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.
True enough. if one impossibility is enough to kill off humanity. Two probably wouldn't do it....
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.
Easy for you to say. You weren't around when Toba erupted either. Do you understand that even a small volcanic eruption can affect the entire world climate? Pinatubo had a noticeable effect for at least a year after the eruption. Now, imagine all of the meteorite impacts and volcanos erupting in one year. This is not a pretty picture. The energy released would be more than enough to parboil the ark and everyone in it.
But remember, the flood killed all living things except what was on the ark.
It did? Aren't you kind of jumping to conclusions?
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, ...
Nonsense. Do you have any clue about the physical properties of water at those strain rates? Water will be indistinguishable from concrete to a meteorite.
quote:
...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.
Sorry, again, but climate is global.
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.
Getting a bit extra-biblical here aren't we?
Most of the strikes on Jar's list occurred in parts of the world very far from the turf of Noah and his family.
And Pinatubo is far from South America. This argument doesn't hold water.
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.
And I think that the pink unicorn hypothesis is a valid question to take up when studying the effects of such an event. Do you see where this is going? YEC was investigated. It was found lacking. Why would we go back to it? With your reasoning, we would still be testing the Wright flyer.
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.
Can we see your calculations on this? Do you know that the eruptions of Laki in Iceland in 1789 changed the climate of Europe for a year? One measly volcanic eruption and not a very violent one at that! You are talking many orders of magnitude larger impacts along with all of the volcanism in the earth's history being released in a year. This doesn't pass the giggle test, Faith.
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.
Sorry once again, but we need your calcualtions on this. There a plenty of YEC scenarios that would boil the entire ocean even by YEC calculations.
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.
Calculations, please.
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.
Based on your assertions, I would say that you are making the more fantastic claim. The OP only questioned the release of energy over 6-10ky. You are the one proposing a one year release, more or less. We know that severe climate effects follow relatively minor volcanic eruptions. We also know that nuclear winter scenarios show global climatic effects. Now you want to have a flood, all meteorite impacts and, by inference, virtually all volcanism occurring within one year! This is utter nonsense.
As this is turning into another Faith thread, I make no commitment to return. This is such fantastic nonsense, I can see no benefit to wasting much time on it. THe quality of YEC arguments has deteriorated so badly in the last year that I'm ready to take up electronic gaming instead. Pathetic.
™ Version 4.2