Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 76 of 304 (210743)
05-23-2005 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by mikehager
05-23-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Not 6000 years, 4000.
No one saw this event except for our Japanese friend (and let's assume he isn't going to talk) so we have no eyewitness information, yet we can make all sorts of good determinations about it.
The same is true with massive cometary impacts, only the numbers are a good deal larger.
I have acknowledged all that. You can predict the impact itself. The fact remains there are other variables that so far I haven't heard taken into account for the impact of this bombardment of meteors, such as the effect of preexisting atmospheric conditions, wind, rain, heat, cold, and so far the idea that the effect would be worldwide is simply not convincing. Sure, you can say a lot about the immediate impact, the depth of the crater, the effect on local rock and water, but beyond that the hypotheses don't cut it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mikehager, posted 05-23-2005 4:27 PM mikehager has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 77 of 304 (210744)
05-23-2005 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by mark24
05-23-2005 7:42 PM


Re: What CAN be said?
That's pretty much a given. But what about the debris patterns? For example at Metor Crater I understand they've found ejecta, fused material that remained in the crater and close by. If it had been underwater, would small material remain on site between the effects of the strike itself and the in rush of water that filled the location only moments later?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by mark24, posted 05-23-2005 7:42 PM mark24 has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 78 of 304 (210748)
05-23-2005 9:04 PM


Effects
Ocean impacts. Massive waves created by displacement. Ark(a box)rocks and rolls. Animals slip, slide, bruise, bellow and squeal. Water tanks overflow. Food supplies tip. Manure liquified spreads and mixes with food and water. Crew vomits. Noise increases to bedlam. Stink increases over period. Frightened animals,etc break loose. Crew too sick to care, throw up some more. Only one window. Shut.

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Bonobojones, posted 05-23-2005 9:26 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 79 of 304 (210749)
05-23-2005 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Trixie
05-23-2005 4:35 PM


Science or faith etc
I've had another look at the opening post of this thread and, while it does seem a bit garbled, it seems to be suggesting that the number of detected large strikes occurring over 6-10K years would have wiped out humanity. I have to say that this does make sense, since humanity would have been "in at the beginning" so to speak if we take the Genesis version of creation literally.
quote:
Faith, you're proposing an even more extreme scenario - that all of the mega strikes happened in a single year!!! To back this up you're going to have to tackle the physics of meteorite strikes of this magnitude and that doesn't belong in the faith section, it belongs in the science section.
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.
He's challenging the young earth scenario. I'm answering from the position of the YEC.
I believe the burden of proof is on the challenger. I didn't find his hypothesis convincing and so far he hasn't been around to defend it, and other attempts to defend it haven't been all that convincing either.
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.
But remember, the flood killed all living things except what was on the ark. 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, 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. 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. Most of the strikes on Jar's list occurred in parts of the world very far from the turf of Noah and his family.
You can't just take the flood as a "given" - its up to you to provide evidence that numerous huge meteorite strikes in water wouldn't have par-boiled Noah and his floating menagerie.
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.
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. 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. 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.
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.
I'm enjoying the science in this thread so far and I would hate to see it disappear into faith section where the science stops and the wild guessing begins.
As I said, it doesn't matter to me. I don't change my modus to suit the prevailing wind, it's up to the ones who think that so far this isn't science anyway.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Trixie, posted 05-23-2005 4:35 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by DrJones*, posted 05-23-2005 10:47 PM Faith has replied
 Message 87 by edge, posted 05-23-2005 11:31 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 92 by wnope, posted 05-24-2005 12:36 AM Faith has replied

Bonobojones
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 304 (210751)
05-23-2005 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Nighttrain
05-23-2005 9:04 PM


Re: Effects
Don't forget the seams open to the sea, ballast shifts, destabilizing the craft and it turns turtle and sinks.
Faith. Are you familiar with Cliffie Claven?

Reunite Gondwana!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Nighttrain, posted 05-23-2005 9:04 PM Nighttrain has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Brad McFall, posted 05-23-2005 10:04 PM Bonobojones has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 81 of 304 (210753)
05-23-2005 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Faith
05-23-2005 8:25 PM


Re: The flood as a given
Faith,
IF there was such a flood THEN the effects predicted in the opening post either would not have occurred or would not have had the devastating effects predicted.
And IF the flood didn't happen & mass extinctions were a corollary of the impacts, then we would see this in the fossil record. We do. If the flood happened, we wouldn't. A very simple evidentially informed choice seems to be in order. Of the two positions, one has data consistent with it & the other doesn't.
Combine that with a total lack of evidence for a global flood, & well, you get the picture.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Faith, posted 05-23-2005 8:25 PM Faith has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 82 of 304 (210754)
05-23-2005 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Bonobojones
05-23-2005 9:26 PM


turtles all the way down?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Bonobojones, posted 05-23-2005 9:26 PM Bonobojones has not replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 83 of 304 (210759)
05-23-2005 10:44 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by mikehager
05-23-2005 4:27 PM


Re: Not 6000 years, 4000.
You are taking the flood as a given, as it seems is standard practice with you. I and others are trying to show you why that idea doesn't work in the real world.
Mike,
I think today I'm getting a new insight into the thinking of believers. Faith is the catalyzing example, but this applies to a Mormon who believes the Book of Mormon is true, or a Muslim who believes in the Koran, and on and on.
Now all these books are falsified in one place or another by the real world, by science, or history, or archeology. Fundamentalists who assert inerrancy in the book, doctrine, relgion, or religious leader(s) of their choice know that there is a conflict between reasonable knowledge and their beliefs. But because of the value, the feeling that their beliefs gives them, they want these beliefs to be true.
Now this is the key. Science, or reason, etc. threatens to falsify their beliefs. All the true believer needs to do is some how introduce some uncertainty so that they can discount the falsification. It doesn't have to be much. They don't have to meet rigorous standards because they are not scientists doing science for peer review, etc. They are believers trying to believe that myth, fantasy, fiction is true. It already feels real to them so they need only find one little shred of doubt about the rational counter argument and Voila! They can feel comfortable that their beliefs have not been falsified and hence are true.
Debating a true believer may be interesting and Arach has particularly written some interesting scholarship in debating Faith. But Faith is going to believe what she wants. She only has to find a way to doubt for herself the arguments of science, or history, or archology and then she is confirmed in her faith.
It matters not that a world wide flood or a YEC has not a shred of scientific support. Faith is not doing science she is wanting to believe the religion that has been sold her and to do that she only needs the tiniest doubt of science to dismiss it. And that is easy enough to do. We've seen Mormons, Muslims, Christians do that here often enough.
It's interesting reading and good exercise and there are those of us interested in learning some of this science, but Faith and the other true believers are not paying attention. They are arguing away real world threats to their dearly loved fantasy.
All this is too say, you can show Faith why it doesn't work in the real world and she will simply find some pretext to doubt a tiny bit of your argument and then she is back where she wants to be believing what she wants to believe which is in this case that the world is 6,000 or so years old and that a one time it was covered with water and only 8 people lived through that flood.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by mikehager, posted 05-23-2005 4:27 PM mikehager has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by mikehager, posted 05-24-2005 12:48 AM lfen has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 84 of 304 (210761)
05-23-2005 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
05-23-2005 9:08 PM


Re: Science or faith etc
the water itself which MUST absorb some of the impact expected by our first poster,
False. Water is incommpressible, any force imparted to the water by an impact would be transmitted throughout the water.

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 05-23-2005 9:08 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Randy, posted 05-23-2005 11:07 PM DrJones* has not replied
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 05-23-2005 11:53 PM DrJones* has replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 85 of 304 (210762)
05-23-2005 10:49 PM


Steamed ark soup
Wow this thread has moved fast. I did a few calculations. First since the flood supposedly rearranged all the world's geology I don't think these meteor strikes can have left the craters we see if they were preflood. If they are post flood someone should have notices them. So maybe they happened during the flood year. It seems to me that they would have to be late in the flood year after much of the sedimentary record had been deposited or their crates would have been obliterated. So they are falling all around. Maybe this is after Noah landed but before all the water had receeded so all the massive waves wouldn't flip the ark over.
If we take the Impact Database and the impact effect calculator We can divide the craters into groups and estimate their impact energies. I did this with 120 or so that are more than 4 km in diameter, to 60 that 4-10, 25 that are 10-20 and so on. I then calculated the impact energy based on the smallest crater size of each division to get a rough estimate that underestimates rather than overestimates the energy.
What happens when these things hit in water? First they vaporize a massive amount of water putting steam in the air. Then they vaporize themselves and part of the earth's crust producing a massive heat and shock wave. The big ones will produce a fireball that will ignite wood 500 miles away. I calculate that the energy released is about 6 X 10^24 J equivalent to dropping about 1.5 billion 1 megaton H bombs. Thermal radiation, steam and vaporized rock are all efficient ways to transfer heat to the air. The earth's rate of heat loss by Black Body radiation won't be able to keep up and the atmosphere will heat up. The heat capacity of atmospheric gases is about 1 j/g-K and there are about 5 x 10^21 grams of gas. This means that enough heat is released to heat the entire atmosphere to 1000 degrees if it were all transfered to the atmosphere. Of course quite a bit of the energy will go into melting crustal rocks and into molten rock that falls back into the global oceans before giving up all its heat to the air. Still I think it would pretty thoroughly cook the earth to death.
Now realize that what we see are craters from only a small fraction of the objects that hit earth over its history. As mentioned before just look at the moon. The earth would surely have received many more hits than the moon during the lunar bombardment, probably being hit by dozens if not hundreds of objects from 20 to 100 or more km in diameter and thousands of smaller ones vaporizing the oceans.
Of course if the earth is 4.55 billion years old and there never was a global flood then this is no problem.
Randy

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 3:56 AM Randy has not replied

Randy
Member (Idle past 6247 days)
Posts: 420
From: Cincinnati OH USA
Joined: 07-19-2002


Message 86 of 304 (210763)
05-23-2005 11:07 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by DrJones*
05-23-2005 10:47 PM


Re: Science or faith etc
False. Water is incommpressible, any force imparted to the water by an impact would be transmitted throughout the water.
The force will indeed be transmitted through the water making huges waves but some of the energy will be absorbed by the water vaporizing it and causing a huge "water crater" to form. This will make an even bigger wave as water flows in to fill the space vacated by the vaporizing water. water that was pushed away by the impact and whatever part of the ocean's crust is vaporized. A 5 km asteroid hitting at 17 km/sec is expected to open a "crater" in the water with a diameter of about 40 miles.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/
That will make a big wave when it refills.
Randy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by DrJones*, posted 05-23-2005 10:47 PM DrJones* has not replied

edge
Member (Idle past 1706 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 87 of 304 (210765)
05-23-2005 11:31 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Faith
05-23-2005 9:08 PM


Re: Science or faith etc
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Faith, posted 05-23-2005 9:08 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 88 of 304 (210766)
05-23-2005 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by DrJones*
05-23-2005 10:47 PM


Re: Science or faith etc
the water itself which MUST absorb some of the impact expected by our first poster,
False. Water is incommpressible, any force imparted to the water by an impact would be transmitted throughout the water.
Others have made this point, which I'm happy to concede, but what matters more than the impact is the "dust and debris" raised by the impact into the atmosphere, which is what I figure would be reduced by water, because that's what's going to affect things around the world, so they say, more than the impact itself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by DrJones*, posted 05-23-2005 10:47 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by DrJones*, posted 05-24-2005 12:04 AM Faith has replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 89 of 304 (210767)
05-24-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Faith
05-23-2005 11:53 PM


Re: Science or faith etc
but what matters more than the impact is the "dust and debris" raised by the impact into the atmosphere, which is what I figure would be reduced by water
how so? Specifically how is the debris etc. ejected into the atmosphere by a land strike reduced by water?

*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Faith, posted 05-23-2005 11:53 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Faith, posted 05-27-2005 4:29 AM DrJones* has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 90 of 304 (210768)
05-24-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by NosyNed
05-23-2005 7:38 PM


Re: Assuming the flood
They mud cushioned the fall.
No, the mud kept down the dust factor. Even if it instantly turns to dust the whole earth's being wet is going to keep down the dust factor. So is any moisture in the atmosphere and there should be a lot of it.
Also, thank you for stating what I was trying to say. Yes, we are assuming the flood. Now tell mark24 that. You may defeat the idea but at the getgo it is being assumed.
I am realizing that I've been using the word "impact" in two different senses that would be good to sort out: one to refer to the force of the strike, the other in the colloquial sense to refer to the effects of the events over time. So, reducing the impact doesn't necessarily mean reducing the force of the blow, but could mean reducing the consequences in such things as the dust and debris in the atmosphere. I know I've used it in both senses but now I'd have to go back and figure out where. I don't think I meant the mud would cushion the fall for instance, just not raise so much dust.
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-24-2005 12:05 AM
This message has been edited by Faith, 05-24-2005 12:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by NosyNed, posted 05-23-2005 7:38 PM NosyNed has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024