True Creation's Culdra Theory

Please post it here

--This is from post #37 in the 'Its always a laugh' forum. My 'Culdra impact theory' or Culdra theory' (depending on whether the impact of some sort of celestial body is needed) truthfully, I would yave to say would be more accuratelly depicted as a hypothesis, rather than theory. Though like I sustain, my other explination seems more readilly plausable in explination. If you feel something seems to be missing in the the hypothesii, then we can discuss it.

quote:

---

--Well if you seriously just wan't a theory, ok, I was giving you the ability to tell me what you want the theory to be about. But lets see, a creationist theory. There has been much discussion, for instance, on the theory of Impact craters, I presented my own rudimentary theory on a plausable reason we may find some 'craters', I will present two views. My first theory, I would call the impact culdera theory, now I have not put this through much discussion, I have just given a basic presentation. I'll quote myself.

​

quote:

---

Also, a another plausable explination for the emense size of craters is from collapse of magma reservoirs creating hollow chambers the collapse under the weight, which was eroded by a factor of the global flood covering the collapsed magma reservoir. Just a thought form some reading I've been doing on Marine Geology.

---

​

quote:

---

This is an image of the Halemaumau Volcano in Hawaii, this is a Caldera formed by this action.

​

​

--As you can see in the image it is quite relativelly circular and is vastly emense. If this crater were to have the effects of erosion from a large amount of water as if a lake, at its rim, it would turn out much more circular than it currently is.

---

​

--My other plausable theory on this would be, that at the point of impact by the celectial object, whether comet, meteorite, or some other body that hit the earth. It would be that by the effects of a possible factor in the initial impact, would have been greatly effective in the calculation in the velocity or size of the impacting body. The factors quantifying the characteristics of the crater we observe today could be from different causes, for instance, viscosity of the compound impacted, the material that was impacted, its fluid saturation, amount of solidification and depth by which it is solidified.
--A conclusion at this point in this theory is that factors in the initial impact would have been much more 'leanient' if such a word would be used. That is, the impacted material, in theory would have been a time during the flood or shortly after in where non-solidified/lithified sediments were impacted and this Water saturated sediment was thrown into the air. Continuing to remain saturated by the effects of emense clouds of vapor covering a high portion of the earth, and simply returned to earth within a still large radius from impact.
--After impact a crater could have possibly, if impacted while flooding was still occuring or in an area where flood waters had not receeded, some erosion would have taken place, possibly widening the crater.

​

--These are my two theories on the Creation of the various impact craters, within the realms of science of a different interperetation. These are my rudimentary, non-peer reviewed as-of-yet theories.

---

------------------

So basically we have,(1) Some craters are collapse structures, rather than volcanic or impact structures?(2) Some craters can increase in size through erosion?(3) Some craters seem larger than the impacts really were because of the nature of saturated Flood sediments?

"(1) Some craters are collapse structures, rather than volcanic or impact structures?"
--Possibly, as I stated above, its a simply hypothesis. They could be from magmatic origin, or impact, possibly could be both. I'm not sure about this one, but it could have been a reservoir that collapsed by an impact, accounting for size and possibly shape."(2) Some craters can increase in size through erosion?"
--Possibly."(3) Some craters seem larger than the impacts really were because of the nature of saturated Flood sediments?"
--Not exactly, unless I missunderstood. the Impact would have produced a larger crater by the factor of characteristics of the ground hit. After-all, it would matter whether it hit silt or titanium alloy would it not (analogetic)?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
Not exactly, unless I missunderstood. the Impact would have produced a larger crater by the factor of characteristics of the ground hit. After-all, it would matter whether it hit silt or titanium alloy would it not (analogetic)?

---

Not really when your talking about velocities of the order of kilometers per second and up the speed of the impact is greater than the maximum possible speed of the compression wave through the impacted material. This means that the energy of the impact arrives faster than it can disipate, the resulting build up of energy vapourises material from the impacted surface...What you said implys that you think that cratering is caused by a denting effect like a stone thrown at a sheet of soft metal, in fact the mechanism is more like letting off a nuclear device, instant vapouisation of material in a bowl shaped region.....

So the impacted material makes no effect in size. So, considering my analogy, if a crater were to hit a earth-sized sphere of titanium alloy, vs. a sphere of sand creates no variance in the characteristic of the crater?------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
So the impacted material makes no effect in size. So, considering my analogy, if a crater were to hit a earth-sized sphere of titanium alloy, vs. a sphere of sand creates no variance in the characteristic of the crater?

​

---

The size of the crater varies by the maximum speed that a compression wave can travel through the material and by the amount of energy needed to vapourise a given volume of the material....your titanium alloy example implied a belief that an ability to resist deformation mattered....

"The size of the crater varies by the maximum speed that a compression wave can travel through the material and by the amount of energy needed to vapourise a given volume of the material....your titanium alloy example implied a belief that an ability to resist deformation mattered...."
--Compairing your two statments, it seems as if it does matter, does it not?------------------

[QUOTE][b]--Possibly, as I stated above, its a simply hypothesis. They could be from magmatic origin, or impact, possibly could be both. I'm not sure about this one, but it could have been a reservoir that collapsed by an impact, accounting for size and possibly shape.[/QUOTE][/b]If the size of the crater were caused by collapse of a magma structure, then why would the crater be round? Also, why would it have a raised rim that contained shocked minerals?(I may need to make diagrams to explain this) [QUOTE][b]"(2) Some craters can increase in size through erosion?"
--Possibly.[/QUOTE][/b]The diagram of strata around the Chesapeake Bay crater contained on one of the links I provided showed that the rim of the crater had collapsed into the basin, widening it slightly. But the problem with trying to grow a crater by erosion is that you are filling in the basin every time you try to widen it, until there's nothing left. Plus the upifted rims of the crater are the first thing to be lost to erosion. [QUOTE][b]After-all, it would matter whether it hit silt or titanium alloy would it not (analogetic)?[/QUOTE][/b]Same amount of energy unleashed at impact, if the crater were smaller in titanium we could still see more stress faulting in the metal. But remember, we're basically dealing with rock, silt, or wet silt.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Compairing your two statments, it seems as if it does matter, does it not?

---

Your example was based on the differences in the materials ability to resist deformation I disagreed with your example in that the differences in crater size and morphology are dependant on other factors than the "hardness" of the impacted material....I`m sorry but you did claim to have college level physics.....

Gee, TC, why don't you check out this crater list for a list of [currently] discovered impact craters. If you want to find out more about them individually, try going to google, advanced search, and typing in the name. If your "caldera theory" is correct, evidence should be visible at all or at least most. Oddly, the only thing anyone's found relative to these formations is shocked quartz and other impact indicators. Must be that divine deception in action again.You do realize that Walter Brown's geology - which is where this idea originated, although I'm not sure specifically where you got it - has been quite thoroughly refuted by mainstream geologists?

Look at Quetzal's list and notice the direct relationship between crater size and age.Two reasons for this (1) as time passes the Solar System gradually gets cleared of big asteroids (2) small craters are erased by erosion on the Old Earth timescale. Looks like more indicators of an old Earth to me.Note with the Wetumpka crater that what we have is less of a hole in the ground and more of a ring of hills -- something that would not grow with erosion.Here's a link with pictures and some features of the Wetumpka impact crater in Alabama:
http://www.mindspring.com/~rwhigham/wetu.htmHere's some more "stuff" on Wetumpka, from Auburn University, and includes drill coring information, but takes forever to load.
http://www.auburn.edu/~kingdat/wetumpkawebpage3.htmWetumpka Virtual Field Trip
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_math/geology/docs/wetumpka/vft.htmSpeaking of erosion, here we can see the terrible effects it has on impact craters, using Odessa as an example. Odessa isn't widely known
and there isn't even a musuem there or much of an interpretive display, just a roadstop in the middle of an oilfield complete with an empty container for brochures. But hey, no entry fee. I could barely recognize the craters themselves, just low ridges and gullies in the rocky planes which could be walked down in to. "The Crater That Doesn't Get Any Respect" is a completely appropriate title for the webpage behind the second URL, lots of Odessans don't even seem to know it's there. http://marple.as.utexas.edu/~rocks/site/odessapix.htmlhttp://marple.as.utexas.edu/~rocks/site/OdessaCrater.htmlAnother problem with TC's Culdra Hypothesis is that impact crater / astrobleme ("Star Wound") impact site drilling often shows the craters to be near surface features, with deep layers unaffected. See this on the Sierra Madera complex in Texas. http://www.utpb.edu/ceed/GeologicalResources/West_Texas_Geology/Links/sierra_madera_astro.htm

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 02-19-2002]

This all is rather interesting, but what does it have to do with the evolution/creation debate?Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Unless impacts of the required scale happen far more frequently than is currently believed there hasn`t been enough time (6,000 to 10,000 years) for all the impacts to occur that caused the craters. Hence TC needs an alternate mechanism of crater formation to avoid conflict with his belief in special creation a la genesis.....

And if you consider 120 craters formed over a YEC timescale you end up with one new crater every 40 years or so.