Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

Thank you. Will check it out.Must take a break.Carry on, gang.

It was laid down sequentially over SOME period of time DURING that one event that lasted after all a year and who knows how long it took the flood to recede, leaving many layers of stuff one at a time. Sequential doesn't mean it built up on the ridiculous principle of accumulated deposits for each long age of time. A layer was no doubt laid down all at once, and others laid down on top of it separately, after who knows how long a gap, but not years. Angular unconformities occur sometime during the process. A bunch of layers are laid down, then a big bubble of magma displaces a block of layers and upends them, a whole nother bunch of layers slide over the uptilted ones, etc etc etc. Most unconformities, however, clearly happened AFTER the whole column was laid down. IF the timeline theory is correct it would follow, but if it happened in a much shorter period of time there is no necessary relation. Those layers did not build up slowly and gradually over long aeons, sorry. It makes me laugh just thinking about it. Don't recall claiming such a thing. This started out as "just a thought." It remains "just a thought."But thanks for noting that I can do a decent mental backflip! In an arena in enemy camp surrounded by bloodthirsty evos yet!This message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 03:42 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 03:44 PM

I wouldn't trust secular history myself. Sure you can. It's done all the time. The whole evo show is made up, imaginative stitching together of clues they call facts but aren't. A laugh a minute.EDIT: SORRY, ANSWERED BEFORE I SAW THE OFF-TOPIC NOTE.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 04:00 PM

In this discussion we are taking the flood as a given. No doubt, but nevertheless the RESULT of the impact, the effect of debris, dust, steam etc., can't be known with all that certainty. There are other variables in the mix that can affect those results.

No, we're discussing how comets, meteors and meteorites might have affected things if they occurred during a flood which is taken as a given. I'm happy to move over there. Whatever.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 04:13 PM

BUT all that is nothing but speculation. You don't KNOW any of that. It's sheer hypothesis. You see dead dinosaurs here and there in layers of sediments, you see an absence of dinosaurs in what is hypothesized to be the next layer up (since as a matter of fact this isn't how they show up everywhere in reality), you see a layer of iridium, you decide a big meteor wiped out the dinosaurs, big enough to wipe out 90% of life -- ONLY because you see all those dead reptilian creatures and you hypothesize the magnitude that would account for it. How do you KNOW it "hit deep water?" And WHAT "hit deep water?" How big is its crater? Can you show it to me? Is it in the same layer the dinosaurs are in? You speak of this event as if it were a witnessed and documented reality, but it's NOTHING but an imaginative scenario put together to account for a bunch of other hypotheses about the scant actual facts of a bunch of dinosaur bones and a thin layer of iridium. And MAYBE a crater --? Does iridium float by the way? Sure, but this is a big planet. That itty bitty event really WAS itty bitty, very local, hardly worth mentioning. All this stuff about debris and dust saturating the atmosphere -- well, nobody has seen anything like that.I thought it was brought up to impress me with what a devastating effect such an event would have had on Noah and company. Now it turns out it's a big nothing.Even all the nuclear testing that was done above ground in the fifties didn't produce half the results we might expect. The effects were surprisingly local, or traceable by wind patterns, devastating to downwinders but nevertheless confined to that area, without the worldwide atmospheric effect some talked about. I would never want to minimize those tests, including the effects of the underground testing afterward, but the fact is there were 100 atmospheric (and 828 underground) bombs tested in a short period of time just at the one Nevada Test Site, the atmospheric ones all within the 50s, all in one location, and their effect seems to have been a lot less than dramatic.Any one of them COULD wipe out a city, or do a lot of damage, but if these meteors hit in uninhabited places or underwater in a worldwide flood, nobody's yet convinced me they'd do anything like you predict.http://www.shundahai.org/nevada_test_site_history.htmWhat would you have predicted for these events? How do they compare with the meteors you are talking about? I don't know. Can you point to one?I'd guess it would cause some major effects for a wide area near where it hit but why would the effects be expected to be worldwide?I don't get this steam idea either. So some great quantity of water turns to steam. Again the area may be quite large, a matter of oh a hundred or even two or three hundred square miles? Make it a few thousand. But that's NOTHING on this planet. AND the atmosphere would cool it.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 07:51 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 07:59 PM

No, I brought it up to suggest how all those meteors POSSIBLY COULD have hit within a very short period -- a lot shorter than 6K years as a matter of fact -- without killing everything on the planet, which was the task set by the opening post. IF there was such a flood THEN the effects predicted in the opening post either would not have occurred or would not have had the devastating effects predicted. Remember, the thread is challenging the idea of a young earth. It is fair to answer such a challenge with a hypothesis from the YEC position.

That is not what this thread is about. It is not about the evidence for the flood, it's about whether or not a bombardment of meteors would have the devastating effects predicted in the first post, and the flood is my suggestion why they might not.

I have acknowledged all that. You can predict the impact itself. The fact remains there are other variables that so far I haven't heard taken into account for the impact of this bombardment of meteors, such as the effect of preexisting atmospheric conditions, wind, rain, heat, cold, and so far the idea that the effect would be worldwide is simply not convincing. Sure, you can say a lot about the immediate impact, the depth of the crater, the effect on local rock and water, but beyond that the hypotheses don't cut it.

Yes, it is a more extreme scenario. I proposed it as a possible answer to the opening challenge -- you can't kill off humanity if the strikes occurred when the flood was already killing off humanity.He's challenging the young earth scenario. I'm answering from the position of the YEC.I believe the burden of proof is on the challenger. I didn't find his hypothesis convincing and so far he hasn't been around to defend it, and other attempts to defend it haven't been all that convincing either.As the conversation has progressed, my impression is that these meteor strikes just don't seem that huge in relation to the size of this planet, even the biggest ones and of course the huge ones were few. I'll have to check the list again to see how many were how big.But remember, the flood killed all living things except what was on the ark. That was my first thought -- any lethal effects of the meteorites would be rendered inconsequential by two factors of the flood -- the water itself which MUST absorb some of the impact expected by our first poster, and the reduction of all life to one ark floating on the water, floating apparently at a safe distance from any of the direct strikes to judge from Jar's link to the list of strikes. I also suggested that it possibly didn't all happen in that first year even if it was associated with the whole flood catastrophe, but over some time afterward too. Most of the strikes on Jar's list occurred in parts of the world very far from the turf of Noah and his family. Actually I believe it's quite reasonable to posit an event like the flood as a given for the sake of exploring possible effects of such an event, which is well known to be believed by YECs, and to use it to answer a challenge to the YEC view.In any case I HAVE given some ideas in answer to the idea that Noah would have been "par-boiled," such as: Even the biggest strike mentioned so far shouldn't necessarily affect more than an area of some few thousand cubic miles, say, with steam, or dust, expecially if it occurred underwater, and probably a much smaller area, which doesn't have to affect Noah at all. The idea of heat generated doesn't seem to take into account the cool atmosphere of this planet that's much bigger than all the meteors combined, or the size of the cool ocean. At most a gigantic meteor would heat a few hundred cubic miles of water, which would spread out to become a faint warmth in a few thousand cubic miles of cold ocean, hardly even a noticeable temperature change as it spread out even farther into cooler water.I think it's up to the challenger(s) to prove that the strikes would have the effect you suggest. So far it's been asserted but not proved. I don't have the statistics but those who think they do should be able to state them articulately and make them understandable and convincing to prove me wrong. As I said, it doesn't matter to me. I don't change my modus to suit the prevailing wind, it's up to the ones who think that so far this isn't science anyway.

Others have made this point, which I'm happy to concede, but what matters more than the impact is the "dust and debris" raised by the impact into the atmosphere, which is what I figure would be reduced by water, because that's what's going to affect things around the world, so they say, more than the impact itself.

No, the mud kept down the dust factor. Even if it instantly turns to dust the whole earth's being wet is going to keep down the dust factor. So is any moisture in the atmosphere and there should be a lot of it.Also, thank you for stating what I was trying to say. Yes, we are assuming the flood. Now tell mark24 that. You may defeat the idea but at the getgo it is being assumed.I am realizing that I've been using the word "impact" in two different senses that would be good to sort out: one to refer to the force of the strike, the other in the colloquial sense to refer to the effects of the events over time. So, reducing the impact doesn't necessarily mean reducing the force of the blow, but could mean reducing the consequences in such things as the dust and debris in the atmosphere. I know I've used it in both senses but now I'd have to go back and figure out where. I don't think I meant the mud would cushion the fall for instance, just not raise so much dust.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-24-2005 12:05 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-24-2005 12:10 AM

I guess I can't expect you to have read all my posts in this thread but I already answered this somewhere back there. There is no real proof of this, it is all a hypothesis in the service of other hypotheses based on the barest of actual facts which are completely inscrutable in themselves. I will try to find my post and link it for you. Ditto. Nothing but an imaginative scenario based on other imaginative scenarios, with no empirical evidence for it whatever. Yes, well so many have said, and for all I know it's possible and would in fact be a big problem for an ark, but so far all anyone has done is assert that it's so without any attempt to explain to me the forces involved. Heck I can assert all kinds of things too as ought to be apparent by now, only at least I have some arguments for mine, so they aren't JUST assertions. This started out as "just a thought." I am surprised that it went anywhere at all. I would have predicted others would answer the first post and my passing thought would just evaporate. I have no major investment in it at all. But since the answers to me have ranged from scorn to unsubstantiated assertion, with hardly anything in the way of actual evidence, I've taken a certain fond interest in my humble little argument.But first I would like to go back and do some thinking about those links you posted in your first message. I really want to get to that tomorrow if I can.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-24-2005 01:00 AM

OK. It will take me a while to catch up with this thread. This post is to answer the claims that a meteorite hitting in the ocean would generate a tsunami and that the tsunami would cause severe effects on any supposed ship/ark floating on the ocean.The information I've discovered is that1) NO KNOWN METEORITE IMPACTS HAVE PRODUCED A TSUNAMI. ONE is postulated nevertheless to have done so 65 million years ago -- sorry, not postulated, "KNOWN" since modern science KNOWS stuff like this, right? even though all REALLY TRULY EMPIRICALLY KNOWN historic meteorite impacts have not caused a tsunami.3) SHIPS AT SEA DO NOT NORMALLY EVEN NOTICE A PASSING TSUNAMI. This is the most important information to answer those who claimed the effects would be devastating to Noah's ark. The ark was a huge ship by the way. 450' x 75' x 45' with three stories.3) TSUNAMIS HAVE VARIABLE EFFECTS: This is an academic point if we're talking about effects while the Flood covered the entire earth, but it might have relevance to Noah's having arrived on land before the flood fully receded and meteorites landed in the ocean: Tsunami effects are variable, may cause damage in one place, not in one nearby, so that there is no absolute certainty about how they might affect a given location 4000+ years ago.Interesting reading: This message has been edited by Faith, 05-24-2005 09:44 PM

No I have not yet studied your post. My plan is to catch up starting back a ways. However, what I posted so far about EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE OF tsunamis is that they aren't even NOTICED by ships at sea -- even very big tsunamis -- and there is no record of a meteorite causing one.In other words, your calculations refer to mere possibilities, nothing that has been observed EMPIRICALLY. You may or may not have anticipated all the variables. What are the odds that you have? Sure, science has the ability to predict many things but in this kind of case there is no way to test, replicate or falsify predictions such as yours, which has historically been the accepted approach to science. It can't be done in this kind of case, which makes your thoughts NONEMPIRICAL, simply hypothetical.Of course you COULD be right that a gigantic meteorite WOULD have the effects you predict and I'll get to that eventually. Even with an impact that large, however, the greater the distance from the ship the less the effect. Yes, I know you've said more than that but I have a few things I want to get to first.Thanks.