Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

how about the word "god" for starters?

---

אָרַח

because you're looking for deciet.the rest of us recognize the idea that for pre-history, there are no photos. and so the little pictures that go with newspaper stories are ALWAYS artist's conceptions, and not neccessarily accurate to the most munute detail.for instance, when an article shos a picture of a dinosaur, we generally understand that it might have looked different in terms of coloration and patterns. and we understand that it's not a photo. you brought it up.

---

אָרַח

Turns out I don't have a problem with how this article is written. It covers the necessary information, it's clear and it sticks to the point. I think the most plausible theory from a YEC standpoint is that the continental movement probably began at the time of the Flood. I'm also still trying to defend my "just a thought" about meteorite hits occurring in conjunction with the Flood event, so the geography as described above would put this hit at some distance from Noah and company, across a very large continent, a continent possibly still submerged in the Flood but possibly not; that is, it could have occurred after the water had begun to subside, leaving exposed land for all that distance, which would break the waves of any tsunami before they got to Noah's part of the ocean. But by that time he'd be on land anyway. If a tsunami did travel through the Flood waters across such a huge distance, there wouldn't be enough power left in it to do any damage to Noah's ship by the time it arrived.But so far I am not convinced of the size of this meteorite. A meteorite I'm convinced of, just not the size of it or the timing of it. Again, this is a much better report than the previous one. It's making a lot fewer broad statements and the evidence is clearly discussed. OK, shocked quartz is a sign of a meteorite impact. No problem. The problem a YEC has with this is that the idea that this wiped out the dinosaurs is based ONLY on the layer in which the iridium was found -- a thin layer of it atop the layer in which the dinosaur fossils are found, is that correct? This is the same reasoning that dates this newer meteorite find to an even older time period. There's plenty of empirical evidence here for a meteorite impact just to judge from what is reported, but here is no evidence for the geo timetable, the great ages, or for all the single separate events postulated on the basis of the geo timetable. There no evidence so far for the SIZE of this impact. Could be local to the Eastern Asia-Australia area of Pangaea.

OK, this is the LSU article linked in post #1 and it's about this scientist who is interested in meteor hits in general and one that may have occurred in the Devonian, yet a different one from the KT boundary one and the Permian-Triassic one.I guess I've done enough exploring of these articles.Evidence of meteor impacts there is. But so far there is no certain evidence of the huge size of such hits or their supposed lethal effects. This is all extrapolated from the geo timeframe and the location of some meteorite chemicals in the layers. I would suggest there may be other more likely explanations.In any case I'm here trying to defend my mere "thought" that the meteor events started with the Flood. So now I hope I will finally get to all the heavy science posts that have been piling up in the middle of this thread.

I just can't get a break, can I? The "photo" which I didn't examine in any detail, obviously, I assumed was from a recent event, obviously, and I wondered what event caused it. If you'd just think a little you'd save a lot of time and thread space.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.

Your local college bookstore will sell freshman geology texts.Mine is a fourth edition of 'Putman's Geology' by Larson and Birkeland. It is from 1982 and somewhat out of date, but covers the basics. The bookstore will have the more current copy or something comparable.The book "The Map that Changed the World" is about Bill 'Strata' Smith and how he came to conclude great ages. I'm waiting for the copy in our local library to come back in.And if Bill Birkeland reads this post perhaps he can tell us if he is related to Peter W. Birkeland who wrote my college text.ABBedit spellingThis message has been edited by Arkansas Banana Boy, 05-27-2005 01:40 AM

Faith, I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but how can you expect any casual observer to take your position seriously if this is the quality of your arguments?These guys know what they are talking about, some have studied the subject for decades, some of them are professional scientists, and you expect them to accept "Oh it just really is"?Tell you what, I readily admit that I know very little about science, why don't you explain to me,in very simple language, why "it really just is."Another thing, you have a chance to learn a lot from people here who have a great knowledge about the subject, they can help a lot, you just have to try being a bit more open-minded.Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 05-27-2005 02:45 AM

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. 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.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." 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, and I'd appreciate it if you would follow my argument. 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. I've barely begun thanks to dozens of voices making nasty and mostly utterly irrelevant comments and you think it's over already. I don't think I've seen that post yet. I don't recall it. Too much going on. Nevertheless while that is interesting it is not relevant to my own concerns. Fine. I'm sure there are many questions. But I'm also sure none of them question the time-frame view of the age of the dinosaurs and their extinction as a separate event from other extinctions and mass deaths in the fossil record, but that's MY question -- and my objection to the time-frame notion is that it is untestable and unfalsifiable, a decent scientific objection. I accept the physical boundary. Haven't I made that clear? I don't accept the interpretation of that boundary, and I would think I've made that clear too. My arguments have been scientific, but obviously you will accept nothing as scientific except what validates the status quo theory.You appear to simply refuse to allow me another point of view. I am not allowed to disagree with these major points. Then why the pretense of EvC to be "debating" anything whatever? You apparently see your role as merely to educate those who disagree with you. I don't see that in the title of the place, or in the Forum Rules. I DISAGREE WITH SOME OF IT, AND I HAVEN'T YET BEEN ABLE TO READ THROUGH TO HALF OF IT.The KT boundary is a (misnamed IMO) boundary between two layers of differing sediments. This is a factual empirical statement. If you disagree with it you are not being scientific. Iridium is apparently found between the two layers. This too is a factual empirical statement. The iridium suggests that there was a meteorite hit that caused the dispersion of this element. This too seems empirically justified.However, you assume it was spread over a surface that was exposed for a long time. I think it was probably spread over a surface that was exposed for a very very short time, maybe as short as days. It may have been spread by water. THERE IS NOTHING IN PRINCIPLE UNSCIENTIFIC ABOUT THIS IDEA AND DISAGREEING WITH YOUR VIEW OR THE PREVAILING VIEWS HERE IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF UNSCIENTIFIC.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 02:57 AM

I have not confined my argument to laughing at the geo timetable. Read my posts.

Could we please get something straight here. I'm not saying the water would have any effect in slowing the fall of the meteor, 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 for the fire effects, I'll have to wait until I get to the posts where that kind of effect is calculated.

He didn't see the top of a mountain for an entire year. I don't know if he saw meteors or not.

I obviously can't answer your calculations. And I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you thinking about the number of hits in different places at different times and accumulating the effects together or are you just talking about the biggest one on the list? If this is just the calculation for a very big one then nothing could survive at all even under the extinction scenarios -- Life as such would have to start over. In which case, something must be wrong with your calculations.But if you are taking all the known ones and calculating their effects over a short time span, that isn't clear from what you are saying. What if you calculate them over a year, a hundred years, a thousand years, 2000 etc? Instead of the usual millions/billions I mean. How does that affect the global impact picture?This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 04:07 AM

Didn`t someone point out if you can`t test, replicate or falsify a geological claim, it`s a load of hogwash? Oh, yeah Can`t remember who kept repeating it over and over, but the expression 'too few facts, too much drama' rings a bell.Hilarious.

The Flood has written testimony for evidence, the Geo Timeframe has zip. However, I don't claim that my theory has any more testability or falsifiability than the geo timeframe does. We are debating plausibilities. The point is there is no more genuine PHYSICAL proof of the geo timeframe than the Flood.The Flood does, however, have the advantage in evidence because there is a written record of it. Yup, that's exactly what I'm saying above. They start with a piece of rock found between two layers of sediment, and they conclude with a devastating meteor hit at a particular time with particular consequences. Bitty fact to gigantic theory, soon declared fact without the slightest justification. Meteor? Sure, no problem. Time frame? No evidence -- all untestable unfalsifiable conjecture. Particular extinction event? No evidence --all untestable unfalsifiable conjecture.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 04:16 AM

Its a 1000 degrees if all the heat went to the atmosphere. The fossil record indicates that life always come back after catastrophes. I suspect that protected areas (caves, deep sea rifts, or others) far from the impact area provided the retreat from which life resprung.Some life called extremophiles can live in very harsh areas, so life is probably more resistant to these shocks than you think. But if all those impacts happened in that short period that you think massive tectonic movement also occurred, then I might agree that life couldn't survive. Great ages provides time for heat to dissipate, as major impacts happen millions of years apart as opposed to every day for a year or so, when crustal plates are running around the world and large mountains are springing up from flat land. That scenario makes no sense from a physical or geological POV.ABB