|
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 | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 724 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
and the surface of the earth does not resemble the craters of the moon.
Uh...Sir Robin/Faith? Have you noticed that we have air, water, tectonic plates, and erosion here on Earth? Or has that, too, escaped your notice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Don't misrepresent me. Obviously the meteor strikes happened. I just listed the actual facts in my previous post. There are few facts. The extrapolations from the facts, the very few facts, are what we are discussing. I also think if they are connected with teh Flood somehow, and I don't know, they occurred scattered over the next millennia, and the big ones, Australia, Yucatan, are far enough away from the human population of the earlier period to have avoided disastrous effects. I suppose the calculations have to be adjusted down a bit if it is thought they would wipe out all life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Uh...Sir Robin/Faith? Have you noticed that we have air, water, tectonic plates, and erosion here on Earth? Or has that, too, escaped your notice? Look at the pictures on the impact chart. The craters are visible despite all that effect, and they are few and far between by comparison with the moon's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Great, calculate for least ejecta.
I did this on an earlier thread.
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. He would have had to have been a very big distance from some of the hits and there were a lot of hits.
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. Some pretty big ones in Libya actually. When you look at the impact distribution map you see certain things.1. No craters are known in the oceans. 2. Few craters in areas of active mountain building 3. No craters in Antarctica 4. Few in jungle areas such as the Amazon Basin There is no reason that these areas should have been spared. There must have been many more craters that either have not been found or that have been obliterated by geologic processes.
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. When do you think the flood was? There were some fairly advanced civilizations in the Middle East, India and China by 2000 BC., 2500 BC in Egypt and Summeria. Its strange that they didn’t notice any of this.
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. 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. The evidence has been lost on earth because of geologic processes such as plate tectonics and erosion. The oldest sea floor is only 200 million years old and there is very little really ancient continental crust. Interestingly even YEC astronomers seem to accept the lunar bombardment, as this article in CRSQ makes clear. They just don’t acknowledge that it would have sterilized the earth.
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. We know certain things. There are many craters on earthSome of these impacts had tremendous energy There must have been many more that have not been found or were obliterated by geologic processes The moon suffered a heavy bombardment. The earth with its much stronger gravitational field would have suffered and even heavier bombardment (or do you think Newton’s law of universal gravitation is only hypothetical Either the early bombardment or the bombardment since then would have wiped out a 600 year old man in a big wooden boat full of animals if he had been floating around on a global ocean during even a fraction of the rain of destruction from the skies. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Look at the pictures on the impact chart. The craters are visible despite all that effect, and they are few and far between by comparison with the moon's. Right the craters that are visible must represent only a fraction of total impacts or the surface of the earth or it would look like the moon. Many of the craters on the moon were made more than 3.5 billion years ago and things have changed a lot since then on earth as I pointed out just above. The oldest surviving crater on earth is Vredefort which is 2 billion years old but it is the only one over a billion and there are very few that have survived more than 100 million years and of course any that fell in the oceans even recently would not have left a record and the surface area of the oceans is much higher than the exposed land. (Added in edit: By recently I mean in the last hundred million years or so: We would have noticed if a really big one had hit in the last few millennia. ) Randy This message has been edited by Randy, 05-27-2005 05:29 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 979 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
You are a joke. An absolute joke.
I gotta hand it to you, you may not know squat about the sciences of geology, chemistry, biology, or physics, but you are most assuredly an expert in the science of shit-flinging. When you fail to convince anyone with your tripe arguments, you start running away. Well run, chickie, it's that time again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FormalistAesthete Inactive Member |
The Bible says that the water was deep enough to cover the highest mountains to a depth of 15 cubits. Since the flood occurred after the 6 days of creation, this means that the topography of the Earth must have been essentially the same as it is today. Mt. Everest is about 8850 meters above sea level. Even allowing for the climate to have been warm enough that there weren't any glaciers or ice sheets, Mt. Everest still would have been nearly 8800 meters above sea level if the amount of water was the same as it is today. Covering the entire Earth with 8800 meters of water would require more than double the amount of water than is currently on the Earth. What happened to all the water that has vanished?
Covering the Earth with 8800 meters of water in 40 days would have required rainfall rates averaging more than 350 inches per hour over the entire Earth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
A good point but I think it's off topic here unless you think we should caculate the effects of asteroid strikes through 8,000 meters of water and I actually did that at one point. The problem is that there are so many problems with the global flood that its hard to stay on track sometimes. Don't we have a "where did the water come frome thread" somewhere?
Randy This message has been edited by Randy, 05-27-2005 04:34 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6486 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Of course I can be wrong, about most things on this thread even, but not wrong about the basic Biblical facts of the Flood and Noah, however it is to be understood to have happened in physical terms. Right, just as I thought, you belive you can't be proven wrong. Man, it must be nice to arbitreraly choose your own reality. I think I'll start pretending there is no sun!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
FormalistAesthete Inactive Member |
I apologize if I strayed a little off topic, but it seemed to flow naturally from the question about the depth of the Flood. The impact calculator that someone posted a link to didn't compute wave heights, but one would think that a meteor that created an impact crater more than 100 km in diameter on land would generate waves large enough to swamp a ship even thousands of miles away if it landed in an ocean, especially if there was no land mass to damp the waves. But this is all "hypothetical" anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Harlequin Inactive Member |
Randy writes: When you look at the impact distribution map you see certain things.1. No craters are known in the oceans. 2. Few craters in areas of active mountain building 3. No craters in Antarctica 4. Few in jungle areas such as the Amazon Basin There is no reason that these areas should have been spared. There must have been many more craters that either have not been found or that have been obliterated by geologic processes. Also notice that the U.S. and Western Europe have more than their fair share of craters. This is due to the fact of where most geologists are at. Other places with concentrations of craters can also be explained by where geologists live/study.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Randy Member (Idle past 6237 days) Posts: 420 From: Cincinnati OH USA Joined: |
Also notice that the U.S. and Western Europe have more than their fair share of craters. This is due to the fact of where most geologists are at. Other places with concentrations of craters can also be explained by where geologists live/study. That would explain the relative paucity of craters known in the Amazon basin and parts of Africa for sure. I suspect that there are many more to be discovered in some places but in other places with a lot of geological activity there were certainly past craters that have been wiped out maybe only leaving some shocked minerals behind if that. Randy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
We keep hearing about this 'deep' water - has any creationist ever said how deep this water got? whatever the bible says. 20 ft over mt everest or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1334 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
NOT the asteroid, the atmosphere!!!! you know, normally creationists don't like discussing the kind of atmospheric effects that amount of water would have...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 384 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
When whole civilizations can be hidden including massive structures, the odds of visually seeing a crater might be restricted I imagine.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024