Meteor craters and the Flood year

[grmorton]

wait, why do they all have to take place during the one year of the flood?

Because according to the most prevalent YEC views, the entire geologic column is the result of a one year global flood. Thus any meteor found inside the column (and all of those are) must be during the flood.

 

[grmorton]

I should start by apologizing for my slightly antagonistic reply—it is not intended to offend anyone.

Wow! For a geoscientist you sure did make a lot of assumptions with out much evidence.

First, the “Calgary Herald” is hardly a reputable scientific source.

It was a news event. The asteroid exists. But lets say you are right and that whole thing is journalistic confab. Explain the data. (by the way I just posted the original source for the list. I would note that you seem to be too lazy to actually go out and look for a list, but that seems to be a common trait among the YEC flood people.

Second, there is no source for the big list you quoted.

This is an updated list whose basis is
Pilkington, M. and R. A. F. Grieve, "The Geophysical Signature of Terrestrial Impact Craters." Reviews of Geophysics, May 1992, vol. 30, pp. 161-181.

Third, you claim the meteors are from different geologic ages. You make this statement as though it is fact but provide no proof, evidence, or sources.

The way one determines the age of a crater is by looking at what layers are deformed by the shock and which aren't. Why don't you take a look at
[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]http://www.edge.ou.edu/news/SilverpitCrater.PDF#search='silverpit%20crater'

The first picture you will see a dipping bed with lots of little dimples in it. That is the age of the crater. WE know the geologic age of those rocks and so we know the age of the crater. Maybe you should study geology a bit more.
[/font]

Fourth, a young earth theory does not require “accepting that the earth was literally bombarded” with meteors. Again, that is just your opinion.

Then you have to explain all those craters. What caused them.

There are exceptions in the geologic column, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple strata (Dorf 1960, Coffin, 1979). This directly contradicts that there is an exact “period of time that the geologic column was laid down” but instead suggests that you need to do more research.

ARe you aware that the guy who originated the polystrate tree argument is now an evolutionist and now no longer a believer? Your leaders don't tell you those sorts of things. The guy with whome Coffin worked is Nicolaas Rupke. I have had a few email conversations with him years ago. He now thinks the whole concept was the result of his misunderstanding and his religious beliefs.

Fifth, if you simply want an answer to “How did Noah survive megatons of impacts occurring in a one year period???” Here it is: why should a Christian have trouble believing that God (who makes meteors) would have trouble protecting his people (Noah) from meteors? If everything God did could be directly explained by science he wouldn’t be God (read Job). Christians believe—we have faith that Jesus rose from the dead, God created, etc. God protected Noah, his family, and the animals while they were on the ark, I can’t explain exactly how. Just call it a miracle!

I would be ok with calling it a miracle. The problem is that you YECs don't do that. You want to publish things stating how scientific you are and how the scientific evidence supports your position. If you can't answer things like this, then you can't be scientific. And if you have to claim it is a miracle, it isn't scientific. So if you YECs would cease saying how the data supports your position, there wouldn't be any issue.

If you seriously want to discuss the validity of some of the points you bring up and how you believe they impact a young earth just pick one point and we can go from there. However, a logical debate cannot be formed based on the background you have set with your post.

Why should I pick one topic. YOu didn't. Play the game or stop. The only thing I will say is that I move to Beijing China on MOnday and will be out of touch for a few days/weeks depending on when my stuff gets there. My computer is in transit. I am having to use another one right now.

 

[Valkhorn]

*watches the creationists scramble*

 

[Randall McNally]

One word: sinkholes.

 

[bdfoster]

Glen didn't you read Walt Brown's book In the Beginning. According to this book there are no meteorites in the fossil record! And this is compelling evidence of the rapidity of formation of the stratigraphic record.

 

[3Amig(o)s]

It was a news event. The asteroid exists. But lets say you are right and that whole thing is journalistic confab. Explain the data. (by the way I just posted the original source for the list. I would note that you seem to be too lazy to actually go out and look for a list, but that seems to be a common trait among the YEC flood people.

I looked for a list..., He're is exactly what I put into the search engine:

"acraman australia 160 km 129,096,223.83 megatons"

nothing came up.

 

[Hydra009]

I looked for a list..., He're is exactly what I put into the search engine:

"acraman australia 160 km 129,096,223.83 megatons"

nothing came up.

Yeah, because google doesn't work that way.

Here you go: http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/images/acraman.htm

 

[HRE]

I looked for a list..., He're is exactly what I put into the search engine:

"acraman australia 160 km 129,096,223.83 megatons"

nothing came up.

Then you don't know how a search engine works, do you?

If you search 'acraman megatons', you get this site:

http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/160/4/545

...which states:

The estimated impact energy for Acraman exceeds the threshold of 10^6 Mt

 

[HRE]

Glen didn't you read Walt Brown's book In the Beginning. According to this book there are no meteorites in the fossil record! And this is compelling evidence of the rapidity of formation of the stratigraphic record.

Care to explain some of this book's statements in another thread?

One word: sinkholes.

Don't. Please.

 

[grmorton]

One word: sinkholes.

Not in basaltic ocean bottom. One needs limestone to have sinkholes. And sinkholes don't have uplifted centers. Sorry you lose. Please play the game again sometime.

 

[grmorton]

Glen didn't you read Walt Brown's book In the Beginning. According to this book there are no meteorites in the fossil record! And this is compelling evidence of the rapidity of formation of the stratigraphic record.

Walt is one of my favorite people. He used to have a email listserv. I got on it and showed his followers how over thrusts happened. He shut down the listserve for a while. I don't know if he has tried again, this time excluding people like me.

The post I put on his web site can be found at http://home.entouch.net/dmd/othrust.htm

NOw, back to your meteorite question. Walt Brown is wrong, simply wrong. Meteorites have been found in the fossil record.



"Of even more importance is a previously unpublished report that an iron meteorite was found at a sub-surface depth of 1,525 ft. in an oil well drilled in Zapata County, Texas. The circumstances of the find have been described by M. Williams and forwarded in a personal letter dated September 14, 1956, by E. A. Wendlandt, chief geologist of the Humble Oil and Refining Company.

"During the drilling of the well in 1930 an extremely hard object was struck at a depth of 1,525 ft. and in sediments of almost certainly Eocene age. This object was recovered and found to be a piece of metal about the size of a man's fist. An approximate analysis of a 0.4-gm. sample by M. Williams indicated about 82 percent iron, 5-10 per cent nickel and traces of phosphorus, carbon and silicon. Two surfaces were polished and on etching Widmanstatten figures were quite distinctive. It would seem almost certain that the metal fragment was an octahedrite iron meteorite, but unfortunately the specimen has since been lost. There does not seem to be any reason to doubt the authenticity of the find, and the fact that the meteorite was embedded in Eocene sediments at a considerable depth from the surface could only mean that the meteorite fell in Eocene sediments at a considerable depth from the surface could only mean that the meteorite fell in Eocene times.

"Recent determinations of 'cosmic-ray ages' of certain meteorites indicate that they were broken from their parent bodies about 10 9 years ago. In these circumstances meteorites have probably been available to fall on the Earth since at least early Palaeozoic times. However, most meteorites are unstable on the Earth's strongly oxidizing surface, so that it would be most unlikely that they would be preserved in any readily recognizable form in sediments older than Tertiary. Since cosmic spherules are already largely fused and oxidized, they might be expected to be more stable and perhaps preserved in sediments considerably older than Tertiary." ~ J. F. Lovering, "Frequency of Meteorite falls throughout the Ages," Nature, June 13, 1959, p. 1664-1665

**

"The possible occurrence of meteorites in older geological formations has been a matter of considerable controversy. There seems to be no valid reason to suspect that meteorites have not fallen throughout geological time. Nevertheless, it has been remarked that no 'fossil' meteorite has been discovered in the billions of tons of coal, limestone, etc., that have been mined and quarried, nor has one been discovered in the outcrop of a pre-Pleistocene formation. Paneth (1956) indeed claimed that iron and stone meteorites did not fall before the late Quaternary. However, this claim is probably invalid. Meteoritic dust has been identified in deposits of Tertiary age. Henderson and Cooke(1942) described the extremely weathered Sardis (Georgia, U. S. A.) iron, and concluded that it probably fell in the middle Miocene sea and was buried in the Hawthorne formation, with which it was associated when found. Lovering (1959) has reported the discovery of an iron meteorite during the drilling of an oil well in Texas in 1930, at a depth of 1525 feet in rocks probably of Eocene age; the evidence for the identification as an iron meteorite (nickel content, Widmanstatten structure) is good, but unfortunately no material from it has been preserved. The rarity of fossil meteorites is not extraordinary in view of their absolute rarity, and in view of the improbability of their survival in recognizable form in older rocks." ~ Brian Mason, Meteorites, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962), p. 4.

**

"Time of fall.-For reasons already stated it seems likely that the Sardis meteorite did not fall within the past century. Even had it struck elsewhere and ricocheted to its last resting place at any time within the past hundred years, vivid stories of a falling star or some unusual phenomenon would probably still be well known by some of the older generation living in the neighborhood. However, the question of whether it fell several thousand years, a million, or even 10 million years ago is problematical, and only indirect reasoning can be applied to date its fall. Aerial photographic maps of this district fail to show any craterlike scars within a radius of several miles that even remotely resemble a meteoric scar.

"The Sardis meteorite is deeply weathered, and this weathering in itself would require considerable time; but here, again, no definite rate of weathering can be determined, as different meteorites have different degrees of stability. It is true that the Sardis specimen is not the most stable of irons. Polished sections cut from some of the larger fragments that display some iron-nickel alloy will tarnish within a few weeks when exposed to the atmosphere in the Museum; however, we have every reason to believe that if this same specimen were exposed in the open outside air, it would be much more stable. It is difficult to prove this by reasoning, but actual experience shows that some meteorites placed in the open actually disintegrate less rapidly than when placed inside a building."

As stated, the Sardis meteorite may have fallen in a great many thousand years ago and have buried itself very deeply in the exposed Hawthorne formation." ~ E. P. Henderson and C. Wythe Cooke, "The Sardis (Georgia) Meteorite," Proceedings, U. S. National Museum, 1942, 92:3143, p. 147.

**

"It is likewise possible that the Sardis meteorite fell into the sea in Miocene times and had its impact cushioned by striking the water, in which it gently settled to the bottom and was buried by the slowly accumulating Hawthorne formation. If this were true, corrosion would be active for a while, but the thickening oxide crust, would offer increased protection as time elapsed. Furthermore, the sediments would, in all probability, soon cover it, thereby decreasing the circulation of water and retarding the rate of alteration. If the Sardis iron was incorporated in the Miocene beds at the time of their formation, the meteorite would not have become exposed to rapidly circulating water or air until late Pleistocene time or possibly until the Recent epoch, by which time a considerable thickness of upper Miocene and Pliocene sediments had been removed, and the level of permanent saturation had fallen below the meteorite." ~ E. P. Henderson and C. Wythe Cooke, "The Sardis (Georgia) Meteorite," Proceedings, U. S. National Museum, 1942, 92:3143, p. 146

And meteorite dust has been found in salt from Michigan. I can get that quotation if one really wants. So, poor old Walt, can't get his facts right and can't seem to look up meteors in the scientific literature.

 

[grmorton]

I looked for a list..., He're is exactly what I put into the search engine:

"acraman australia 160 km 129,096,223.83 megatons"

nothing came up.

Hey fellow, use some creativity. the 129,096... is mine. But if you take the quotations off, something really really hard to do, my post on Theology web pops up.

And something really really creative. Just search on acraman australia and you will get 907 listings. Why is it that we must do the work, not to mention the thinking, for the young-earth creationists?

NOTE TO ALL: I MOVE TO BEIJING ON MONDAY AND WILL BE UNABLE TO RESPOND FOR A WEEK OR SO, I SUSPECT.

 

[HRE]

It's a jocular reference to a fellow who attempted, for multiple pages, to declare that craters were actually sinkholes that the water drained through.

 

[Randall McNally]

Not in basaltic ocean bottom. One needs limestone to have sinkholes. And sinkholes don't have uplifted centers. Sorry you lose. Please play the game again sometime.

Sorry, my philosophical opposition to smilies prevents me from properly denoting sardonic posts.

 

[grmorton]

Sorry, my philosophical opposition to smilies prevents me from properly denoting sardonic posts.

Sorry. However, I am sure that about 1000 yecs were thinking that very same thing, regardless of whether you were sardonic or not. When reality (the YEC position) is so strange that parody has the sound of truth, one knows just how strange YEC is as a beleif system.

 

[Hydra009]

That's like the 5th time this week that an atheist has been confused for a YEC, lol.

 

[bdfoster]

Care to explain some of this book's statements in another thread?

That would be a looooooong thread . Of course he's wrong about the meteorites, and I have to wonder if it isn't a bald-faced lie. The guy has a Ph.D. in mechanical enginerering. He should know better. A friend loaned me the book so I don't have it anymore. But some of the more ridiculous claims:
There are no magnetic stripes on the ocean floor
and
Faunal succession is the result of liquefaction
and of course the whole hydroplate thing.

 

[Dale]

grmorton in post #30:
<<

Quote:

Originally Posted by: Randall McNally

One word: sinkholes.

Not in basaltic ocean bottom. One needs limestone to have sinkholes. And sinkholes don't have uplifted centers. Sorry you lose. Please play the game again sometime. >>


Yep. I'm in Florida, we're on limestone, we get sinkholes all the time.

Oh no. Ahhhhh . . . . .

 

[BrotherSteve]

The way one determines the age of a crater is by looking at what layers are deformed by the shock and which aren't. Why don't you take a look at
[font=TimesNewRoman,Bold]http://www.edge.ou.edu/news/SilverpitCrater.PDF#search='silverpit%20crater'

The first picture you will see a dipping bed with lots of little dimples in it. That is the age of the crater. WE know the geologic age of those rocks and so we know the age of the crater. Maybe you should study geology a bit more.
[/font]

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.

Among other things, you assume that you actually KNOW the geologic age of those rocks. When have any ageing techniques that tell us rock are millions of years old ever been validated--they havn't?

I would also point out that there is only one known casualty of a meteor in human history--or rather canid history.

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.

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."

Then you have to explain all those craters. What caused them.

I don't know how, but I am sure God did it. Next you will want me to explain how Jesus rose from the dead--can't explain it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

ARe you aware that the guy who originated the polystrate tree argument is now an evolutionist and now no longer a believer? Your leaders don't tell you those sorts of things. The guy with whome Coffin worked is Nicolaas Rupke. I have had a few email conversations with him years ago. He now thinks the whole concept was the result of his misunderstanding and his religious beliefs.

Even so, this is still an example of how geologic scientist can't agree. And how they have shown (at least) two contradictory examples--meaning that neither can conclusively be true.

I would be ok with calling it a miracle. The problem is that you YECs don't do that. You want to publish things stating how scientific you are and how the scientific evidence supports your position. If you can't answer things like this, then you can't be scientific. And if you have to claim it is a miracle, it isn't scientific. So if you YECs would cease saying how the data supports your position, there wouldn't be any issue.

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.

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

Why should I pick one topic. YOu didn't. Play the game or stop. The only thing I will say is that I move to Beijing China on MOnday and will be out of touch for a few days/weeks depending on when my stuff gets there. My computer is in transit. I am having to use another one right now.

I was just trying to say that if you want to have a real scientific debate it is much easier to pick one topic to focus on that topic. Although you will be gone perhapse there is someone else who could respond.

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

I'm not going to bother replying to that entire post; that's for Dr. Morton to do, particularly since he's more familiar with the context of the discussion.

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.

How is it not scientific to use valid dating methods to acquire the ages of meteorite craters?

How does this have anything to do with evolution? (Hint: it doesn't, so there's no need to bring the word "evolutionist" to the discussion at all)

Are you saying that unless dating techniques give an unexpected result, they can't be right because they fit the evidence? That's the implication that comes from taking your objection to its logical end.

Among other things, you assume that you actually KNOW the geologic age of those rocks. When have any ageing techniques that tell us rock are millions of years old ever been validated--they havn't?

Ages aren't assumed, they are concluded from evidence. If you are actually interested in how they work, then there are plenty of books you could read or threads in this forum in the thread archive you could peruse.

But radiometric dating methods have been validated:

1. The ages of the Hawaiian Islands predicted from plate tectonics are validated by K-Ar dates, which should not occur if they were so fatally flawed or mere assumptions: http://www.christianforums.com/t50891

2. Dates acquired from the use of other methods that use different nuclide systems that involve different types of decay with different decay constants agree with each other, which should not occur if they were so fatally flawed or mere assumptions: http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

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.

There are characteristic features of meteorite craters (depending on size, of course) that indicate that the feature could only have been formed by a such a high pressure, large-scale impact: Meteorite Craters: Identifying Characteristics

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.

Yes, we have. Geologists have conclusively proved that the earth cannot be only a few thousand years old and that it must be much older, on the order of billions of years. There are numerous features on earth that are incompatible with an age of less than a few thousand years.

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.

Science works via falsification, not proof with 100% certainty. He has proved that the earth is older than a few thousand years by presenting evidence incompatible with that age. Positive statements, on the other hand, cannot be unfalsifiable or they wouldn't be scientific.

Simply saying "you could be wrong" is not a valid objection and just shows a basic misunderstanding of how science works. You have to show evidence that what geologists say is wrong.

Otherwise we have explanations substantiated beyond any reasonable doubt without any evidence that contradicts them. There is no reason to consider them anything but provisionally true.

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

No, they aren't.

YECists are finding evidence to support an (already disproved) preconceived theory while ignoring any evidence to the contrary, and they assume that YECism is automatically right no matter what.

Geologists are finding evidence that leads to a theory, which is the logical conclusion, and they are willing to concede that explanation if new evidence is uncovered.

YECists are putting the cart before the horse, and geologists are using the scientific method.