Noah's Ark (2)

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

You went on about the ejecta plume. That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking whether or not the fire caused by the meteor strike ( the fire in the immediate vicinity of the meteor strike) was local or did it spread and became the cause of the global fire. It's a simple question.

Based on parameters from the Chicxulub event and the earth impact calculator I figure that direct ignition would be in a radius of about 1200-1400 km, after that the impact fireball is too far away and eventually below the horizon. It would not have spread to be a "global fire". The major spreading of fires around the globe would have been by ejecta from the crater as has been pointed out several times now.

You still have no way to connect this asteroid impact and the fires it probably started 65,000,000 years ago to a global flood that is supposed to have occured a few thousand years ago.

 

[Greg1234]

Based on parameters from the Chicxulub event and the earth impact calculator I figure that direct ignition would be in a radius of about 1200-1400 km, after that the impact fireball is too far away and eventually below the horizon. It would not have spread to be a "global fire". The major spreading of fires around the globe would have been by ejecta from the crater as has been pointed out several times now.

You still have no way to connect this asteroid impact and the fires it probably started 65,000,000 years ago to a global flood that is supposed to have occured a few thousand years ago.

Then it was a local fire and the event was local which refutes the global fire claims.

Why wouldn't I, looking in at the immediate vicinity, think of this as a local event (like a California forest fire) rather than a global fire? The fire is clearly local (as you have plainly admitted), like California local fires, and most likely destroyed all life in the vicinity.

In essence you are-

1) Saying that a local fire was global
2) Saying that a global fire destroyed all life

Why? Biogeography challenges this.

 

[Orogeny]

Just in case you missed this even though it has been pointed out to you on multiple occasions:

The major spreading of fires around the globe would have been by ejecta from the crater

Now. Do you really think that quotemining a post that is directly above yours will work? Do you think we wouldn't see through that?

Address the ENTIRETY of FB's post, or don't bother.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Then it was a local fire and the event was local which refutes the global fire claims.

Why wouldn't I, looking in at the immediate vicinity, think of this as a local event (like a California forest fire) rather than a global fire? The fire is clearly local (as you have plainly admitted), like California local fires, and most likely destroyed all life in the vicinity.

The fire from the original fireball was local if you consider a radius of nearly 1000 miles local but there is evidence that fires spread around the earth as a result of ejecta from the impact. Why do you have so much trouble understanding this? Did you even look at the animation I posted. It is pretty obvious. I don't see how you could have missed it.

In essence you are-

1) Saying that a local fire was global
2) Saying that a global fire destroyed all life

Why? Biogeography challenges this.

I never said it was a "global fire". Global Firestorm was a title from a news report you linked to. I said there is evidence of fires all around the globe started by ejecta from the impact. (And by the way this is still controversial) I did not say that the global fire destroyed all life.
Here is what I said just a few posts ago #232

You can see that while the fires are all around the globe the entire earth is not on fire. This event did cause mass extinctions, especially of large land animals 65 million years ago but it is not analogous to the mythical global flood which supposedly killed all land breathing life everywhere, that was not on the ark. It did reduce biodiversity but would not have restricted surviving species to only 2 or 6 individuals and it would have left many surviving species scattered around the earth to evolve into new life forms over the 65 million years that have intervened since.

I also posted this on the other thread. It seems you really do have a problem with reading comprehension.

 

[Greg1234]

The fire from the original fireball was local if you consider a radius of nearly 1000 miles local but there is evidence that fires spread around the earth as a result of ejecta from the impact. Why do you have so much trouble understanding this? Did you even look at the animation I posted. It is pretty obvious. I don't see how you could have missed it.

I already know what the model depicts. This isn't for me however, but for you. Thus far, we have determined that-

1) the fire from the impact was disastrous, extensive and localized

2) it is referred to as a "global fire" not because the local fire spread to all parts of the earth.

3) the designation as a "global" fire comes from secondary events like a rippling effect.

4) The event as a whole is not comparable to a small domestic event (like a California fire) even if the fire at the impact zone was extensive and localized.

5) Life within the initial blast radius would have been wiped out completely or almost completely by this local fire (referred to as a global fire when all things considered)

6) It is not correct to call the event a "local fire."

Correct?

I never said it was a "global fire". Global Firestorm was a title from a news report you linked to. I said there is evidence of fires all around the globe started by ejecta from the impact. (And by the way this is still controversial) I did not say that the global fire destroyed all life.
Here is what I said just a few posts ago #232

You can see that while the fires are all around the globe the entire earth is not on fire. This event did cause mass extinctions, especially of large land animals 65 million years ago but it is not analogous to the mythical global flood which supposedly killed all land breathing life everywhere, that was not on the ark. It did reduce biodiversity but would not have restricted surviving species to only 2 or 6 individuals and it would have left many surviving species scattered around the earth to evolve into new life forms over the 65 million years that have intervened since.

I also posted this on the other thread. It seems you really do have a problem with reading comprehension.

I know what you said.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I already know what the model depicts. This isn't for me however, but for you. Thus far, we have determined that-

1) the fire from the impact was disastrous, extensive and localized

The initial fireball was localized and would have only started fires in a radius of a few hundred miles.

2) it is referred to as a "global fire" not because the local fire spread to all parts of the earth.

3) the designation as a "global" fire comes from secondary events like a rippling effect.

It was referred to as a global firestorm in the news article you quoted because there is evidence of widespread fires caused by ejecta from the impact.

4) The event as a whole is not comparable to a small domestic event (like a California fire) even if the fire at the impact zone was extensive and localized.

Except that recovery from the distributed fires may have been very similar to what is seen after large localized fires today.
Impact generated fires

This fire-recovery pattern is similar to that seen in some parts of the world today. For example, after a forest fire in New England, ferns are often the pioneering plant that grows first. Many years are needed for birch forests, and eventually hardwood maple forests, to recover.

5) Life within the initial blast radius would have been wiped out completely or almost completely by this local fire (referred to as a global fire when all things considered)

There was a large fireball and also an enormous blast wave and giant tsuami that would have wiped out most everything in a radius of a few hundred miles, yes.

6) It is not correct to call the event a "local fire."

Correct?

It is correct to call it an asteroid impact that may have started fires in many places around the world beyond the range of those caused by heat radiation from the original fireball. It still has nothing to do with a global flood.

I know what you said.

Then why did you mischaracterize it so thoroughly in your last post?

Would you like to quit wasting everyone's time and try to give some coherent explanation of where you think are going with this?

 

[Greg1234]

The initial fireball was localized and would have only started fires in a radius of a few hundred miles.
It was referred to as a global firestorm in the news article you quoted because there is evidence of widespread fires caused by ejecta from the impact.

They called it fire in others. It doesn't matter if they call it a firestorm. That's not the point. The point is understanding "what is meant by a global fire in these." Now that you have pretty much agreed with the 6 points outlined, replace the word "fire" in all of the 6 points, with the word "flood."

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

They called it fire in others. It doesn't matter if they call it a firestorm. That's not the point. The point is understanding "what is meant by a global fire in these." Now that you have pretty much agreed with the 6 points outlined, replace the word "fire" in all of the 6 points, with the word "flood."

So let's start with the part where the Chicxulub impact was 65 million years ago. Are you trying to say that the flood was Noah was caused by an asteroid impact 65 million years ago? Or even that is was caused by an asteroid impact 5000 years ago?

Now let's try replacing fire with flood in what I agree with just for fun. We run into a problem right at the start.

1, Radiation from the initial floodball starts lots of floods in a widespread area. (that doesn't make sense)

2. Ejecta from the impact that made the floodball rains down around the earth and causes widspread floods around the globe, but the whole earth is not on flood.

3. There are many surviving species from these floods that were scattered around the world to repopulate the earth over the next 65 million years.

Whatever you call the event that results from your inability to tell the difference between fires caused by an asteroid impact and floods caused by who knows what there is no relationship at all to the flood of Noah as described in Genesis. Nor does your nonsense provide any evidence for the flood as described in the Bible which YECs claim covered the entire earth at the same time and for a long time killing everything not on the ark.

 

[SkyWriting]

Based on parameters from the Chicxulub event and the earth impact calculator I figure that direct ignition would be in a radius of about 1200-1400 km, after that the impact fireball is too far away and eventually below the horizon. It would not have spread to be a "global fire". The major spreading of fires around the globe would have been by ejecta from the crater as has been pointed out several times now.

You still have no way to connect this asteroid impact and the fires it probably started 65,000,000 years ago to a global flood that is supposed to have occured a few thousand years ago.

Clergy wear robes and scientists wear lab coats and I'm convinced neither can remember past events accurately.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit....is where Science is today.

 

[Psudopod]

lergy wear robes and scientists wear lab coats and I'm convinced neither can remember past events accurately.
If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit....is where Science is today.

Yes, eyewitness testimony is often very unreliable. Fortunately that's not what science relys upon.

 

[Greg1234]

Yes, eyewitness testimony is often very unreliable. Fortunately that's not what science relys upon.

Actually, science is science. Scientific studies are reliant on the eyewitness testimony of those witnessing science (unless you are saying that quoting a Nature article here or one paper quoting another means that the study was directly observed by the person quoting).

Historians also use eyewitness testimonies when compiling. A historian today looking to archive Babe Ruth's every home run relies on eye witness testimony. Further, Darwinism isn't viable so there is no refutation of data which can be made available.

 

[Psudopod]

Actually, science is science. Scientific studies are reliant on the eyewitness testimony of those witnessing science (unless you are saying that quoting a Nature article here or one paper quoting another means that the study was directly observed by the person quoting).

Data exists independently of the person writing the study. Even if individual results can only be accessed by one person, the test can be repeated, to see if the results are reliable.

Historians also use eyewitness testimonies when compiling. A historian today looking to archive Babe Ruth's every home run relies on eye witness testimony.

A good historian will rely on multiple sources and look for collaborating evidence. They will not just rely on the word of a single person.

Further, Darwinism isn't viable so there is no refutation of data which can be made available.

What's Darwinism, and why does it's viablilty have anything to do with what I said?

 

[Greg1234]

Data exists independently of the person writing the study. Even if individual results can only be accessed by one person, the test can be repeated, to see if the results are reliable.

Those quoting Nature articles here do not repeat any tests though it can be. It is taken based on eyewitness accounts.

A good historian will rely on multiple sources and look for collaborating evidence. They will not just rely on the word of a single person.

A good historian will find data which can be made available, will not dismiss a collection of individuals as ignorant goat herders, will not leisurely compare evidence outside the texts with evidence outside of Harry Potter, will dismiss allusions to some future refutation and ask for data on bacteria to civil war cannon phenomena.

What's Darwinism, and why does it's viablilty have anything to do with what I said?

We start at the beginning. Everything.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually, science is science. Scientific studies are reliant on the eyewitness testimony of those witnessing science (unless you are saying that quoting a Nature article here or one paper quoting another means that the study was directly observed by the person quoting).

Historians also use eyewitness testimonies when compiling. A historian today looking to archive Babe Ruth's every home run relies on eye witness testimony. Further, Darwinism isn't viable so there is no refutation of data which can be made available.

There is nothing wrong with practical Darwinism. But because it has multiple competing mechanisms, and none of the mechanisms even show a hint of providing new life or new coding language for life, it rules itself out as an explanation for origins.

 

[SkyWriting]

Data exists independently of the person writing the study. Even if individual results can only be accessed by one person, the test can be repeated, to see if the results are reliable.

Still, the results are interpreted by the observer. IF two observers claim the same interpretation of the result, then it's been "peer reviewed". The majority opinion can easily be swayed. Swaying the majority over to ones viewpoint is the entire goal of science.

 

[selfinflikted]

Swaying the majority over to ones viewpoint is the entire goal of science.

Sometimes I wonder if some people actually think about what they post. My head just exploded with this one.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sometimes I wonder if some people actually think about what they post. My head just exploded with this one.

I somewhat agree with him; knowing the flack I take for not agreeing with the ... um ... scientists here that we're Homo sapiens.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I somewhat agree with him; knowing the flack I take for not agreeing with the ... um ... scientists here that we're Homo sapiens.

You don't like the definition, so you came up with your own.

Don't blame the ... um... scientists for not kowtowing to your egotism.

 

[AV1611VET]

You don't like the definition, so you came up with your own.

Au contraire -- I love the definition.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Au contraire -- I love the definition.

You don't seem to care much for being it -- you had to invent a reason to make yourself special.