago there was no air breathing life to incinerate but even then it would not have. It is not any single one that would cook everything, it is cramming them all into a short time frame. Of course there would have been impacts that would have cooked nearly all life if there had been life during the heavy lunar bombardment.
Again, you are calculating such devastating effects that it isn't just the Flood scenario but the whole evolution scenario you are defeating. Nothing could live through that, not a primitive plant, not a dinosaur, and nothing else higher in the evo chain than a creepy crawly, and even they should have a hard time in the suffocating incinerating atmosphere you are describing. During the lunar bombardment there was no complex life. When the Vredefort object hit in South Africa there was no air breathing life. Again, it is not any one of known strikes that is the problem but cramming them into a short time frame.
I doubt the lunar bombardment of earth. It's all hypothetical and there is no actual direct evidence for it. Why should I believe it? Look at the moon. How do you think all those craters got there? There are 1,700 more that 20 km in diameter and the largest, the South Pole Atkins basin crater is 1,300 miles in diameter. How would the earth have escaped a massive bombardment when al this happened? The earth has 81 times more mass and thus gravitational attraction than the moon. It could not have escaped a massive bombardment even if you don’t dare to believe it.
Unless of course it was far enough away to be unaffected, and if there was nowhere on earth to be "far enough away" then your scenario would kill all life anyway, thus causing a big problem for that fossil record that shows a lot of living things that didn't get blasted away but were apparently buried alive. Have you been paying attention? Look at the earth impact database again and then consider the energies again. We are talking about more than 100 strikes that left craters of 4 km or more in diameter with energies ranging from a million times the Hiroshima Bomb to billions of times the energy of the A-Bomb. If start putting them after the flood then you have to explain why no one noticed their effects which at least in the case of the 15 largest would have had worldwide effects. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I just can't get a break, can I? no, not when you keep this sort of attitude:
If you'd just think a little you'd save a lot of time and thread space. you made the mistake, not me. i was just correcting you.
Yes I am looking for deceit. That's because for years I accepted this kind of mind-twisting report. Now I don't let it get me, I aim to get it first. you obviously know very, very little about actual astronomy and geology (and chemistry) which are the fields involved in this. critique and taking potshots at a news article instead of what it's reporting doesn't help your case. it's JUST a news article. half the time people reporting on science stories don't understand it themselves. you can't expect them to be gospel.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I'm saying that hitting deep underwater it isn't going to have the same aftereffects it would have if it hit on land, the huge dust cloud in the atmosphere all over the earth for instance. as the tunguska event demonstrated rather clearly (or hazily, as the case may be) atmospheric clouding happens in part on the way down. the things still vaporizes rock when it hits. and it still would eject material (meaning LARGE chunks of rock) much higher than most mountain ranges. i'll let someone with the formulas tell you how high, exactly. water is not going to affect a 6-mile asteroid much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 979 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
We keep hearing about this 'deep' water - has any creationist ever said how deep this water got? How did they reach this conclusion - what's the evidence?
I mean if the land was flat as a pancake, as many YECs suggest, the water could have been 50 feet deep and cover the planet. That's not a whole lotta cushion to soften an astroid impact. But I suppose this is one of those annoying scientific trivialities that YECs don't want to bother with. 'Deep' means deep - they don't need a number attached to it to know the water was deep.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
water is not going to affect a 6-mile asteroid much. NOT the asteroid, the atmosphere!!!! And not in one year, over a few millennia, decreasing in numbers over time. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 01:03 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Supposedly there was Pangaea, right? The ark should have been somewhere in the middle of it, or at least landed it there, in the area of what is now the Middle East somewhere -- the location isn't definite apparently as "Ararat's" location is disputed.
The rest of the globe was ocean -- how deep, who knows? But there is some idea it deepened quite a bit, the ocean floor dropped, during the Flood, as the "fountains of the deep" were emptied from beneath. A possibility. The land is supposed not to have been "flat as a pancake," but neither were there very high mountains such as we have now. The water "prevailed upward 15 cubits and covered the mountains" which means the water MAY have been only about some 40-50 feet deep over the lower areas of the land. All of this is guesswork. The idea isn't to "cushion the impact," the idea is to keep down the atmospheric dust and debris which is the main killer according to the theories. During the rain period the atmosphere would be very wet, and after the rain stopped, a water-covered planet would still have a very wet atmosphere and all that water ought to have some cooling effect to the extent at least of helping to limit the total area of these effects. But if not, then not. And we are not talking about all of them hitting in one year but over a few millennia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Did you look at the pics?
EvC Forum: Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years There have been at least 2 asteroid impacts of the magnitude portraid in those images durring earths long history. If, as you suggest, they happend durring Noahs time, don't you think he would have noticed? Look at the size of the objects in question, and then respond.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
The idea isn't to "cushion the impact," the idea is to keep down the atmospheric dust and debris which is the main killer according to the theories. During the rain period the atmosphere would be very wet, and after the rain stopped, a water-covered planet would still have a very wet atmosphere and all that water ought to have some cooling effect to the extent at least of helping to limit the total area of these effects. It is not clear that you understand what the "dust" is. Could you describe where you think the dust comes from and what it consists of? You also don't understand that the only way for the water to cool anything is for it to heat up. By how much?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
You also don't understand that the only way for the water to cool anything is for it to heat up. By how much? Very good point! Faith, you do realize that heat dosn't just 'disapere', it has to go somewhere? The reason water cools things is because it is a good conductor of heat. The water 'absorbs' the heat and then passes it on to the air and so on. So, if a comet of the magnitude in question hit the earth, all the water present on the ENTIRE earth would not be enugh to cool things down sufficiently in the time required.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Supposedly there was Pangaea, right? The ark should have been somewhere in the middle of it, or at least landed it there, in the area of what is now the Middle East somewhere -- the location isn't definite apparently as "Ararat's" location is disputed. There was a Pangea It started breaking up about 220 million years ago. If it broke up after the flood and the continents moved to their current positions in a few thousand years the new seafloor and lithosphere that would have formed would have cooked the earth to death many times over before cooling to their present temperatures but that is not the point of this thread. In any case if you look at the map you will see that what is now the middle east was near the global ocean and not in the middle of Pangea.
The rest of the globe was ocean -- how deep, who knows? But there is some idea it deepened quite a bit, the ocean floor dropped, during the Flood, as the "fountains of the deep" were emptied from beneath. A possibility. There was a global ocean but it was long ago and it didn't cover Pangea.
The land is supposed not to have been "flat as a pancake," but neither were there very high mountains such as we have now. The water "prevailed upward 15 cubits and covered the mountains" which means the water MAY have been only about some 40-50 feet deep over the lower areas of the land. All of this is guesswork. Why make guesses about something that clearly never happened?
The idea isn't to "cushion the impact," the idea is to keep down the atmospheric dust and debris which is the main killer according to the theories. The "dust" we are taling is melted and fragment asteroid and crustal material that is blown into the atmosphere on impact.
During the rain period the atmosphere would be very wet, and after the rain stopped, a water-covered planet would still have a very wet atmosphere and all that water ought to have some cooling effect to the extent at least of helping to limit the total area of these effects. Are you back to saying that most of them happened during the "flood year"? Otherwise the larger ones would surely have been noticed by the "post flood" people who did keep a lot of written records after all and meteorite "dust" should be found by archeologists.
But if not, then not. Oh, now you are back to having them after the flood. So there would have been no global ocean or rainy atmosphere to keep the "dust" down and it should have been noticed and we should find it. So which is it? And we are not talking about all of them hitting in one year but over a few millennia. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Landing in deep water, especially at an oblique angle will reduce ejecta but it puts lots of steam into the atmosphere. Great, calculate for least ejecta.
You are missing the point. The steam goes into the atmosphere radiating heat in all directions. For the steam to condense and fall as rain it must release its latent heat of vaporization. Each gram of water that condenses will release enough heat to heat 333 grams of air by one degree. This happened when the earth was covered with water and the atmosphere heavy with moisture. If it makes no difference, fine. At least Noah was quite a distance from any big hit.
We aren’t burned to a crisp and Noah’s ark didn’t get parboiled because the impacts that left the craters we see were spread out over 2 billion years and those that occurred during the heavy lunar bombardment were 3.6-4 billion ago. If these hits were scatter over the next 2 or 3 millennia after the flood don’t you think someone would have noticed at least some of them? Not necessarily. Depends on where they landed. The world population was concentrated in the area of the Middle East for a long period, and very few meteors landed in the Middle East according to the chart -- one in Saudi Arabia, a few in Libya, a few in Kazakhstan and Ukraine. All in the area where anyone would have seen them could have happened within a few centuries of the Flood, before the population had grown much and expanded much geographically. The population expanded in all directions over the next couple of millennia but we have no written reports of their moves and experiences. Those who crossed the land bridge to the Americas might have witnessed some meteoric events but they didn't leave a written report.
NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE HIT, but at whatever distance the heat meets the cool of the ocean and the atmosphere, which would be determined by the size of the hit, and the water-soaked world of the FLood SHOULD, it seems to me, have some effect in reducing the expected global effect that everybody is predicting by SOME measurable degree. ===== Not with so many hitting in such a short time. Over a few millennia?
One of the ones that is KNOWN to have hit earth? Why wasn't ALL life incinerated by it? Why is there no evidence of such incineration? That would kill a lot more than the dinosaurs. We shouldn't even be here to talk about it. = = = === When the Vredefort strike occurred 2 billion years ago there was no air breathing life to incinerate but even then it would not have. It is not any single one that would cook everything, it is cramming them all into a short time frame. Of course there would have been impacts that would have cooked nearly all life if there had been life during the heavy lunar bombardment. There is no actual evidence of this lunar bombardment. The surface of the earth does not even hint at such an event. Most of the earth's craters may have been formed at the same time the moon was getting cratered. Sometimes calculations simply don't have all the variables. ALL this is hypothetical.
Look at the moon. How do you think all those craters got there? There are 1,700 more that 20 km in diameter and the largest, the South Pole Atkins basin crater is 1,300 miles in diameter. How would the earth have escaped a massive bombardment when al this happened? The earth has 81 times more mass and thus gravitational attraction than the moon. It could not have escaped a massive bombardment even if you don’t dare to believe it. I did look at the moon. Then look at the earth. I don't know how it escaped but there is NO evidence of such a bombardment just looking at it.
Unless of course it was far enough away to be unaffected, and if there was nowhere on earth to be "far enough away" then your scenario would kill all life anyway, thus causing a big problem for that fossil record that shows a lot of living things that didn't get blasted away but were apparently buried alive. ======= Have you been paying attention? Look at the earth impact database again and then consider the energies again. We are talking about more than 100 strikes that left craters of 4 km or more in diameter with energies ranging from a million times the Hiroshima Bomb to billions of times the energy of the A-Bomb. Which would kill far more than the fossil record suggests was killed, no? But anyway, scatter them over three or more millennia away from population areas. What's that, one every thirty years?
If start putting them after the flood then you have to explain why no one noticed their effects which at least in the case of the 15 largest would have had worldwide effects. Look, despite all your calculations you can't KNOW how any of this really happened in reality. ALL of it is hypothetical. There is no way to test your calculations to see if you are right, so there is no way to falsify your predictions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh, now you are back to having them after the flood. So there would have been no global ocean or rainy atmosphere to keep the "dust" down and it should have been noticed and we should find it. So which is it? I never DID have them all in the Flood year. I said they STARTED in the Flood year. Before I had time to think it all through others were saying I meant all in the Flood year. You can cut the nasties. This was "just a thought" at the beginning of this thread. I was not into debating it, it just happened. Yes you are right, many would not have occurred in the wet period. Maybe all the very big ones did. This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 01:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12993 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Rule 4 of the Forum Guidelines:
There won't be any other warnings, just immediate 24 hour suspensions of posting privileges.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 8996 From: Canada Joined: |
It has been pointed out that a few feet of mud, even 100's of feet isn't going to help. Why do you think it will?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024