Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

By "time period" I would think it would be obvious from my many previous posts on the subject and my self-identification as a YEC that I mean the huge ages of the geo timetable. I'm talking about old earth thinking, the idea of great ages. I'm pretty precise about this in most of my posts after all.Certainly the higher layers had to be laid down over the lower, but this could have taken days, months or years rather than the great ages of the geo timetable. If they were laid down in relatively rapid succession, the time factor is of much less significance and they probably wouldn't be referred to in terms of the time factor at all."Time periods" in the first quote above refers to "great ages, millions or billions of years." I hope that's clearer.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 11:42 PM

The Flood was not a miracle. It was a completely natural event.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-26-2005 11:45 PM

How? What is your evidence? Remember, we want to know EXACTLY how it started. Is there evidence EVERYWHERE in the world or just in some localities? Is it ALWAYS in the same age rocks? Are the same fountains found EVERYWHERE? Where did ALL of the water come from? Does that account for EVERY cubic mile of water? And EXACTLY where did the water go afterward? Did ALL of the water go there? Details, please.

uh. i'm sorry, but look at it. it's not a photo. i mean that blast radius is a fair percentage of the earth. to my knowledge, nothing that big has happened during the period of human history that involves cameras.newspapers routinely use the word "photo" wrong. they use to mean graphic. in this case, a painting.trust me, i'm both a photographer and a painter. and that's not a photo. see that bit where it covers land? that's what it looks when you make a crater. creationists do it all the time. and besides. i'm not making ANY kind of statement about it, i'm just quoting you. oh, judgemental, are we? perhaps you're just seeing the splinter in my eye because of the log in yours. but that's not what you said. because. EVERYONE here understands the basic concept that a newspaper article is journalism, not scientific research. the op cited it as a way to report that something was found. do you really not get this idea? that the news and media are not the same as scientific research? can you imagine if every news article had to completely explain every single scientific concept that pertains to the article, every time they wrote something? it's not the newspaper's job to teach you geology 101. if you find the subject of the article interesting, they know that reasonable people can look into it on their own.can you imagine if the newspaper wanted to do a story on a dinosaur find, and had to explain not only what a dinosaur was, but all of the chemistry and physics used to date it, all of the biology used to study it, and all of the geology use to describe it? you'd get thousand page newspaper articles that nobody would read because they'd be pretty darned tedious. *sigh*if you found a bloody kitchen knife under your bed, and your significant other was missing, would you infer that an "event" -- something -- happened?science is just following the clues. and here, there's a clue that SOMETHING happened. thus, it warrant more investigation. or would you not try to find out WHY there was a bloody knife under your bed and where your s/o was?

---

אָרַח

as a christian, i'm speechless. as a rational person, i'm speechless.

---

אָרַח

This is the article containing the PHOTO.Now I want everbody to take a real close look at that picture that Faith claims is a real photo. In Message 162 she says: Although there is no scale on the picture and no identifiable land mass you can see a fair chunk of the curvature of the Earth. That should tell you something - that splash is f***ing huge - I mean bigger than a mountain huge.Although my brain isn't up to it thinking it through properly at the moment (it is nearly five in the morning here!) I suspect somebody who's good at hard sums should be able to make a very rough approximation of how big that splash is based on how much of the curve of the Earth is shown.Then Faith can explain to us how somebody got a picture of whatever it is happening, how come nobody noticed it happening and how come there's anybody left alive to talk about it!

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Thank you for the links. 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.BASICALLY, yes? Does that mean that there are some places where this fossil-boundary relation is not quite so certain?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 can accept that there is such a thing as a KT boundary without accepting that it is a boundary between two ancient great ages. Empirically -- as opposed to interpretively -- it's a (tendentious) name given to the boundary between two sedimentary deposits. 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.Does iridium float?And again, I also have questions about just HOW complete the association between the fossil contents and the boundary is in actuality. 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.

Why? There is not one thing in the account to suggest anything other than natural processes.{Edit: Except maybe how God would have brought the animals to Noah. But even that wasn't necessarily miraculous, merely providential, as God manages all things on earth all the time anyway.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 12:05 AM

The real event under discussion is the Permian extinction. There is an abrupt change in the makeup of life on earth at this point. That is not at issue. What is at issue is if an impactor caused it or not and then if they have found evidence for an impactor. This is not conclusive yet it is just the first fingerprint found at the crime scene.

Look, it says "photo." I figured it was a nuclear test blast myself. If it's not a photo it's still a misrepresentation of the story which is about an event that would cause a fireball according to the story itself and everybody here. Yes I noticed the curvature of the earth and wondered what nuclear test had occurred that would be that huge.

OK I'll concede it was an artist's conception. Badly chosen to illustrate the story.

There will be little value in your continuing this discussion with your current attitude.We are attempting to help you by summarising the evidence to an enormous degree. When you don't have ever detail you make any assumption at all that you can grasp at to suggest that there are flaws in the data or reasoning. The degree of summary necessary to be able to post here is enormous.As noted earlier it took years to convince the geologic comunity that the K-T extinction was clearly associated with an impactor. They did not accept any of this easily. The arguments went on for years. The amount of work done is very large indeed.Today we still have arguments. I'm not aware of anyone that doesn't accept the impact idea but they do suggest things like "the dinosaurs were on their way out anyway" or "some survived a little past the event" or "vulcanism played a part too".You have to either accept that there is, indeed, a very sharp (considering it has been awhile ) division at the K-T boundary or you will have to do a lot of work to learn enough to be able to reasonably critisize it or you may as well carry on believing what you now believe. If you pick the last option then don't pretend to have any scientific support for your views.The other thing that is simply solid now is that there was an impact at the K-T boundary. If you won't accept those then why are you bothering in this thread? You won't listen to anything you are told in any case.

Why is it badly chosen? It conveys the idea of a huge impact relative to the size of the earth. How else would you portray that in a simple way?I agree that it probably doesn't show it as it would appear. But there will be instants in the event which don't show any fireball. For example, the impactor vaporizes rock in front of it after it has created a mass of steam. It may be that there is apoint where steam and water show but the vaporized and liquid rock don't. That is a minor detail when you are simply trying to give a sense of the size.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-27-2005 12:17 AM

Oh it just really really is. SUCH a joke. I wish you could see it. Oh I've been paying attention to the explanations, no problem there. The explanations are hilarious too. The reason is that you have your minds made up and can't think outside the box. 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.

Listen, I'm sorry I mentioned it. It was merely one of dozens of things in that article that seemed deceitful to me, and it's the least of them all. I really don't care. I mentioned that the illuwtration to the CNN version of the same article was better as it showed a fireball. Haven't I said this enough yet? Do wwe have to run out this thread on this nonsense?