Space impact saves Christianity

Duane Morse · #1 25th June 2003, 12:23 PM

I came across this article a couple days ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3013146.stm

It is about the sign in the sky seen by Constantine in 312AD that preceeded his victory over Maxentius.

It turns out that his sign was a meteor that impacted in Italy, creating a little lake in the process.
http://spaceguard.ias.rm.cnr.it/tumb...ng/sirente.htm

Well, learning of a new meteor impact, and a fairly recent one at that, I just had to see how it would fit into the Greenland Ice Core data.

I have been working on a little project for a couple years now using the data from the Pre-Holocene Rapid Climate Change from the ARCSS/GISP2 Ice Core graph.

I have applied the graph to a 6000 year time span, instead of the approximately 110,000 years assigned to it by the scientists. The results have been interesting, to say the least.
Either "they" do not consider the possibility even possible, or they are afraid to really look at the data in that way. Either way, not very scientific thinking, leaving out certain possibilities because they do not fit into current "thinking".
I have put together a page showing what I have done so far.

http://www.computerroom.com/friends/morse/ice1big.htm

Many of you here have derided me over this before, and I expect no less this time. But maybe someone will begin to really think on this.

Arikay · #2 25th June 2003, 01:08 PM

I think many people leave out the possibility of a 6000 year old earth, because there is data that falsifies it. You know, you cant just pick and choose which data you want to look at. You have to look at all of it. So the data has had an impact on whether or not people look at the earth as being 6000 years old.

Duane Morse · #3 25th June 2003, 01:10 PM

I am not saying the earth is only 6000 years old, just this ice core. I have no problem with an old earth.

Arikay · #4 25th June 2003, 01:14 PM

IC, maybe I read it wrong then.

Nevermind then.

Duane Morse · #5 25th June 2003, 01:26 PM

I applied a 6000 year time span to the graph, then entered dates beginning with the creation of Adam and Eve in 3760BC. But that was not the beginning of the creation, just the beginning of the counting of years on the Hebrew calendar. It was when Adam started aging.

I do not discount the possibility that the creation account and evolution are equaly valid. We just have to understand more of the creation account and evolution to understand how they can coexist.

Most people think Adam was created on the sixth day of the creation, I think he was created on the third. Most think that all seven days have finished and we are past that point now, I think we are still in that seven day period, and that from Genesis 2 until the end of Revelation is showing what has happened and will happen during the seven days.

I have a completely different understanding than most others.

lucaspa · #6 25th June 2003, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Duane Morse

I came across this article a couple days ago.
[url]

I have been working on a little project for a couple years now using the data from the Pre-Holocene Rapid Climate Change from the ARCSS/GISP2 Ice Core graph.

I have applied the graph to a 6000 year time span, instead of the approximately 110,000 years assigned to it by the scientists. The results have been interesting, to say the least.
Either "they" do not consider the possibility even possible, or they are afraid to really look at the data in that way.

Not afraid, but "they" simply refuse to use an invalid method and then claim it is valid. I went to your site. The ages were not assigned randomly nor by "best guess" as you implied. Instead, you get layers within the core as summer winds deposit dust on the glacier and then winter storms put new snow on top of that. It's like counting tree rings.

What you did was take the graph and simply assign new values to it without any consideration of what the ice core actually looks like or the layers in it. IOW, you simply changed the x-axis arbitrarily without any regard to the actual data.

Gee, no wonder no one else did that! Why? Because it's WRONG! You simply can't twist data any way you want without regard to the underlying physical reality -- the ice core.

Duane Morse · #7 25th June 2003, 05:44 PM

Gee, it's strange how well everything lines up so well, then.
So, you are saying that it only snows in the winter, and that this only occurs once per year? How do you know what the conditions were like in the past?

According to that ice core, with a 110,000 year time span, the 535AD eruption of Krakatoa was not large enough to produce any significant spike in the graph, but it was sufficient to change the worlds climate? The sun was darkened for nearly a year, crops failed, plagues were rampant, worldwide. It is what began the dark ages.

Sorry, but I do not buy it. I have shown several significant events that match the graph perfectly.

From the passing of Hale-Bopp in 2209BC up until the 535AD eruption of Krakatoa, the largest volcanic eruption in known history and the second tallest spike on the graph, they match perfectly.

And just this week it was released that the discovery of the meteor strike in Italy was likely the sign that Constantine saw in 312AD, and this too matched perfectly.

This coincidence is too much to be just coincidence.

Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

lucaspa · #8 25th June 2003, 06:10 PM

Originally Posted by Duane Morse

Gee, it's strange how well everything lines up so well, then.
So, you are saying that it only snows in the winter, and that this only occurs once per year? How do you know what the conditions were like in the past?

According to that ice core, with a 110,000 year time span, the 535AD eruption of Krakatoa was not large enough to produce any significant spike in the graph, but it was sufficient to change the worlds climate? The sun was darkened for nearly a year, crops failed, plagues were rampant, worldwide. It is what began the dark ages.

Sorry, but I do not buy it. I have shown several significant events that match the graph perfectly.

From the passing of Hale-Bopp in 2209BC up until the 535AD eruption of Krakatoa, the largest volcanic eruption in known history and the second tallest spike on the graph, they match perfectly.

And just this week it was released that the discovery of the meteor strike in Italy was likely the sign that Constantine saw in 312AD, and this too matched perfectly.

This coincidence is too much to be just coincidence.

Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

And it does stand on the power of God -- God's Creation.

You still arbitrarily squeezed the graph to a scale. It has no relation to the ice core itself.

No, the "coincidence" is you looking only at certain events and then ASSUMING that they are the cause of the ice core. Why should they? Particularly Hale-Bopp. Did we pass thru the tail of the comet? If not, then you shouldn't see a spike, should you?

Another example of arbitrary data is that about Krakatoa. The eruption we know about was in 1883 AD, not 535. Now, some researchers INFER that a volcano SOMEWHERE MAY have erupted in 535 AD based upon various historical references. see http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/history/535ad.htm

It is NOT idenified as Krakatoa.

Now, if you are correct about a 535 AD spike, remember that supposedly climate changed for over a year. That means it took over a year for the dust to settle; that's why the weather changed. Do you have increased dust levels for each of the 5-10 years after 535 AD? No. You have a spike. Therefore your compressed time scale does NOT fit what the data SHOULD look like.

Does that small meteor impact in 321 AD going to kick off enough dust to register on the ice core? Is the spike as big as the one in 535 AD? It shouldn't be, should it?

How about other major volcanic eruptions? Pompeii for example. Does that show up on your graph?

Basically, the data doesn't fit your hypothesis when we start looking at details. It only "fits" at the most superficial level and only because you selected those bits of data to fit. You ignored all the others.

You haven't examined the ice core yourself to see the layers. Therefore your idea that you could get nearly 20 layers a year (what you need to squeeze 110,000 years to 6,000) is an ad hoc hypothesis to prevent falsification. How do you independently test that you can get 20 layers per calendar year?

lucaspa · #9 25th June 2003, 06:19 PM

I did a bit more sleuthing on the web. Considering that you are saying that Greenland ice cores should be compressed, adn that only then does the 535 ADeruption show up, I found this quote interesting:
"The first clue as to the location of the 535 eruption is the fact that the event is probably recorded in both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice cores. This double record indicates that the eruption must have been within the tropics; otherwise it would not have shown up as an acid spike at opposite ends of the world. It shows that acid snow was falling on both ice caps and had to have been delivered there by the two totally separate high-altitude wind systems that operate in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, respectively. Only a tropical eruption could have achieved this to any substantial extent. However, the fact that acid-snow deposition took place for at least twice as long in Antarctica as in Greenland suggests that the eruption occurred in the southern rather than the northern tropics."
http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~insrisg...tastrophe.html

This is a quote from Keys' book about the alledged catastrophe. So, the catastrophe ALREADY shows up on Greenland ice cores, that's how Keys assigned a date. So, if it one part of Greenland has its cores compressed by 20:1, shouldn't ALL of those cores do so?

Duane Morse · #10 25th June 2003, 06:33 PM

"How about other major volcanic eruptions? Pompeii for example. Does that show up on your graph?"

Pompeii is there, the 79AD eruption of Vesuvius.
I have it marked on the graph if you would only look.

"Now, if you are correct about a 535 AD spike, remember that supposedly climate changed for over a year. That means it took over a year for the dust to settle; that's why the weather changed. Do you have increased dust levels for each of the 5-10 years after 535 AD? No. You have a spike. Therefore your compressed time scale does NOT fit what the data SHOULD look like."

The spikes indicate a rise in the dust content, the higher the spike the higher the dust level.
And this graph has a resolution of about 10 years per line, so it is not a high enough definition to give separate years.
But the line just after the line that 535 AD falls on is higher, so yes, the dust levels did increase in the 5-10 year period after the eruption.