Meteor craters and the Flood year

Now living in Beijing China. It is wonderful.

BrotherSteve said:

I read the article--it doesn't prove anything.

All you are doing is using techniques to determine the age of craters that fits with your theory. This is what evolutionist do. It is not scientific.

Click to expand...

And I suppose you are a scientist? Some how I doubt it. Science is nothing more than logic applied to natural observations and those who don't practice science are not the judges of what is scientific.

If I am wrong, please tell me where I can find your scientific papers.

Among other things, you assume that you actually KNOW the geologic age of those rocks.

Click to expand...

no I don't. I know the level at which the meteor hit based upon the faults and where they stopped cutting the sediments. That means that the faults show a time sequence, they cut the lower rocks, which were deposited earlier than the uncut upper rocks. Now, If those sediments are were deposited during the global flood, the end of the faulting must mark the impact event. But there is more to it than that. Water logged sediment compacts as the sediments are buried. In such a case, the faulting would go up to the surface, assuming a global flood. Why? Because water flows through rocks at about 3 meters per year at the fastest. That means that the compaction could not be completed until long long after the flood, especially since the impact event is at a depth of about 3,000 meters. And the compaction of the sediments across the fault would cause the faulting to continue to the surface. The fact that we don't see that shows that your concept of how the sediment was deposited is false.

When have any ageing techniques that tell us rock are millions of years old ever been validated--they havn't?

Click to expand...

They have been. Attached below is a chart of 280 supposedly bad radioactive dates published by John Woodmorappe back in 1979. As you can see, there is a trend that if the rock is expected to be older (meaning it is buried deeper), the rock gives an older radioactive date. Once again, your knowledge of geology is rather poor

Based on one observation you know what it looks like when a meteor crashes into the earth's surface? So you have set all of your argument on assumptions. The human race only knows what the impact of one particular meteor does. You (and many others) have no idea if any thing you are saying about meteors, or the craters you claim they make is right.

Click to expand...

Just because I showed you only one, doesn't mean that there is only one. Nor does it mean that I have only seen one. Your logic needs some improving here.

Why is it that YECs always argue in favor of ignorance? Saying that we can't know anything. If we can't know anything, then we can't know that God exists. Are you aware that the very arguments that you use against the scientists can be turned around and used on you? How do you know God exists? Have you seen him? Were you there when he created the world to know that what he says happened is what really happened? See how easy that is?

Just imagine if this logic was applied to other scientific fields. What would you say if your doctor told you "this will definately make you better, we even tried it once and it worked that time."

Click to expand...

As I said, your logic is flawed. there are lots and lots of meteor craters, both here on earth and on the moon, on Mars, and so we have many examples. Your problem is that you never read about anything except in creationist misinformation rags.

Fair enough. But you (or any evolutionist) still have not scientifically proven anything about the age of the earth, where the creaters came from, etc, etc.

All you have done is found some evidence that fits pretty well with your theory and then concluded that you are right. You have not proven anything, you could be wrong! It has happened before in scientific history.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what one is supposed to do? Find evidence and see if it fits the theory? And if it does, then it confirms the theory (note that doesn't mean prove the theory). As to being wrong, you would have to overturn lots and lots of other evidence as well.

YEC's are just doing the same thing you are--finding evidence that supports thier theory.

Click to expand...

No they are not. They aren't finding diddly. they don't do science, they don't think logically and when faced with problems tell people to ignore those evil scientists.

LittleNipper said:

Well, It would seem that Noah and his Ark were placed at just the right spot and at the right moment to protect him. I don't necessary believe everything I read in secular science literature. I would not take it all so absolute. You would do better to apply absolutes to the Word of GOD...

Absolutely true.
Absolutely the Word of GOD...

Click to expand...

This is why YEC will never be scientific and why the term scientific creationism is an oxymoron. I presented scientific data, you presented, the above. Don't claim what you do is scientific.

LittleNipper said:

I might suggest that meteor strikes still do happen and some modestly large ones may likely have happened for years after the Flood. I feel most YEC's believe that the geologic column is a RESULT of the FLOOD; however, that RESULT did not end the very moment Noah emerged from the ARK. There were likely still serious volcanic erruptions covering decaying bodies here and there. And the continents were likely still moving. The ice age was very likely a direct result of the Flood. You have to put aside what you have been told by Uniformitarians and start to come to possible conclusions applying what the Bible seems to indicate.
One has to understand that In the King James Version the word torrents is used. My feeling is that this means that there were areas of light drizzle and other areas of extreem downpours; however, this may also mean that the rain isn't what caused the FLOOD, but the rising of the ocean bottom coupled with the submergence of the continents. You need to think as GOD motivates you and not as secular scientists want or need to see things.

Click to expand...

And you seem so unconcerned with the fact that such a scenario would produce enough heat to boil the oceans to steam. In fact, even the YEC John Baumgardner calculated that the runaway subduction he advocates would release 10^28 joules of heat. he doesn't like talking about it but it is his calculation.

“Because all current ocean lithosphere seems to date from Flood
or post-Flood times, we feel that essentially all pre-Flood ocean lithosphere was subducted in the course of the Flood. Gravitational potential energy released by this subduction of this lithosphere is on the order of 10^28 J. this alone probably provided the energy necessary to drive flood dynamics.” ~ S. Austin, D. R. Humphreys, J.R. Baumgardner, A. A. Snelling, L. Vardiman and K. Wise, “Catastrophic Plate Tectonics,” in Robert E. Walsh, ed. 3rd Int. Conf. on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1994), p. 612

The reference for the 10^28 Joules is to J. R. Baumgardner
“Numerical Simulation of the Large-Scale Tectonic Changes Accompanying the Flood, in R. E. Walsh et al, editors, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1987), p. 17-30

In that earlier paper, p. 19, he calculates that the heat generated by his mechanism:

“Using the values from the preceding section, one finds the energy per unit volume of lithosphere to be 2.1 x 10^9 J/m^3.”



This will boil the oceans. and you beleive this stuff!!!!

LittleNipper said:

The simple fact is that no matter what the TV shows, forensic science is just as much an art as a science and they don't solve all the cases and they do make mistakes. I equate a love of Science as just as inherently evil as a love of money. GOD refuses to be second to anything or anyone.

Click to expand...

So why do you put YECism above God?

Crux said:

I have no claim to expert status, and you raise some very interesting questions. I would certainly like to know the layers they are embedded in.
But a couple of thoughts re energy. Water has the highest heat capacity of any liquid (that i've been able to find) and one of the best latent heat of vaporisation. hence if you wanted to absorb energy, water is IT. so if there was a big meteor shower (maybe that's what the asteroid belt is too) and they were plummetting to earth, having a volume of water to quench the energy would be ideal, and even better, a layer of water at the impacts would be good too. Don't forget that YEC also believe( i think) that the techtonics and continental drift occurred over a short time too.
A meteor causing it would make a lot of sense.

Click to expand...

It makes no sense if you understand rock mechanics, which I don't think you do. Most of the energy of an impact is absorbed by vaporization of rock (what a lovely silicon atmosphere you have there) and by mechanical deformation of the underlying rock layers. The time of the impact is far too rapid to move the continents. They would be broken. Do you remember a play toy that used to be called silly putty? If you pulled on it, the stuff would stretch as long as you wanted it to. But if you pulled it apart in a jerk (a short time frame), it would break. The earth is like that.

Re: waves: the deeper the water the lower the amplitude and the longer the wavelength of the wave as a general rule, so in fact there would not be any crests, just undulations.

Click to expand...

Sorry but there would be wave crests. given them the name 'undulation' doesn't change the fact that they are wave crest. I might prefer to call them squids but that wouldn't change the fact that they are wave crests.

There would also be a lot of steam in the atmosphere for quite a while, with consequent hothouse/iceage effects.

Click to expand...

Have you ever seen what steam does to a lobster when they steam it? I certainly wouldn't want that done to me, or to live in that nice cozy atmosphere created by the lobster steamer. Jeesh, doesn't anyone on the YEC side actually think about future consequences of the statements they make?

LittleNipper said:

Creationism doesn't put man's conclusions above GOD's revelations. Evolution does this and doesn't bat an eye... GOD and HIS WORD are ONE.

Click to expand...

When you say that your INTERPRETATION of the Bible is more important than what you can see and what everyone else can see, you are putting you ideas above those of God. And I will show that in the Bible it teaches evolution.

Lets start with Genesis 1:11



And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit treeH yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earthH: and it was so.

In Hebrew this is Elohim amar erets, dasha dasha deshe eseb zara zera periy ets asa periy miyn asher zera erets ken

Elohim amar is God said. Well what did God say? He said,
God said:

“earth bring bring grass herb yielding seed fruit tree yielding fruit kind that seed earth thus so.”

That is a brute non-punctuated translation. What is the subject of the sentence God spoke? Why it is earth! The subject of the sentence is erets/earth. So what does it mean that ‘erets’ (the earth) is the subject of a sentence. Well according to an internet definition of subject it says


"The subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is doing or being something. You can find the subject of a sentence if you can find the verb. Ask the question, "Who or what 'verbs' or 'verbed'?" and the answer to that question is the subject." webster.commnet.edu/grammar/subjects.htm

Regardless of whether a language is head first or head-last, regardless of whether it has prepositions or postpositions, the rules of what a subject does is the same. It is the actor or the acted upon. In this case it is the actor.

OK, where is the verb of the sentence God spoke? It is bring bring. Dasha dasha. It is apparently used only 2 times in Scripture—here and in Joel 2:22.

What does Brown-Driver-Briggs say this means?

Quote Taken From:
Brown-Driver-Briggs

"to sprout, shoot, grow green
1a) (Qal) to sprout, grow green
1b) (Hiphil) to cause to sprout, cause to shoot forth"
Copyright respective of citation source.


In Joel 2:22 it is Qal.

Regardless of whether it is Qal or Hiphil in Genesis 1:11, secondary causation is not ruled out. If it is Hiphil, then it means ‘earth cause to sprout,” which clearly indicates secondary causation. If it is Qal imperative, then it means, Earth sprout vegetation, which also can be interpreted as secondary causation.

So what is the verb in Genesis 1:11? It is hiphil according to one person I checked with who is a Hebrew scholar. That actually strengthens my case. The passage means ‘Earth cause to bring bring grass...’ So the earth is apparently doing the actual causation. God ordered the earth to cause grass to come forth. I can’t think of a better way to say that evolution occurred.

And because you ignore the clear statement here in Genesis that the earth brought forth life, you are putting your YEC views above those of God's word.

LittleNipper said:

I know that it takes a long time for a pot to boil. I also realize that crust of the earth may have sat on a cushion of water. Evolutionists never think beyond their theory-----why should Creationists be obliging. I suggest that someone heat a large rock and toss it in a pond. What happens? How much does the temperature of the pond change?

Click to expand...

The earth never sat on a crust of water. it is physically impossible and your suggesting this shows you need to study some more physics. In a gravitational field, dense objects try to get below less dense objects, and less dense objects try to move above more dense objects. It is called bouyancy. A rock falls through the water because it is more dense than the water. A cork floats because it is less dense.

The same thing happens with salt in the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere on earth. Salt is deposited as a hard rock precipitate, then it is covered by sediments of greater density. These sediments begin to form rocks with densities of 2.3 g/cc. The salt is 1.8 g/cc. After enough of the denser rocks cover the salt, the salt begins to move. It flows upward piercing through the denser rocks above. That creates the salt domes of the Gulf coast.

Now, salt is much more viscous (resistive to flow) than is water. If you try to put the crust of the earth on a cushion of subterranean water, several things happen. The slightest crack in the crust (and there are millions of them) would allow the water to escape to the surface. Secondly, all rocks have porosity and permeability. The permeability is a measure of the ability of fluids to flow through the solid rock. Since all rocks possess this ability, some water is going to escape anyway. Once it starts escaping, it erodes the channel and then it escapes quicker. That would mean that the earth would have a flood regardless of whether or not man sinned. Thus, your concept, which is really that of the Walter Brown, is simply false.