Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1334 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 286 of 304 (212036)
05-28-2005 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by Faith
05-27-2005 2:19 PM


Re: Exiting thread
I believe the Bible, you know, so I'm throwing out whatever crosses my mind to answer challenges. How it all works out with the calculations about meteors I have no idea, I just know it works out as the Bible says. If the calculations don't fit, the calculations need to be adjusted.
famous quote: if the evidence doesn't fit the bible, the evidence must be wrong.
seriously. which do you think is more likely? that a book that's been in the hands of human beings for 2000 some odd years, compiled and collected by men, revised and editted and translated by men, and interpretted in any number of manners by men, could possibly by in error, or that it's exactly right to every last punction mark, and god's creation is lying to us?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 2:19 PM Faith has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 287 of 304 (212037)
05-28-2005 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 202 by Faith
05-27-2005 12:02 AM


Re: KT boundary
I thought the rules put insulting the opponent out of bounds, but it has been done numerous times on this thread and you are doing it again.
Not a insult at all. Just a statement of fact. YECs, in general, do not understand the efforts put into researching geological issues. If they did, they wouldn't simply dismiss the work of so many generations of geologists.
BASICALLY, yes? Does that mean that there are some places where this fossil-boundary relation is not quite so certain?
No. 'Basically' put so that most people could understand the concept. Apparently I aimed too high. It seems that your attitude makes it impossible for you to read something without making some judgement.
I understand it all quite well. I simply have found much reason to believe that whatever proportion of real empirical science is involved in these things, the overall evo-geotime edifice into which these facts are fitted is held together by unprovable interpretive glue.
I rest my case. You have not even the most rudimenatary understanding of the history of geological research. You insult thousands of geologists who poured their lives into research.
I can accept that there is such a thing as a KT boundary without accepting that it is a boundary between two ancient great ages.
Then you have a very shallow understanding of this point in the history of the earth.
Empirically -- as opposed to interpretively -- it's a (tendentious) name given to the boundary between two sedimentary deposits.
No. You do not and will not understand. I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time with you.
It suggests that anything different found at that boundary was laid down on top of the lower one before the upper one was laid down, but there isn't any empirical evidence for how long any of that took.
There is plenty of evidence. You simply prefer to ignore it, just has you have ignored 90% of the posts on this board. You are a troll.
Does iridium float?
I rest my case: Faith hasn't got a clue. Faith is a troll. You have no intent to have an intelligent discussion. Your type is one of the principal reasons that I question whether I even want to be a Christian any more. Hard-boiled ignorance is not a goal I aspire to.
And again, I also have questions about just HOW complete the association between the fossil contents and the boundary is in actuality.
In actuality, it is bulletproof. And I will say no more until you can give me a COMPLETE description of the mechanism used in creation.
Since in nature there usually aren't exact fits anywhere, the inevitable slippage is usually simply filled in with the prevailing theory. It's a reasonable enough thing to do, but other theoretical possibilities are kept from consideration by such a cognitive process.
Sorry, this fit is virtually perfect. There is no evidence that the K/T boundary is violated by any fossil evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 12:02 AM Faith has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 288 of 304 (212041)
05-28-2005 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by Faith
05-27-2005 12:15 AM


Re: timetable hilarity
No, nor show its irrationality to anyone either apparently. I can sit and laugh at its absurdity on the face of it though -- that's some consolation. Such neat flat compacted layers with such clear boundaries between different kinds. Built up over aeons. Hilarious.
Why is this hilarious? Why is it absurd? Why is it irrational?
Oh it just really really is. SUCH a joke. I wish you could see it.
That's what I call a reasoned response... "Becuase it is!" Brilliant!
Oh I've been paying attention to the explanations, no problem there.
I beg to differ. You have not shown an ounce of understanding.
The explanations are hilarious too. The reason is that you have your minds made up and can't think outside the box.
Another reasoned response. Do you realize how ironic this is coming from a YEC?
I tell you I really do laugh at it because maybe it would get you to actually LOOK at the thing yourself instead of interposing all that interpretive stuff between you and the reality.
I'm glad that we provide you with entertainment. You make me sad, actually. I'm beginning to believe the YEC prediction of the devolution of humankind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 12:15 AM Faith has not replied

Harlequin
Inactive Member


Message 289 of 304 (212044)
05-28-2005 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by Randy
05-27-2005 10:44 PM


Re: Gotta support Faith on this.
Randy writes:
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.
Most definitely. Indeed that was clearly implied by the part of your post that I quoted.
Lets summarize:
The three factors that determine how many craters are known:
1) Where they can could have existed for many millions of years
without getting destroyed.
2) Where we have a least a chance of actually finding them if they were present.
3) Where there geologists, especially academic geologists and graduate students, actually live and work. With emphasis in the areas where they done so the longests.

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

edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 290 of 304 (212049)
05-28-2005 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
05-27-2005 2:55 AM


Re: No one is lying nor is it easy to slip anything by.
Listen, this is my point of view, not my attitude. Since I am the butt of every kind of insult throughout this thread, you might have the decency to consider what I'm saying.
Ummm hmmm.
I'm not even HAVING an attitude in the above, I'm explaining how I view the evidence, but YOUR attitude could sure give me one.
Heh!
Sorry, Faith. When you came in here we gave you every chance to show some 'good faith' in having and honest discussion. You betrayed that a long time ago.
Oh "Slippage" ????? I am not accusing anybody of lying or slipping anything by anything. The "slippage" I'm referring to is between the known facts and the gaps in the physical record, areas where you don't know what's going on because there isn't any clear evidence, which is a pretty large area I would think. In such cases the theory fills in the gaps and I even SAID "it's a reasonable thing to do."
This belies your lack of scientific understanding. It is axiomatic that we must rely upon the data available to derive a hypothesis. We cannot base our hypothesis on the gaps. We have to explain what is known, not what is not known. If we refrained from attempting to understand the universe because of gaps, we'd still be in the dark ages. This is where your line of reasoning takes us.
That is not a fair representation of anything I've said. I'm pursuing a definite point of view. I am identifying the difference between empirically substantiated claims and unsubstantiated claims,...
Then you are going about it the wrong way. If you want to refute intepretations, you need to attack the principles on which those interpretations are based not the evidence itself. You have not done this. I also know for a fact that you ignore some evidence that is inconvenient for you to address, so your statement is not entirely true.
... and I'd appreciate it if you would follow my argument.
It wouldn't be because you could be more clear, could it? There are other creationists with this problem also. No one seem to 'get their point'.
You don't have to agree with it, but if there is any real commitment and not just a pretense to allowing me to have a different point of view from yours, you can't keep dismissing mine on the basis of yours as you do. I'm using the evidence as it comes up.
And ignoring other evidence...
But then... Well, see above.
I've barely begun thanks to dozens of voices making nasty and mostly utterly irrelevant comments and you think it's over already.
Do you have a clue as to how insulting you have been on these pages? I have seen some very patient explanations to you that you simply dismissed or completely ignored. This is disrespectful, Faith, and you are getting it back in spades.
You appear to simply refuse to allow me another point of view. I am not allowed to disagree with these major points.
Nonsense. You are allowed to believe anything you want. But if you come here we expect you to support your statements.
Then why the pretense of EvC to be "debating" anything whatever?
Actually, we ARE debating. You are just not faring well. THere is a reason for that.
You apparently see your role as merely to educate those who disagree with you.
No, we gave up on that a long time ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 2:55 AM Faith has not replied

peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5586 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 291 of 304 (212068)
05-28-2005 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Faith
05-27-2005 2:55 AM


Re: No one is lying nor is it easy to slip anything by.
Faith writes:
The iridium suggests that there was a meteorite hit that caused the dispersion of this element. This too seems empirically justified.
What empirical justification are you talking about?
According to Scott Rowland, "Iridium is not very common on Earth, but it is proposed to be more abundant in asteroids and meteorites. "
Do you think a 'proposal' is empirical justification? You seem to be accepting theories on the basis of faith as your name suggests.
According to him, "Basaltic volcanoes, such as those here in Hawai'i produce iridium... "
"Tschudy and others (1984) and Pillmore and Flores (1984) placed the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary near the top of the lower coal-rich interval below the sandstone-dominated interval in the lower part of the Raton Formation. The K/T boundary is based on the discovery of an iridium anomaly at the palynological Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary"
- quote from A SUMMARY OF TERTIARY COAL RESOURCES OF THE RATON BASIN, COLORADO AND NEW MEXICO
Dinosaur footprints have been closely associated with coal beds. This iridium anomaly too is close to coal beds. The fact that sand is abundant in these coal beds imply that the forests were in the process of being buried.
Depending on how the complex flow of underground water, seawater, rainwater and lavas sorted and buried everything, that's how we got our strata.
If someone wants to prove that iridium comes from meteors, here's a suggestion:
Measure the iridium concentration at several distances from the impact center. If the iridium concentration gradually decreases as we move out further from the crater, then there is proof that iridium is indeed from meteors.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 2:55 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Randy, posted 05-28-2005 9:27 AM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 293 by edge, posted 05-28-2005 12:37 PM peaceharris has replied

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


Message 292 of 304 (212087)
05-28-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by peaceharris
05-28-2005 4:07 AM


Re: No one is lying nor is it easy to slip anything by.
According to Scott Rowland, "Iridium is not very common on Earth, but it is proposed to be more abundant in asteroids and meteorites. "
Do you think a 'proposal' is empirical justification? You seem to be accepting theories on the basis of faith as your name suggests.
According to him, "Basaltic volcanoes, such as those here in Hawai'i produce iridium... "
Here is the whole quote with the parts you left out bolded.
quote:
One major problem with the volcanic hypothesis is that volcanoes, especially the explosive ones, don't produce much iridium. Basaltic volcanoes, such as those here in Hawai'i produce more iridium but they are not very explosive.
Non explosive volcaones produce some iridium but wouldn't distribute it over wide areas. The "proposal" that asteroids contain relativily high levels of iridium is pretty well documented. I suggest you read.
Iridium concentrations and abundances of meteoritic ejecta from the Eltanin impact in sediment cores from Polarstern expedition ANT XII/4 Author: Kyte, F. T. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 49, 1049-1061 (2002)
and
Iridium anomalies and fractionated siderophile element patterns in impact ejecta, Brockman Iron Formation, Hamersley Basin, Western Australia: evidence for a major asteroid impact in simatic crustal regions of the early Proterozoic earth, Glikson, ; Allen, C, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 220, 247-264. (2004)
for more information.
But what is your point in any case? Are you claiming that the Chichulub impact never happened? Are you claiming that the other impacts in the Impact Database never happened? Or are you just arguing that they weren't responible for mass extinctions? The outflowing of the Deccan Traps probably did contribute to the K-T extinction. Dinosaurs were in decline when the Chicxulub impact occurred. It probably pushed them on over the edge.
A recent article in Science (Hypoxia, Global Warming, and Terrestrial Late Permian Extinctions, Huey R. B and Ward, P.D. Science 15 April 2005; 308: 398-401) provides evidence that land life was on the brink near the end of the Permian because of low oxygen levels in that atmosphere. This may have been due to the outflowing of the Siberian Traps This probably forced land life to live near sea level. Tsunami's from the massive impact described in the OP along with the additional Atmospheric Effects from the impact would have pushed it over the edge.
You certainly haven't done anything to address the problem raised in the OP.
The dinosaur footprints in coal are another falsification of the global flood but I don't see their relevance here. You seem to be fixated on coal lately.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by peaceharris, posted 05-28-2005 4:07 AM peaceharris has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 293 of 304 (212119)
05-28-2005 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by peaceharris
05-28-2005 4:07 AM


Re: No one is lying nor is it easy to slip anything by.
So you think a 'proposal' is empirical justification? You seem to be accepting theories on the basis of faith as your name suggests.
Not sure what you mean by empirical justification. No one is trying to justify anything. No faith is involved. We are simply trying to explain a set of natural phenomena and defend that explanation. If you have a better explanation, this would be a good time to present it.
Dinosaur footprints have been closely associated with coal beds. This iridium anomaly too is close to coal beds. The fact that sand is abundant in these coal beds imply that the forests were in the process of being buried.
There are forests being buried now. So, where's the flood? Did you read the thread on polystrate telephone poles that Bill B. started a few months ago? Do you imply that sandstone means 'flood'?
And dinosaur footprints are not found with all coal beds, so there is no logical conclusion to be drawn from this fact as you state it. And yes, iridium-rich layers are found near some coal beds, but not all of them, by any means. Just what is your point?
Measure the iridium concentration at several distances from the impact center. If the iridium concentration gradually decreases as we move out further from the crater, then there is proof that iridium is indeed from meteors.
Already been done. The iridium-rich layers decrease in thickness with distance from the impact sites. See my previous link.
Depending on how the complex flow of underground water, seawater, rainwater and lavas sorted and buried everything, that's how we got our strata.
Actually, it is more complex than that. These factors do not explain the sorting of fossils in the record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by peaceharris, posted 05-28-2005 4:07 AM peaceharris has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by peaceharris, posted 05-30-2005 1:03 AM edge has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 294 of 304 (212266)
05-29-2005 12:27 AM


Meteors and Evolution
My understanding is that there have been many cataclysmic events since life comenced on this planet. Between meteor strikes of which we likely only know of about 25% (just and uneducated guess based on the ones we haven't found and the ones that hit the water), volcanes and earthquakes I would think that we have had a number of events that would have wiped out all but the basic organisms.
I'm not trying to make a point here, but just asking a question. If life on the planet was continually being set back to the starting line has there been time for evolution to produce the creatures that it has?

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by roxrkool, posted 05-29-2005 2:13 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 296 by Randy, posted 05-29-2005 4:43 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 297 by Nighttrain, posted 05-29-2005 8:56 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 295 of 304 (212280)
05-29-2005 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by GDR
05-29-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Meteors and Evolution
Life has never been set back to the starting line (except perhaphs in the Archean). It's been set back in such a way that particular types of life were unable to adapt to the new conditions so died out, while others (mammals, for example) were.
With each major extinction, the tree of life lost several limbs - sometimes most of the limbs, other times just a few. The ones left were able to eek out and existence and eventually flourish. Life took a different path. Not necessarily one it wouldn't have taken anyway, but it played with the hand it was dealt (so to speak).
edited to add the exception in the first paragraph
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-29-2005 07:31 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by GDR, posted 05-29-2005 12:27 AM GDR has not replied

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


Message 296 of 304 (212288)
05-29-2005 4:43 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by GDR
05-29-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Meteors and Evolution
My understanding is that there have been many cataclysmic events since life comenced on this planet. Between meteor strikes of which we likely only know of about 25% (just and uneducated guess based on the ones we haven't found and the ones that hit the water), volcanes and earthquakes I would think that we have had a number of events that would have wiped out all but the basic organisms.
Here is a page on
Mass Extinctions
The most significant occurred at the end of the Permian and was a subject of the OP. It didn't wipe out "all but the most basic of organisms" but it apparently reduced total number of species by about 90%. There is currently a mass extinction in progress that is greatly reducing biodiversity but so far the most "advanced" of species is only the cause and not yet the victim.
The heavy bombardment of the inner solar system 4.0-3.6 Billion years ago would have probably wiped out all but extreme thermophillic bacteria but if there was any life to wipe out at the time it was only microbial.
I'm not trying to make a point here, but just asking a question. If life on the planet was continually being set back to the starting line has there been time for evolution to produce the creatures that it has?
There were considerable radiations of new organisms as the diversity of life recovered after these events so one could argue that they drove evolution. There was a major radiation of mammals after the K-T boundary for example. As roxrkool has pointed out limbs were cut from the tree of life but new ones grew to replace them.
Many catastrophic events have been more local in their effects. I you look at the Impact Database You will see about 35 that left craters ranging from about 20 to 100 km in diameter and by your extrapolation, which IMO is not unreasonable for at least the last billion years or so, there must have been at least 100 more. These would have had devasting local effects and may have caused some some species to be reduced significantly in numbers worldwide due to short term climate changes but didn't cause worldwide mass extinctions that show up in the fossil record. Other catastrophic events such as supervolcanoes or the outflowing of the Columbia River flood basalts would have had nasty local, perhaps even continent wide and some short term worldwide consequences but not shown up as worldwide extinction events. There is evidence that the Toba Supervolcano 75,000 years ago may have reduced our species to only 10,000 or so survivors due to short term climate change.
Diversity of life was often signficantly reduced by massive extinction events but has always recovered. Major events are spread from the Precambrian to the K-T boundary. Of course if you try to cram all the earth impacts, massive basalt flows and supervolcanoes into a YEC timeframe you run into some real problems. Trying to cram a signficant number of them into a "flood year" would have almost certainly wiped out everything but the most basic of organisms, especially if you try to account for the impacts that must have occurred during the heavy bombardment of the inner solar system.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by GDR, posted 05-29-2005 12:27 AM GDR has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3984 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 297 of 304 (212320)
05-29-2005 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by GDR
05-29-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Meteors and Evolution
I'm not trying to make a point here, but just asking a question. If life on the planet was continually being set back to the starting line has there been time for evolution to produce the creatures that it has?
Well, if you believe Yecs, we bounced back from eight people to an over-crowded 5 billion in 5000 years or less. And an assortment of animal 'kinds' have repopulated the earth in the same time frame.
Edited to swap 'kinds' for pairs.
This message has been edited by Nighttrain, 05-29-2005 08:59 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by GDR, posted 05-29-2005 12:27 AM GDR has not replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6199
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005


Message 298 of 304 (212326)
05-29-2005 9:42 AM


Thanks for the answers. I guess as we merrily chug along we can expect this to happen again. I recently read about Yellowstone and that looks like a likely candidate.

peaceharris
Member (Idle past 5586 days)
Posts: 128
Joined: 03-28-2005


Message 299 of 304 (212535)
05-30-2005 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by edge
05-28-2005 12:37 PM


Re: No one is lying nor is it easy to slip anything by.
Already been done. The iridium-rich layers decrease in thickness with distance from the impact sites. See my previous link.
I haven't been able to find your previous link. In which message was it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by edge, posted 05-28-2005 12:37 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by edge, posted 05-31-2005 11:06 PM peaceharris has not replied
 Message 301 by JonF, posted 06-01-2005 9:04 AM peaceharris has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1696 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 300 of 304 (212944)
05-31-2005 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by peaceharris
05-30-2005 1:03 AM


Re: No one is lying nor is it easy to slip anything by.
Hmm, can't find it. Perhaps it was in another article I read. At any rate. This is standard geological procedure. I'm not sure it's worth relocating since you don't pay much heed to any evidnece presented to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by peaceharris, posted 05-30-2005 1:03 AM peaceharris 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