Too Many Meteor Strikes in 6k Years

Wrong on both points. We are not doing anything of the sort, or at least I am not. 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. The effects of such an impact in any possible environmental conditions can be easily extrapolated with existing knowledge. With the largest, it really is utter catastrophe.The tired old claim that "We didn't see it so we don't know, can't know and can't reasonably assert what happened," is a ridiculous claim. A citizen of Tokyo holds a pencil out in front of there face and opens their hand so that the pencil is unsupported. We can assert that the pencil will fall. If we know the brand of the pencil we can estimate it's weight. If we know how far it falls before impact we can (even if only by estimating the average height of a citizen of Tokyo) how fast it was moving when it hit (within a reasonable range) and with that information we can determine likely effects of that impact on various surfaces. It won't be a whole lot, of course.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.

There does seem to be some connection in the Bible between the war in heaven and comets, meteors, planets, UFO's, the flood, ect.For an interesting read on the subject, see here:
Fallen Watchers, by; Jason Guenther

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.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. 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.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.

Hi Trixie,
Everytime I see a full moon and observe all those enormous
craters I think to myself how many times has that beautiful rock taken one for ol' Planet Earth and spared us a direct hit.

Center for NEO Studies

Thank you Brad. I've got the site bookmarked for further reading.

quote:

---

Everytime I see a full moon and observe all those enormous
craters I think to myself how many times has that beautiful rock taken one for ol' Planet Earth and spared us a direct hit.

---

This is a very good point. While the moon may have spared us those hits the earth almost certainly took many times more hits about 3.8 billion years ago when the moon took many of the those hits. The geological evidence has been lost on earth over billions of years but the earth must have really been pounded during the Lunar BombardmentRandy

Faith, you may find this web site usefulhttp://www.lpl.arizona.edu/impacteffects/You can look up some historical impacts then plug the parameters of them into the boxes on this site and get a description of the effects. A 10km meteorite impacting in water of 1000m depth causes problems at a distance of 1000km and we're not talking little effects. For example, there seems to be enough heat generated to ignite clothing, trees and grass and most of the body suffers third degree burns. You can play with the parameters, altering the distance from impact site to see how far away these rather lethal effects will be experienced. You can change the depth of the water, the size of the meteorite, heck, even its composition.This might help you to formulate your theory in more scientific terms. Enjoy!

Faith, No, we are not. I have asked you for the evidence that can be "interpreted" as evidence of a global flood. If you can't provide any, then you have no business accepting it as a reality, much less talking about it as a given here.Mark

---

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

Is it possible to examine a crater and determine whether it was a land stike or water strike?If a land strike, can we determine the condition of the land before impact from the debris?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, what we are doing is assuming the flood and showing that this assumption is reduced to absurdity when the impact data is considered.So far we have a problem with the strikes (and these are only the measured ones -- look at the geographic locations of what we know. My estimate is we are seeing between 10 and 20 % of the land based ones which means only a few percent of all of them) being all in the one year of the flood AND the OP was pointing out that they also can't happen since the flood.So far your rebuttals seem to be:1) The won't make a big dent because of water shielding.-- Well, these are the ones that DID make a big, big, big dent. And we know from the physics that the water can't shield the biggest of them much at all. In fact, the water just offers other mechanisms to get the input energy to the ark.2) They mud cushioned the fall.--- This is where the fact that you have no grasp of what is being discussed really shows up. You seem to think that a few feet of mud will make any difference when something ranging in size from the largest buildings we have made up to a medium sized mountain comes in at 10,000's of mph.3) They didn't all strike during the flood year.You haven't given a clue as to when they did strike. So I don't know what this means.Were there any other suggestions that you had? Please list the variables and give the range of effects that these might have when compared to the total energy released.

Jar,At the masses & velocities involved, it won't make one iota of difference. A body entering the atmosphere at 17,000 mph will take seconds to impact the surface (nearly 5 miles /sec), & due to the vast amount of energy released, it (the ocean) will be vapourised in a flash, literally, what isn't is simply displaced. The ocean makes very little difference to it.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 05-23-2005 07:43 PM

---

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

BUT all that is nothing but speculation. You don't KNOW any of that. It's sheer hypothesis. You see dead dinosaurs here and there in layers of sediments, you see an absence of dinosaurs in what is hypothesized to be the next layer up (since as a matter of fact this isn't how they show up everywhere in reality), you see a layer of iridium, you decide a big meteor wiped out the dinosaurs, big enough to wipe out 90% of life -- ONLY because you see all those dead reptilian creatures and you hypothesize the magnitude that would account for it. How do you KNOW it "hit deep water?" And WHAT "hit deep water?" How big is its crater? Can you show it to me? Is it in the same layer the dinosaurs are in? You speak of this event as if it were a witnessed and documented reality, but it's NOTHING but an imaginative scenario put together to account for a bunch of other hypotheses about the scant actual facts of a bunch of dinosaur bones and a thin layer of iridium. And MAYBE a crater --? Does iridium float by the way? Sure, but this is a big planet. That itty bitty event really WAS itty bitty, very local, hardly worth mentioning. All this stuff about debris and dust saturating the atmosphere -- well, nobody has seen anything like that.I thought it was brought up to impress me with what a devastating effect such an event would have had on Noah and company. Now it turns out it's a big nothing.Even all the nuclear testing that was done above ground in the fifties didn't produce half the results we might expect. The effects were surprisingly local, or traceable by wind patterns, devastating to downwinders but nevertheless confined to that area, without the worldwide atmospheric effect some talked about. I would never want to minimize those tests, including the effects of the underground testing afterward, but the fact is there were 100 atmospheric (and 828 underground) bombs tested in a short period of time just at the one Nevada Test Site, the atmospheric ones all within the 50s, all in one location, and their effect seems to have been a lot less than dramatic.Any one of them COULD wipe out a city, or do a lot of damage, but if these meteors hit in uninhabited places or underwater in a worldwide flood, nobody's yet convinced me they'd do anything like you predict.http://www.shundahai.org/nevada_test_site_history.htmWhat would you have predicted for these events? How do they compare with the meteors you are talking about? I don't know. Can you point to one?I'd guess it would cause some major effects for a wide area near where it hit but why would the effects be expected to be worldwide?I don't get this steam idea either. So some great quantity of water turns to steam. Again the area may be quite large, a matter of oh a hundred or even two or three hundred square miles? Make it a few thousand. But that's NOTHING on this planet. AND the atmosphere would cool it.This message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 07:51 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 05-23-2005 07:59 PM

No, I brought it up to suggest how all those meteors POSSIBLY COULD have hit within a very short period -- a lot shorter than 6K years as a matter of fact -- without killing everything on the planet, which was the task set by the opening post. 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. Remember, the thread is challenging the idea of a young earth. It is fair to answer such a challenge with a hypothesis from the YEC position.

That is not what this thread is about. It is not about the evidence for the flood, it's about whether or not a bombardment of meteors would have the devastating effects predicted in the first post, and the flood is my suggestion why they might not.