First off, a meteorite 200 miles in diameter would create a very large crater and a impact event as recent as the flood, would be very conspicuous. So we have to ask, where is it? I don't believe there are any recent impact craters in such a large size range. There are no impact structures in the Atlantic at the suggested location. The stated tektite field is also unknown. The "uplifting" caused by the meteor striking a exploding volcano is another impossibility. The meteor would have exploded into a fiery rain of molten glass and rock on impact, there would have been nothing left of any size to be "uplifted." (an improvement in the theory would be to claim more than one impacting fragment as is common with comets and asteroids.) I refer to a large comet impact event on the ice sheets myself as the source of the biblical flood waters, but the basins of the great lakes are not impact structures. There were formed through movement in the earth's crust and glacial gouging. I assume you are claiming that the preflood archeology artifacts were contaminated by high levels of radioactivity that causes them to appear much older in radioactive dating tests than they really are. The problem with this of course, is that contamination of that sort would result in too much radioactive material being present compared to the amount of daughter products, which would cause an appearance of youth, not great age. Only contamination with the daughter products, such as lead instead of uranium, would create the appearance of age. Even if old material was dispersed over the earth, there still has to be a way of transporting it inside of the material such as the bone that is actually dated.
Even if many of the basic points are wrong, I still would like to commend you for a very imaginative and inventive theory. You are coving some of the same ground I went over in my search for answers to how the flood may have happened. One possibly I did come up was that the carbon trapped in glaciers is very old due to the long length of time that the ice accumulates over. A large scale release of glacial water would contain large amounts of 'old carbon' and any material exposed to soaking in such a flood, could have it's ratio of carbon effected, which could result in overly old readings. However, this would only potentially result in a skewing of some dates, it would no in any way allow for YEC since there is no way YEC can be harmonised with the evidence found since the earth is in fact very old.
I am also very interested in the 'glass rocks' you mentioned, I have found what maybe micro tektites here in Wisconsin, the two may have a common connection. so I would be happy for any information you can provide on this.
Wmscott. Thank You for your responce. I'll Admitt I never thought of carbon from the glaciers. I like it. The date thing does have me puzzeled. There does have to be a reason scientist have been messing this up all these years. I can tell you've had a lot of sleepless nights trying to think this out. GO to Back to the fundamentals to 50 of 52 that will explain what the rocks look like. I do believe your glass rocks will match mine. A company from Wisconson was hear last summer and took a lot of rock samples back to test. If you would like, email me and I will set you up, so you can compair rocks for yourself. I thought about more than one asteroid hitting the earth and you may be right. But there is no hard evidence that an asteroid ever hit the mediterranean. But something collapes that, setting off earthquakes raining brimstone and causing havic. The only thing I could think of was a very large asteroid not hitting the mediterranean but comming very close. Close enought to collaps the earth below. Plato did say atlantis was west of the mediterranean. We still Study him today. so why not give him the bennifit of knowing where west was. That's why i thought there was only one asteroid. There is what apeares to be a crator in the eastern basin of lake erie, with a glass rocks scattered to the west. Thanks Again Watson
The old carbon problem I mentioned, would only effect carbon dating of course, and not even all since not everything would have been exposed. I believe in the overall accuracy of absolute dating systems, I just don't believe they are always absolutely right. But what dates do you have problems with?
I checked out the post you referred to, and looked at the map of the lake bottom, and yes it does have the shape one would expect of a shallow angle impact. I will e-mail you, I would very much like to see your rock pictures. Tektites tend to be black to brown in color, so I am wondering if what you have is volcanic glass worked by glacial action. Do the glass rocks show signs of aerodynamic shaping, or are they broken fragments of larger pieces?
Why do you need
quote:"something collapes that, setting off earthquakes raining brimstone and causing havic."
what are you referring to?
quote:"Plato did say atlantis was west of the mediterranean"
Atlantis, despite the ocean being named for it, was not in the Atlantic. "Atlantis" is a mythical story perhaps based in part on stories of the preflood world that was destroyed in the deluge. There are no submerged large islands or continents in the Atlantic that would fit the Atlantis story. The sea floor between England and France was above water in the ice age, but as the sea level rose, travel to higher ground should have been possible. There are also the sea mounts off the coast of Maine, but they would have been too small and too far away to fit the story. I haven't read the Atlantis tale myself, but from what references I have read that referred to it, it sounds more like a civilization that was destroyed than a single city. Which would tend to support the theory that it is a story based on handed down tales of the destruction of the former world. But since much, and who knows just how much, is mythical, we don't know what if anything is factual in the story of Atlantis. Unless supporting evidence can be found, I regard the story as just a myth that may or may not have some references to actual past events.
I read some articals that atlantis has been found east of the azors. And it did fit in to my thory. Who knows? ? Let get back to facts. In ohio the hopewell people was a metal bearing people, If these people smelted a radioactive material for thousands of years. How would that affect trying to date there bones today? Ancient American Volume 7 number 45 has pictures of these people that are over 8 feet tall. Could smelting radioactive material do this? The Norse were known for using meteorite rocks to produce there metal. Watson
Yes, Wmscott, get back to the facts about the 8 foot tall Hopewell people smelting radioactive ores for thousands of years. Have fun with the kookaburra, I'm sure he'll prove a valuable source of tektites.
There have been articles written about Atlantis being found in a number of different places all over the globe, but no solid evidence supporting human habitation at any of the supposed sites has turned up that I know of.
Despite many SciFic movies on this theme over the years, radiation doesn't cause excessive growth. If any thing the reverse is true, for example radioactive iodine can cause cancer in the thyroid gland which is the source of human growth hormone, disruption of production of this hormone will result in a lack of growth or a stunting in size. Perhaps you are thinking of the 'preflood giants' that scripturally never existed but came into being when the KJV mistranslated the word "Nephilim" as "giants" and thus a myth was born.
Many primitive people used meteor iron as a source of metal, trace amounts of radiation if present would have little or no effect on dating their bones since the material was not ingested. Exposure through handling would have little effect on their bone composition. Also few people in a tribe that happened to process meteor iron into spear points or tools would actually come into contact with the items. The women for example would not have any contact with smelting or hunting weapons, and if there was an age effect, this would result in some bones having very different ages despite being found in a common grave, an effect that has not been found. Personally I believe ground water contamination is the largest source of dating problems, and not being a YEC I have few problems with dating of things in general.
You shouldn't be calling people names, they certainly could do the same in return and do you really want to start that sort of low brow school yard exchange? You should learn to respect other peoples opinions even if you believe they are dead wrong, after all, they may believe the same about yours. You gain nothing by making personal attacks, the negativity shown is more revealing about the lack of character of the attacker than any short comings of the victim.
Watson has some interesting ideas that I do not happen to agree with, but that does not mean they are without any merit. I would like to hear more of what he has to say, and you never know, he may have found something important. I prefer to engage in a free exchange of ideas, perhaps I can help Watson to sift some of the chaff out of this theories and I may learn some things from him as well. You should never look down on others, for everyone no matter who they are, knows something that you don't.
I pondered on this before posting that message and finally decided that being respectful and suffering fools gladly are not the same thing. I don't know what's funnier, Watson's ridiculous posts or you seriously replying to them. I'm sure you and Watson will be very happy together.
I understand the forum guidelines, but when I signed up I agreed to show respect for fellow members, not suffer fools gladly. You want to make EvC Forum a site where serious discussion is possible, but if by enforcing your guidelines you make EvC Forum a haven for fools then don't you discourage participation by those most interested in and capable of serious discussion?
This is the responsibility of you and the other admins . This is supposedly a science site, one where Creationists try to make the case that not only is Creationism science, but that it is a better model than evolution. Since this is a science site, and since science is guided by evidence, the fools are those who are instead guided by inclination and interest at the expense of evidence.
I think you have to have some standards. This week it's 8-foot tall Hopewell Indians and Atlantis, next week it could be aliens and pyramid power. Is this the level of dialogue you what here?
The quality of an advocated position, if it is science, is a function of the supporting evidence, and the quality of the treatment accorded it should also be proportional to its evidence.
That being said, perhaps I did step over the bounds by deriding the person rather than the position. Perhaps I should have been referring to foolish positions rather than fools.
I know your skeptical, Thats ok. Atlantis Is just my theory. Your right, I can"t prove that. But I can prove the giants. I can show you a picture. Or I can show you the bones. Do I have a large supply of tektites? Yes I do. Along the Lake erie shore there are many grave sites with metal grave markers that date to the early 1800s, The metal grave markers have no rust on them, The recipe to produce this metal was lost about 1930. Scientist have not been able to duplicate this process. I think thay were alloying meteorite with bog iron. The meteorite rocks and the giants are old news, But I will be happy to bring you up to date. I know it's hard for someone who has been dictated what thay know to change how thay think. Do you believe lab reports? I love to prove skeptics Wrong. This could be fun. Watson What Don"t you believe?