Meteors!

[Shroder]

Hi all!
Hey, saw a program on the History Channel about meteors. Got a couple questions or three since it caught my interest. They (the history channel) said it may be possible that life could have first been introduced to earth riding on one of those. They mentioned a name for those who may believe that but I forgot (rather quickly I might add) what the name was. Are there any here that do? And what are the possiblities of such an occurance?

Another thing they focused on was the destruction of the dinos and of course we've all heard that one. But I'm curious in that they showed the meteor hitting land. Unless I err I think 70% of the earth is covered with water. If one of those hit an ocean, which is more likely, could that have caused the big flood mentioned in the bible? In other words, could both be right? A meteor AND a flood?

The only thing that bugs me though is that if life came from a meteor then the logical question would be where did the meteor come from and more importantly if life is more apt to spawn elsewhere then what kind of world are we looking for concerning the origin of life?

Thanks in advance!

(I hope these aren't dumb questions but what the heck. I'll use the newbie excuse)

 

[gluadys]

Hi all!
Hey, saw a program on the History Channel about meteors. Got a couple questions or three since it caught my interest. They (the history channel) said it may be possible that life could have first been introduced to earth riding on one of those. They mentioned a name for those who may believe that but I forgot (rather quickly I might add) what the name was. Are there any here that do? And what are the possiblities of such an occurance?

I believe the word you are looking for is Panspermia, the theory that the seeds of life are scattered around the whole universe. People who believe this would be called Panspermists.

There is some evidence that life (or rather the fundamental building blocks of life) could have originated in other places besides earth. Do a google on Murchison meteor. It has been the object of extensive study because of the organic matter found in it.

Another thing they focused on was the destruction of the dinos and of course we've all heard that one. But I'm curious in that they showed the meteor hitting land. Unless I err I think 70% of the earth is covered with water. If one of those hit an ocean, which is more likely, could that have caused the big flood mentioned in the bible? In other words, could both be right? A meteor AND a flood?

Not likely. I'm guessing the geologists and physicists would say the first result of such an impact would be boiling away a lot of ocean, not splashing it onto the land. And that would raise the atmospheric temperature to a point of killing most of the life on earth without a flood. Including any life on the ark.

The only thing that bugs me though is that if life came from a meteor then the logical question would be where did the meteor come from and more importantly if life is more apt to spawn elsewhere then what kind of world are we looking for concerning the origin of life?

It is not life itself that has been found on meteors, but organic molecules. These molecules could have become living in the conditions they met on earth. Their origin in meteors would be due to chemical reactions.

(I hope these aren't dumb questions but what the heck. I'll use the newbie excuse)

Newbie or not, there is no such thing as a dumb question. We are all ignorant about something, and it's dumber still not to ask a question when you need to.


Oh, and welcome to the board!

 

[Vance]

The other problem is not just whether a flood happened, but the simple fact that it almost assuredly did not happen within the last 4,000 years. Or the last 100,000 years.

 

[Dark Matter]

And what are the possiblities of such an occurance?

There are a few reasons why some scientists look to space to explain the origin of life. One, for example, is that amino acids are chiral molecules, and only one "hand" of the chiral molecule is able to be used in life. The other hand, if used, disallows the formation of living chains. There are very, very, very few and rare items in nature that can filter chiral molecules. One has to do with photons from starlight (or dust like material around stars, I can't recall now exactly how it works). Because of this, since amino acids must be chirally filtered, and starlight or dust around stars can do it (however poorly), then some scientists look to space as the forming ground for the first useful amino acid chains. These would have been formed on a meteor passing a star and then deposited on earth.

It is one of many offered solutions for the challenges of solving bio-genesis. The possibilities of this, imho, is slim to none on the probability scale due to the immense other challenges and difficulties the solution introduces to the equation.

Dark Matter

 

[SBG]

The other problem is not just whether a flood happened, but the simple fact that it almost assuredly did not happen within the last 4,000 years. Or the last 100,000 years.

What was that you were saying about DOGMA?

 

[gluadys]

What was that you were saying about DOGMA?

There is considerable difference between dogma and science.

 

[SBG]

There is considerable difference between dogma and science.

Ah, so if I quote what God says, its dogma, and if you quote science its the 'truth?'

 

[gluadys]

Ah, so if I quote what God says, its dogma, and if you quote science its the 'truth?'

If you quote what your church (or you) says must be believed, it is dogma.

If you build your case on evidence, it is science.

Both can be true.

But scientific truth is objectively true no matter what you believe.

Dogma can only be believed to be true.

 

[SBG]

You know I have quoted Bible verses *alone,* no interpretation whatsoever, and I was told that that was just my interpretation.

I find that rather interesting, that if no interpretation is given of a verse, but rather just a verse, that a TE will argue against the verse by itself.

I have built a case on God's Word, and it has been called dogma. I have presented only God's Word, it has been called dogma.

Science is only presented, it is call wonderfully true.

Am I the only one who sees this shift in what Christians trust to be more truthful?

 

[gluadys]

You know I have quoted Bible verses *alone,* no interpretation whatsoever, and I was told that that was just my interpretation.

I find that rather interesting, that if no interpretation is given of a verse, but rather just a verse, that a TE will argue against the verse by itself.

I have built a case on God's Word, and it has been called dogma. I have presented only God's Word, it has been called dogma.

Science is only presented, it is call wonderfully true.

Am I the only one who sees this shift in what Christians trust to be more truthful?

Did you not see me state above that both dogma and science can be true?

It is not a question of dogma being untrue just because it is dogma.

It is a question of the different basis on which we judge dogma and science to be true.

Dogma is judged to be true on the basis of what we believe.
Science is judged to be true in conformity with objective evidence without reference to belief.

If someone is telling you your dogma is wrong, it is not because it is dogma, but because they have reason to believe it is wrong.

 

[Dark Matter]

If you quote what your church (or you) says must be believed, it is dogma.

If you build your case on evidence, it is science.

Both can be true.

But scientific truth is objectively true no matter what you believe.

Dogma can only be believed to be true.

Hello Gluadys,
I find the need to differ with you here, as your words are expressing scientism. Cases built on evidence do not mean they are science. Philosophical arguments are based on evidence and reason, yet they are not science. Mathematical cases are evidential, yet they are not science (science accepts and uses math, though math itself is not science).

Science is a method of inquiry which utilizes evidence, mostly from predictive experiments, but also otherwise. All evidence is not science. All scientific deduction is not true. The same biasis and presuppositions that fill the traditions of the Church also affect the community of scientists. Scientific truth can be just as subjective and interpretive as dogma because the truth must be accepted, not just demonstrated. Just consider how long it took for the scientific community, for example, to accept plate techtonic theory.

I will grant you, however, evidence for evidence, science offers a different type of surity than theology.

Dark Matter

 

[Shroder]

Not likely. I'm guessing the geologists and physicists would say the first result of such an impact would be boiling away a lot of ocean, not splashing it onto the land. And that would raise the atmospheric temperature to a point of killing most of the life on earth without a flood. Including any life on the ark.

The time a meteor is in the atmosphere could heat only the "skin" to extreme temperatures as evidenced by their pictures of actual meteorites. When cut open only a very small amount of crustal rock is burned, the rest seems intact and unchanged. Even an extraordinarily large rock several miles across couldn't hold enough heat to boil any sizable amount of an ocean. And the impact would slow the meteor to a point that if it did indeed reach the bottom much of it's kinetic energy would already have been spent.

Tsunamis of huge proportions would be my main thought though, not a "big splash". And this is assuming only one impact. Huge chunks of rock from a cosmic collision could produce several "planet killers" minutes apart in flight.

Anyway, finding evidence of meteor impacts on the ocean floor would be next to impossible in my opinion. The only big ones we have evidence of are those impacting with land and even at the ages given these are hard to find due to erosion... etc. If there was such an oceanic impact I seriously doubt we could find even the slightest bit of evidence. Therefore, I think people will lean more toward a land impact only because that's all we'll find anyway. But that certainly doesn't mean meteors don't hit the oceans and create tsunamis like earthquakes we've seen. Heck, 70% of the earth is covered in water and the sciences of probability would indeed indicate many more oceanic impacts than those crashing into dry ground.

Regardless, I can't just toss the idea of oceanic impacts and the resulting tsunamis simply because I may believe a global flood could not have happened. Whether it really happened or not we may never know and I've really not seen any textbooks, programs or documentaries that even mention it or give even the slightest hint of any evidence what-so-ever that it did happen. Yet, a huge meteor hitting an ocean is much more probable to me.

 

[gluadys]

[/font][/font]

The time a meteor is in the atmosphere could heat only the "skin" to extreme temperatures as evidenced by their pictures of actual meteorites. When cut open only a very small amount of crustal rock is burned, the rest seems intact and unchanged. Even an extraordinarily large rock several miles across couldn't hold enough heat to boil any sizable amount of an ocean. And the impact would slow the meteor to a point that if it did indeed reach the bottom much of it's kinetic energy would already have been spent.

Tsunamis of huge proportions would be my main thought though, not a "big splash". And this is assuming only one impact. Huge chunks of rock from a cosmic collision could produce several "planet killers" minutes apart in flight.

Sure, I can see tsunamis rather than "splashes". But you had better check out about the heat. It is not so much the temperature of the meteor itself, but the heat generated by the pressure of the impact. That will vary with the size of the meteor of course, and the speed of the impact. But if you are looking for a meteorite impact (or a series of impacts) sufficient to cause a global flood, I am sure you are looking at a lot of heat.

I don't know enough about these things to do the math myself, but every single creationist suggestion for a scientific cause of the flood that I have seen analyzed shows far too much heat for anything inside or outside of the ark to survive.

 

[Shroder]

... but every single creationist suggestion for a scientific cause of the flood that I have seen analyzed shows far too much heat for anything inside or outside of the ark to survive.

That's the second time you've mentioned the ark. Quite frankly I've never considered or mentioned the ark or how something like that would affect a big boat like that. Isn't my concern. But screwball ideas by laymen have been known to pan out in the past. Isn't it curiousity and asking questions the mother of science anyhow? I just don't see that a land impact is THE only answer. But if that's what you so doggedly wish to believe then no skin off my nose I assure you. Sorry I mentioned it.

 

[gluadys]

That's the second time you've mentioned the ark. Quite frankly I've never considered or mentioned the ark or how something like that would affect a big boat like that.

In your OP you said:

Another thing they focused on was the destruction of the dinos and of course we've all heard that one. But I'm curious in that they showed the meteor hitting land. Unless I err I think 70% of the earth is covered with water. If one of those hit an ocean, which is more likely, could that have caused the big flood mentioned in the bible? In other words, could both be right? A meteor AND a flood?

Emphasis added.

An important part of the biblical flood story is that 8 people and an unknown number of animals were saved from the flood by being on the ark. Well an ark can keep you afloat on the water, perhaps even keep you afloat through a tsunami.

But where heat is an issue, the ark cannot preserve the life on the ark from excessive heat. That is why I mentioned it.

 

[Shroder]

Hey, whatever it takes to float your boat.
Even huge impacts were discredited just a few years ago until some guy whose life's work was depicted on the program proved otherwise. Now, it's an "acceptable" view. I can imagine Keplar was viewed as a heratic by the church and a crackpot by the scientific communty. But, in the end he too proved the dominate ideas wrong.

We have tools totally unimaginable a hundred years ago, like satellites and photo technology that were used to show enormous meteorite impacts with earth. Tools in the future may very well be able to detect oceanic impacts as well. At that time the "land-only impact" views may be scrapped due to the evidence found. As far as I'm concerned this field of study is only in it's infancy. Who knows what the future may bring.

The other question I had was that of other worlds spawning life then that life or organic building blocks as mentioned hitching a ride on a chunk of debris caused by who knows what. So, if earth didn't spawn life is it because there wasn't enough time involved or those other worlds had the right ingredients or some other possibilities. Life being seeded on earth is a new idea for me. It's rather interesting I think if not compelling.
Anyway, what sort of world would we look for that may have spawned ancient life?