Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

Yeah, but none of them had any noticeable impact whatever according to science except the very few huge ones -- five I believe -- that are postulated -- not known -- to have occurred once in five million years or so. Since it's just an estimate I see no reason to accept it at all. There are enough and big enough craters on earth to think about without bringing in all the hypothetical ones. They don't have to have all happened in one year, but even over hundreds or a couple of millennia. And most of them are not big enough to do global damage, and didn't land in dangerous places. There were no people except in the Middle East for quite a long time after the Flood.Intensity of what? Randy has the right idea but I don't think he did it right neverthless -- take the known craters and calculate the intensities involved. But since we AREN'T burnt to a crisp and Noah's ark DIDN'T get parboiled, aim to calculate for what would allow for the YEC scenario to be true -- scatter the hits over the next two or three millennia, most intense at first and slowing down over time.

NOT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE HIT, but at whatever distance the heat meets the cool of the ocean and the atmosphere, which would be determined by the size of the hit, and the water-soaked world of the FLood SHOULD, it seems to me, have some effect in reducing the expected global effect that everybody is predicting by SOME measurable degree. One of the ones that is KNOWN to have hit earth? Why wasn't ALL life incinerated by it? Why is there no evidence of such incineration? That would kill a lot more than the dinosaurs. We shouldn't even be here to talk about it. Again, that degree of devastation means nothing could live. It renders the whole evolution scenario impossible. I never actually said it should be confined to the Flood year, merely that it would be a part of the whole catastrophe. It can be extended a couple or three millennia after the FLood, most intense at first and then tapering off I would imagine. The idea is that the Flood was part of a system that included the RELEASE of all these effects, not that they were confined to a year. I said it could have gone on for some time afterward only I didn't try to calculate how long afterward. I'd like to see the calculations for all of them to have hit over a period of three thousand years, with most in the beginning and tapering off.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 04:57 AM

Jupiter impacts: I'm not going to be able to read through all that tonight or in the near future, so boil it down for me: would the effects of the impacts on Jupiter at the links wipe out all life on earth or not?If so, then how can anybody talk about a meteor or two that might have caused the extinction of a certain kind of plant or animal on earth? Surely it would have caused the extinction of a LOT more than that, and in fact we shouldn't see a progression/evolution of any sort in the fossil record after such an event but a regression to primitive sea life or amoeba level life if anything is left alive at all in boiling seas and a 1000-degree atmosphere.

Again, you are calculating such devastating effects that it isn't just the Flood scenario but the whole evolution scenario you are defeating. Nothing could live through that, not a primitive plant, not a dinosaur, and nothing else higher in the evo chain than a creepy crawly, and even they should have a hard time in the suffocating incinerating atmosphere you are describing.AND if higher forms of life COULD survive such an event, because of being at a great distance from it perhaps, then Noah and his animals would have survived it. If they couldn't, then nothing in your bazillion years of evolution could have survived it either.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 05:14 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 05:15 AM

Within the span of the ToE of life? If so, how did any life at all survive these things? And at what distance will these multi-thousand-foot waves dissipate to a ripple? And events like this are supposed to have happened within the period of the ToE of life? Yes, well I'm not the one who confined all these to one year, I merely suggested they STARTED then. This should all be recalculated to spread them out over three or four thousand years in a gradation from very intense to very minimal over that time. That's all hypothetical and there is no direct evidence that the same kind of bombardment happened to the Earth. Well, drop the one year as I've said. Somebody else jumped to that conclusion before I'd thought through my views. I merely said it STARTED then.I doubt the lunar bombardment of earth. It's all hypothetical and there is no actual direct evidence for it. Why should I believe it?

That's not what the fossil record supposedly shows. The ToE shows a steady progression, not a having to start all over with "simple more resistant forms." Salt accumulates in the ocean from the continents. There's some idea that the salt level has remained constant but there is constant input which would seem to defeat that idea. The land wasn't salty. Noah grew a vineyard. I prefer written description to hypotheticals.

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Either it was too hot for anything whatever to live which defeats evolutionism, or on the other side of the world a change of temp might be hard to detect which is what I've been postulating all along, in which case Noah and company would do just fine.

Unless of course it was far enough away to be unaffected, and if there was nowhere on earth to be "far enough away" then your scenario would kill all life anyway, thus causing a big problem for that fossil record that shows a lot of living things that didn't get blasted away but were apparently buried alive.

NOT the asteroid, the atmosphere!!!!And not in one year, over a few millennia, decreasing in numbers over time.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 01:03 PM

Supposedly there was Pangaea, right? The ark should have been somewhere in the middle of it, or at least landed it there, in the area of what is now the Middle East somewhere -- the location isn't definite apparently as "Ararat's" location is disputed.The rest of the globe was ocean -- how deep, who knows? But there is some idea it deepened quite a bit, the ocean floor dropped, during the Flood, as the "fountains of the deep" were emptied from beneath. A possibility.The land is supposed not to have been "flat as a pancake," but neither were there very high mountains such as we have now. The water "prevailed upward 15 cubits and covered the mountains" which means the water MAY have been only about some 40-50 feet deep over the lower areas of the land. All of this is guesswork.The idea isn't to "cushion the impact," the idea is to keep down the atmospheric dust and debris which is the main killer according to the theories. During the rain period the atmosphere would be very wet, and after the rain stopped, a water-covered planet would still have a very wet atmosphere and all that water ought to have some cooling effect to the extent at least of helping to limit the total area of these effects.But if not, then not.And we are not talking about all of them hitting in one year but over a few millennia.

Great, calculate for least ejecta. 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. 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. 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. Over a few millennia? 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. Which would kill far more than the fossil record suggests was killed, no? But anyway, scatter them over three or more millennia away from population areas. What's that, one every thirty years? 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.

I never DID have them all in the Flood year. I said they STARTED in the Flood year. Before I had time to think it all through others were saying I meant all in the Flood year. You can cut the nasties.This was "just a thought" at the beginning of this thread. I was not into debating it, it just happened.Yes you are right, many would not have occurred in the wet period. Maybe all the very big ones did.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 01:35 PM

I figured wetness is different from dusty dryness but if not then not. I'm conceding all points and exiting this thread. I got into it by merely making a quip I didn't even expect anyone to answer. 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. Meanwhile I concede the particular points made here and bye for now.{EDIT: "dust and debris" is a quote from the first article posted on this thread.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-27-2005 02:24 PM

Oh I don't propose MY arguments for a science class. There are scientists who can do that work. And I also believe all Christians should pull their children out of the public schools and stop trying to influence them in any way whatever. You are welcome to them. A secular based education is wrong for Christians.

I concede that I can't answer the calculations. I don't concede that they are right just because I can't answer them. Calculations are just calculations. They are hypothetical. There is no way to prove or disprove that they describe anything real that ever actually happened. But I can't answer them so I'm exiting. And by the way your link didn't go anywhere. I tried half a dozen times.