Tricky one

I havn't got a clue. Since all the facts and evidence show that its from comets and asteroids and meteors. And since we know what would happen if a comets and asteroids and meteor hit the earth. We seen the the devastation that happened when the comet hit jupiter.

Well my brother believes that we never got hit by a comet or asteroid, and he believes we will never be hit by a comet or asteroid cause god wouldn't allow it. But as much as you want to believe that god wouldn't let them hit the earth you have to remember as a lot of people have said god doesn't interfere with humanity. But there isn't anything we could do if a asteroid of comet was going to hit the earth we would be almost as helpless as the dinosaurs. I know i got of topic sorry.

Sure there are plenty of impact craters why does this need explaining from a YEC. It is the date of the impact that is questionable.

What is wrong with all the dating methods?Also basic laws of stratigraphy?

Originally posted by armageddonman
As some of the impacts would have wiped out most of earth´s populations and changed the weather for thousands of years it is quite strange that none of these terrible occurences have been observed or described.

Click to expand...

You know, what you say here makes perfect sense. Depending on the type of impact, it might actually cause major cracks in the earth's crust, which would affect plate-tectonics. And if there were a layer of water underneath the ground before the impact, all that water might surge upward causing a global flood that would wipe out the earth's population. After that, the earth's environment would be very different than pre-impact, and stay different for thousands of years. And if the environment was so radically changed, I suppose that could affect things like the lifespans of the handful of people who survived and their descendents.

If all that happened, you'd think it would have been observed and written about somewhere...

Now I know where that oiriginal idea from came from. THomas burnet proposed aperfectly spherical earth with arocky covering a layering of water. In his model the covering shrank[plate tectonics] and let the water through causing the flood This was thought of in the late sevnteenth century.No thoughts of meteories or asteroids then

Originally posted by armageddonman
If all of them had formed at the same time, there wouldn´t have been much left of our planet.

So, do you have a valid theory or just another ad-hoc hypothesis with more "if (event X for which no evidence exists) had happened then (event Y for which no evidence exists) may have happened therefore explaining observation Z"?

 

Click to expand...

Huh? Evolution is an ad-hoc hypothesis... "Such and such COULD have happened to create species X, and the fossil record COULD simply not have recorded the intermediates, and so on..." Now you may understand why I regard macroevolution as nothing more than ad-hoc hypotheses.

Regardless, you conclusions are also ad-hoc. You have no idea how many craters there are, the significance of them all, or what the consequences would be regarding how they were created. And if there was a layer of water THEN, that doesn't mean there is one now (that's what would have contributed to the flood), so you wouldn't expect to find any evidence of the layer now. So it IS just an ad-hoc hypothesis. Perhaps evolutionists and you (regarding the consequences of impacts) should admit as much - it would make discussion far less emotionally charged.

Poor Thomas Burnet he thought he had all the answers.Many people do!

You know, what you say here makes perfect sense. Depending on the type of impact, it might actually cause major cracks in the earth's crust, which would affect plate-tectonics. And if there were a layer of water underneath the ground before the impact, all that water might surge upward causing a global flood that would wipe out the earth's population. After that, the earth's environment would be very different than pre-impact, and stay different for thousands of years. And if the environment was so radically changed, I suppose that could affect things like the lifespans of the handful of people who survived and their descendents.

If all that happened, you'd think it would have been observed and written about somewhere...

Click to expand...

   Not really. Because, you see, if it had happened like that, all that water would have come out boiling hot. And even the amount that was thrown so high as to reach the colder areas of the atmosphere,  would heat up again on the way back down.

   So everyone who could have written it down would have been boiled alive.

   Of course, it might have been magic water.

 

thomas burnet was ridiculed by newton,etc. so don't feel bad

Well my brother believes that we never got hit by a comet or asteroid, and he believes we will never be hit by a comet or asteroid cause god wouldn't allow it.

Click to expand...

DNAunion: Well then, ask him about Tugunska (or is it Tunguska). In 1908, an airburst (an asteroid or comet -- which is not really known -- that exploded above ground due to the enormous heat generated by friction with the atmosphere) over Siberia released the energy equivalent of multiple nuclear bombs, flattening forests for hundreds of square miles and sending a shock wave around the world. Where was God? Well, I guess one could always claim that the bolide was headed for a populated area and God - instead of stopping it from "striking" Earth - for some unknown reason decided to just divert to a relatively non-populated area.  But that's pretty darn weak. Especially considering...

We know that large comets strike planetary bodies (the trail of 20 or so fragments of Shoemaker-Levy 9 striking Jupiter).

We know that small meteorites strike Earth regularly (Murchison struck in Australia in 1969, I believe - and someone in Alabama was actually struck by a meteorite and lived!  and there are many more).

We know that large asteroids are on Earth-crossing orbits around the Sun.

We know of one large comet/asteroid that "struck" Earth less than 100 years ago.

Considering all of this, why reject the most obvious explanation for the creation of craters?????????  It's anti-science.

If we believe in current science dating there is no problems.If we believeYECs we just as well throw out thousands of years of observed facts and ban the study of geology.

You know, what you say here makes perfect sense. Depending on the type of impact, it might actually cause major cracks in the earth's crust, which would affect plate-tectonics. And if there were a layer of water underneath the ground before the impact, all that water might surge upward causing a global flood that would wipe out the earth's population. After that, the earth's environment would be very different than pre-impact, and stay different for thousands of years. And if the environment was so radically changed, I suppose that could affect things like the lifespans of the handful of people who survived and their descendents.

Click to expand...

And during that catastrophic world-wide flood, the impact crater(s) would be annhialated by all of the seismic activity and rapid erosion events occurring worldwide. Leaving us without impact craters. This having happened a mere 4000 years ago, all of the impact craters found on earth must have been created during historic times. Yet we have no historical records of their creation. Why?

This going no where. might I suggest it be resticted to geologist only?

Originally posted by sulphur
This going no where. might I suggest it be resticted to geologist only?

Click to expand...

I agree this is going nowhere.