Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

Not all countries have as many geologists as Australia, U.S., Europe.Not all countries care enough about bolide impacts to look for them.Not all countries have geologists who are familiar enough with what bolide impacts look like in the field.Not all countries have the resources to send their geologists out to the field to look specifically for bolide impacts.Not all countries are in direct communication with the people at Earth Impact Database.Not all impacts occur on the surface of the earth, and the ones occurring in the subsurface would be extremely difficult to find, much less identify. One that has been found: Alamo ImpactSome impacts even occur on land covered by flowing ice.Hundreds of bolide impacts during the flood year would most certainly be noticed by someone floating about the ocean.

They were unknowlingly living on a continent-sized, floating mat of vegetation?Oops! Sorry. Won't reply to off-topic posts again.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-23-2005 03:47 PM

Excellent post, Randy!I have a question, do any YEC organizations state what they believe the water depth was at the peak of the flood? I suspect it may be deeper than what you used (1000 meters). Did you try doubling or tripling that number?It might be interesting to see if there is a threashold water depth where the effects are minimal.

Yikes.Cool model.

As I pointed out previously, the Alamo breccia appears to represent a near-shore (Late Devonian marine carbonate shelf) extraterrestrial impact of moderate size with associated ejecta and megatsunami deposits. Empirical evidence suggesting such an interpretation consists of the following significant properties of the Alamo Breccia:1. Possibly the most voluminous outcropping of carbonate megabreccia in the world amounting to ~4000 km2 scattered across 11 mountain ranges, with an average thickness of ~70 m, and containing a volume
of 250+ km3;2. The presence of structually-intact and locally deformed limestone megaclasts up to 80 x 500 m in size and a turbidite;3. Trends of decreasing thickness landward (east)and decreasing clast and matrix sizes (normal grading) upward;4. Deformed bedrock underlies portions of the Alamo Breccia and is cut by breccia- and clastic-filled dikes and sills; while the strata above the breccia is undeformed;5. The presence of shocked quartz grains;6. The presence of iridium;7. The presence of displace conodonts (indicating reworking and redistribution).Final model of what the impact might have looked like{ Source:Warme and Sandberg, 1996, Alamo Megabreccia: Record of a Late Devonian Impact in Southern Nevada, GSA TODAY, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1 - 7.Online link: The Many Faces of the Alamo Impact BrecciaThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-25-2005 11:30 AM

This is why you drive people nuts. The reason I said what I did is because, although the evidence points to an impact, the crater has not been found. And until Area 51 starts letting civilian researchers onto the base, it's not likely to happen anytime soon.Look at the evidence, Faith, not my word use. No it is not conjecture nor an imaginative construction. The interpretation is not guesswork. The field data is clear:1. The megabreccia and reworked conodonts are CLEAR evidence of a large catastrophe;2. Iridium and shocked quartz are CLEAR evidence of an extraterrestrial impact;3. The presence of stromatolites and dessication cracks immediately below the breccia are indicative of a shallow platform facies;4. The presence of massive limestone breccia clasts are CLEAR evidence of a marine impact;If you don't think an impact-induced tsunami was possible or that this evidence represents and impact, how would YOU interpret the evidence?This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-25-2005 02:50 PM

Tsunamis are not only created by submarine earthquakes where the seafloor is vertically displaced, but also by submarine landslides, terrestrial landslides at continental margins (where land slides into the ocean), and well as impacts.However, I do think there are fundamental differences between waves resulting from impacts vs. waves resulting from submarine displacement.I say 'think' because I don't really know for sure. Just a guess. Can anyone confirm or refute that opinion.This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-25-2005 07:36 PM

FA, it's all part of the learning process.Nothing wrong with making mistakes - we all do - unless you don't alter your thinking when new information reaches you.

Bah!! No one saw anything so it didn't happen.Sheesh. You guys are so freaking gullible I'm LMAO over here.Too funny...
Edited to add: By the way, thanks for the links. Neat stuff.
This message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-26-2005 12:11 AM

Actually, don't some/most creationist organizations agree plate tectonics happened - it's just the rate that's in questioned?

We keep hearing about this 'deep' water - has any creationist ever said how deep this water got? How did they reach this conclusion - what's the evidence?I mean if the land was flat as a pancake, as many YECs suggest, the water could have been 50 feet deep and cover the planet. That's not a whole lotta cushion to soften an astroid impact. But I suppose this is one of those annoying scientific trivialities that YECs don't want to bother with.'Deep' means deep - they don't need a number attached to it to know the water was deep.

EXACTLY!!ALL of it is guesswork. You are reduced to guesswork because of the complete lack of physical evidence -- the fatal flaw in you scenario - in ALL of your scenarios.You cannot provide us with any evidence on: how deep the water was, what the topography looked like, how the continents were arranged, how the flood deposited evaporites or that a flood even occurred, where the fountains of the deep were located and just how that water was stored there, that the seafloor dropped, that the plates moved at the rate of meters per second, etc.Everything you've state is opinion or baseless assertions - guesswork. What makes you a better opponent that other YECs is that you are incredibly intelligent AND creative. You are able to imagine all sorts of YEC fantasies and articulate them well over a messageboard.The fact is, you can question or poke as many holes as you want into our supporting evidence (at least we have some - LOTS of it!), but your doing so will never result in making your assertions the least bit more valid - garbage in, garbage out.

That's the mentality of Creationists. It doesn't matter what they see with their own two eyes, the Bible is true.Smacks of bibliolatry to me.

You are a joke. An absolute joke.I gotta hand it to you, you may not know squat about the sciences of geology, chemistry, biology, or physics, but you are most assuredly an expert in the science of shit-flinging.When you fail to convince anyone with your tripe arguments, you start running away. Well run, chickie, it's that time again.

Life has never been set back to the starting line (except perhaphs in the Archean). It's been set back in such a way that particular types of life were unable to adapt to the new conditions so died out, while others (mammals, for example) were.With each major extinction, the tree of life lost several limbs - sometimes most of the limbs, other times just a few. The ones left were able to eek out and existence and eventually flourish. Life took a different path. Not necessarily one it wouldn't have taken anyway, but it played with the hand it was dealt (so to speak). edited to add the exception in the first paragraphThis message has been edited by roxrkool, 05-29-2005 07:31 AM