Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 724 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 271 of 304 (211868)
05-27-2005 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
05-27-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Exiting thread
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 3:25 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 3:37 PM Coragyps has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 272 of 304 (211871)
05-27-2005 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by NosyNed
05-27-2005 3:26 PM


Re: only one year?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by NosyNed, posted 05-27-2005 3:26 PM NosyNed has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1434 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 273 of 304 (211873)
05-27-2005 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Coragyps
05-27-2005 3:31 PM


Re: Exiting thread
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Coragyps, posted 05-27-2005 3:31 PM Coragyps has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by Randy, posted 05-27-2005 3:47 PM Faith has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 274 of 304 (211874)
05-27-2005 3:39 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by Faith
05-27-2005 1:31 PM


Re: Gotta support Faith on this.
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 earth
Some 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 1:31 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Harlequin, posted 05-27-2005 10:36 PM Randy has replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 275 of 304 (211879)
05-27-2005 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Faith
05-27-2005 3:37 PM


Re: Exiting thread
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 3:37 PM Faith has not replied

roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 276 of 304 (211885)
05-27-2005 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
05-27-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Exiting thread
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

FormalistAesthete
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 304 (211910)
05-27-2005 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by roxrkool
05-27-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Ok, all in one year
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by roxrkool, posted 05-27-2005 12:21 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 278 by Randy, posted 05-27-2005 4:34 PM FormalistAesthete has replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 278 of 304 (211915)
05-27-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 277 by FormalistAesthete
05-27-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Ok, all in one year
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by FormalistAesthete, posted 05-27-2005 4:27 PM FormalistAesthete has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by FormalistAesthete, posted 05-27-2005 5:45 PM Randy has not replied

Yaro
Member (Idle past 6486 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 279 of 304 (211932)
05-27-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Faith
05-27-2005 3:25 PM


Re: Exiting thread
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 3:25 PM Faith has not replied

FormalistAesthete
Inactive Member


Message 280 of 304 (211950)
05-27-2005 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Randy
05-27-2005 4:34 PM


Re: Ok, all in one year
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Randy, posted 05-27-2005 4:34 PM Randy has not replied

Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 304 (212015)
05-27-2005 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Randy
05-27-2005 3:39 PM


Re: Gotta support Faith on this.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Randy, posted 05-27-2005 3:39 PM Randy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Randy, posted 05-27-2005 10:44 PM Harlequin has replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6237 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 282 of 304 (212017)
05-27-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 281 by Harlequin
05-27-2005 10:36 PM


Re: Gotta support Faith on this.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 281 by Harlequin, posted 05-27-2005 10:36 PM Harlequin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by jar, posted 05-28-2005 12:11 AM Randy has not replied
 Message 289 by Harlequin, posted 05-28-2005 12:29 AM Randy has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 283 of 304 (212031)
05-28-2005 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by roxrkool
05-27-2005 12:21 PM


Re: Ok, all in one year
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.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by roxrkool, posted 05-27-2005 12:21 PM roxrkool has not replied

arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 284 of 304 (212033)
05-28-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Faith
05-27-2005 12:40 PM


Re: No, not all in one year
NOT the asteroid, the atmosphere!!!!
you know, normally creationists don't like discussing the kind of atmospheric effects that amount of water would have...

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 12:40 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 285 of 304 (212034)
05-28-2005 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Randy
05-27-2005 10:44 PM


Re: Gotta support Faith on this.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Randy, posted 05-27-2005 10:44 PM Randy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024