Scientific proof of flood.

duordi · Aug 19, 2005

Tomk80 said:
Your putting the cart before the horse. We need to establish whether it was a single event, and we need dating to do this. Remember, the locations can be due to random events and the spread of the locations might have another explanation than being from a single event. So you need an independent measure. Dating is such an independent measure and gives a large discrepency with your 'theory'. So what you need to do is either:

a) show that the dating is incorrec or

The cluster of strikes proves a single event and that the dating is incorrect.

Tomk80 said:
b) show that the results from the dating are dependent on them being the result of the same event.

Or realize that the dates given are incorrect.

Tomk80 said:
But let's summarize the data once more. The data shows a large number of meteor craters in well-explored areas and a small number in areas that aren't well explored.

No, we can select a small well explored area like Europe

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html

and see the same result.

Tomk80 said:
From the site it is clear that satellite data can track down meteor craters, but that craters that haven't been confirmed by geologic markers (such as shocked quartz) are not listed.

Such geologic markers can only be obtained by traveling to the area and either drilling into the location or collect the material from the top (dependent on how buried the crater is). The site also gives a table on the craters, listing whether they were confirmed by drilling, open air sample collection or both.

In case of the site above about half of the strikes in the concentrated area have been drilled and half of the sites in the non concentrated areas have been drilled indicating equal attention.

Tomk80 said:
The craters have been dated. By the best of our knowledge, the dating methods are independent from the impact event itself. The dating methods give widely varying dates for the different craters. So to the best of our knowledge, the strikes were millions of years apart and not part of a single event.

Either the meteor strikes are random or the dates are incorrect.

It is possible the meteor strikes are random because there is always a chance they just happened to fall as they did.

Of course the odds against it would be extremely high but at least your current theories would not have to be changed.

Tomk80 said:
If the meteor craters were in fact the result of a single event, the pattern is strange. It shows a large number of impact craters in Western Europe and America, but no impact craters in the ocean between them. Although Western Europe and America show most crater, craters are found all over the word. So if they are part of a single event, the meteor rain has hit every part of earth. Assuming that the event was a single meteor rain from a single point in space, it had to have been going on for at least 24 hours. But somehow, in the six hours it takes the earth to turn from Northern America to Western Europe, no meteors hit the earth. Your model faces a lot of problems, even without going into the physics of it all (you do realize that you are in fact proposing an event which could only have resulted in a very fried Noah and arc).

This is easily answered.

What I will suggest here is by no means the only explanation to your question.

A large object approached Earth and was broken up as indicated by the multiple meteor strikes.

The object separated into several larger objects first due to the gravitational forces induced by the Earth.

The separation distance of the objects parts at the time of impact would be related to the rotational velocity of the original object differential trajectories created and the differential in orbit time.

Variation in trajectories during the entry orbit path would cause the objects to progress in an intersect orbit progressing around the Earth until encountering the atmosphere.

Further disintegration of the objects due to gravity or due to contact with the atmosphere would be expected to some extent.

The final impact pattern would produce a condition consistent with the data shown.

The condition could also be explained by several independent events, each with multiple strikes.

The determination if this is the case would depend on the expected pattern of a multiple orbit entry from a single source and how that pattern compares to the evidence.

It is highly unlikely that two separate events would impact the same area on the Earth due to the fact that separate events should be randomly placed on the Earths surface just as independent individual meteor strikes would.

If it is found that multiple trajectories from a single source mimics the distribution data well it would be hard to argue against a single event for all non-random strike patterns.

Two or more major events in such a short time span is highly unlikely.

If the events are separated by a long enough time erosion will deteriorate one set of strike records before another set are created preventing them from existing at a common point time.

Determinations of this sort would require a more in-depth investigation then I am willing to conduct at this time.

Tomk80 said:
On the other hand, the craters might have been single events. The reason we have found so many in Nothern America and Western Europe, can then be explained by the fact that these regions are best explored. Australia is well-explored too, and also shows a large number of impact craters relative to the size of the land. Since only confirmed craters are listed on the site you gave, and exploration is necessary for a crater to be confirmed, the number of craters in an area would be dependent on it's accessability to exploration and this is indeed what we see. Furthermore, the geologically active sites will probably result in the destruction of craters. So we wouldn't expect many on these sites. The dating method, which is independent of the event, also shows that the meteor strikes cannot be dated to the same time period.

Given the above, the most likely explanation is that the impacts are indeed random and spread out over a large period of time and that the perceived pattern is caused by the possibility for exploration of the sites and the geological activity of these sites.

My example above proves your suggestion incorrect as Europe has both high and low meteor impact densitys are evident in similar areas of geological stability and access.

I understand your desire to maintain your faith in your presently accepted theory.

I would make the same attempt if I was on your side of the fence and this how it should be.

Good luck in your endeavor.

Duane

duordi · Aug 19, 2005

Numenor said:
This is extra-biblical and utterly baseless. More adhoc-ism from Creationists.

Theories a not utterly baseless or completely proven.

I use them all the time and will continue to use them without apology.

Perhaps you should visit a less controversial area if you do not wish controversy.

Duane

duordi · Aug 19, 2005

notto said:
Wow. You have no ideas how funny it is to hear you say this.

Your theory is based on a graphic of meteor sites from a website. You ignore what the data behind the graphic tells us, you have no idea what the meteor sites look like, what the data tells us about how old they are, the condition they were found in, the data from drilling, whether they are on the surface or not, and the rational observation that the clustering is due to strikes we have found, not all strikes, and then you say something like this.

Why? Because your religious views are clouding your view of the evidence.

Or your religious views are clouding yours.

It will be intersting to watch the data progress.

I will look foward to your posts as it does.

Duane

duordi · Aug 19, 2005

notto said:
You haven't gathered any data. You are basing your conclusions on a (faulty) causual glance at a graphic you found on a website. You are ignoring the data behind the graphic you present as evidence. You ignore the methods of collection, the analysis of the data, and the conclusions provided by your own source.

Sadly, this is done willfully on your part. This will never lead you to truth.

Sure it will, the data will keep coming in and the truth will be known.
Will it be accepted?
That is another question.

Duane

Split Rock · Aug 19, 2005

duordi said:
The cluster of strikes proves a single event and that the dating is incorrect.

I see three separate "clusters," one in N America, one in N. Europe, and one in Australia. How does that "prove" a single event? There are also many other impact craters in Africa, Asia, and S. America. How do you explain these with your "single event" model?

duordi said:
Or realize that the dates given are incorrect.

You seem to be assuming this.

duordi said:
Either the meteor strikes are random or the dates are incorrect.

Non sequitor.

duordi said:
It is possible the meteor strikes are random because there is always a chance they just happened to fall as they did.

Yes. This seems the most likely scenario.

duordi said:
Of course the odds against it would be extremely high but at least your current theories would not have to be changed.

Please show us the odds and how you calculated them.

duordi said:
What I will suggest here is by no means the only explanation to your question.

A large object approached Earth and was broken up as indicated by the multiple meteor strikes.

The object separated into several larger objects first due to the gravitational forces induced by the Earth.

The separation distance of the objects parts at the time of impact would be related to the rotational velocity of the original object differential trajectories created and the differential in orbit time.

Variation in trajectories during the entry orbit path would cause the objects to progress in an intersect orbit progressing around the Earth until encountering the atmosphere.

Further disintegration of the objects due to gravity or due to contact with the atmosphere would be expected to some extent.

The final impact pattern would produce a condition consistent with the data shown.

The condition could also be explained by several independent events, each with multiple strikes.

The determination if this is the case would depend on the expected pattern of a multiple orbit entry from a single source and how that pattern compares to the evidence.

It is highly unlikely that two separate events would impact the same area on the Earth due to the fact that separate events should be randomly placed on the Earths surface just as independent individual meteor strikes would.

If it is found that multiple trajectories from a single source mimics the distribution data well it would be hard to argue against a single event for all non-random strike patterns.

Two or more major events in such a short time span is highly unlikely.

If the events are separated by a long enough time erosion will deteriorate one set of strike records before another set are created preventing them from existing at a common point time.

Determinations of this sort would require a more in-depth investigation then I am willing to conduct at this time.

Well, then it is convenient for you to ignore the research of those scientists who had the time to conduct in-depth investigations, isn't it?

By the way, who says the different craters do not show different levels of erosion?

In any case, I have a different idea, consistant with the data, and just as likely as your scenario. There is a planet far away (called Klendathu) that has intelligent bugs on it. They discovered us with their ionic-warp telescopes and preceived us as a threat. They then used bug-plasma to direct asteroids and meteors at our planet to destroy us. The pattern produced is the result of three different attack events during limited windows of opportunity based on the position of our world relative to theirs.

What do you think of my theory?

duordi said:
I understand your desire to maintain your faith in your presently accepted theory.

I would make the same attempt if I was on your side of the fence and this how it should be.

This is typically creationist. Creationists always assume that everyone else is as biased as they are and "cherry-pick" from the evidence to support their presuppositions. It never occurs to them that other people might think in a different way. Afterall, everyone is biased, right? Therefore, everyone is just as biased as I am, right?

Actually, scientists are trained to think in a different way. They are trained to look at everything with skeptisicm and a critical eye. Papers are peer-reviewed by other scientists who try to find flaws and alternative interpretations of the data that are not discussed in the paper. Cherry-picking from the data is considered poor research and is frowned upon. Only after the research is repeated and more evidence and predictions of the hypothesis are evaluated can an hypothesis be accepted as a theory.

This is completetly opposite to how creationists do things and I believe why they do not understand how science is done.

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 19, 2005

duordi said:
The cluster of strikes proves a single event and that the dating is incorrect.

Or realize that the dates given are incorrect.

No, we can select a small well explored area like Europe

http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html

and see the same result.

In case of the site above about half of the strikes in the concentrated area have been drilled and half of the sites in the non concentrated areas have been drilled indicating equal attention.

Either the meteor strikes are random or the dates are incorrect.

It is possible the meteor strikes are random because there is always a chance they just happened to fall as they did.

Of course the odds against it would be extremely high but at least your current theories would not have to be changed.

This is easily answered.

What I will suggest here is by no means the only explanation to your question.

A large object approached Earth and was broken up as indicated by the multiple meteor strikes.

The object separated into several larger objects first due to the gravitational forces induced by the Earth.

The separation distance of the objects parts at the time of impact would be related to the rotational velocity of the original object differential trajectories created and the differential in orbit time.

Variation in trajectories during the entry orbit path would cause the objects to progress in an intersect orbit progressing around the Earth until encountering the atmosphere.

Further disintegration of the objects due to gravity or due to contact with the atmosphere would be expected to some extent.

The final impact pattern would produce a condition consistent with the data shown.

The condition could also be explained by several independent events, each with multiple strikes.

The determination if this is the case would depend on the expected pattern of a multiple orbit entry from a single source and how that pattern compares to the evidence.

It is highly unlikely that two separate events would impact the same area on the Earth due to the fact that separate events should be randomly placed on the Earths surface just as independent individual meteor strikes would.

If it is found that multiple trajectories from a single source mimics the distribution data well it would be hard to argue against a single event for all non-random strike patterns.

Two or more major events in such a short time span is highly unlikely.

If the events are separated by a long enough time erosion will deteriorate one set of strike records before another set are created preventing them from existing at a common point time.

Determinations of this sort would require a more in-depth investigation then I am willing to conduct at this time.

My example above proves your suggestion incorrect as Europe has both high and low meteor impact densitys are evident in similar areas of geological stability and access.

I understand your desire to maintain your faith in your presently accepted theory.

I would make the same attempt if I was on your side of the fence and this how it should be.

Good luck in your endeavor.

Duane

Why don't you do an actual statistical analysis and prove that the distribution in Europe is not random? I don't think you understand that a random distribution is NOT necessarily a uniform distribution, even without sampling and preservation bias. Some distribution over a 10 x 10 grid with approximately the number of known craters found in Europe are attached. The coordinates were in each case picked by a random number generator for both x and y. Notice that you see points clustered together and and open areas with no hits.

You have been given ample explanations of why your model is wrong. I will give you yet another when I have time to dig up the calculations. Here it is without the calculations which i have done before. If they had all occured at the same time the heat released would have heated the atmosphere to intolerable levels and the subsequent dust clouds would have prevented anything from growing. Not much would have grown after the supposed global flood anyway but you'd think that the Bible would have at least mentioned several years of near total darkness and the resultant "nuclear winter". Noah certainly wouldn't have been able to see that rainbow through all the dust. Not only is your model not supported by the actual data, it falsifies itself.

FB

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 19, 2005

I'd say the North America distribution looks pretty random. The absence of craters in the far west is accounted for by geological activity in the Pacific Ring of Fire as I described before.

FB

Valkhorn · Aug 19, 2005

Actually the data indicates that the meteor strikes are from a common event due to localized clustering.

The geological column determined dates are therefore incorrect which undermines your entire belief in a non-catastrophic Earth history and the geological column chonoligical sequence.

The best you can hope for is that somehow you can discredit the evidence or that a large number of undiscovered meteor strikes will be found creating a total random distribution.

Of course the current distribution is so unbalanced you have little hope of achieving anything close as proven when we look at localized areas which have been well searched.

It is ironic that the very science that you claim to follow indicates the truth but you are unwilling to accept it.

Your faith in your theories are strong but reality has a way of being very persistent.

I do not envy your position.

Duane

Since this was directed at me, I'll respond.

Seems to me all you've posted is a load of hot air. Nothing but conjecture with nothing to back it up.

Whereas counter arguments have plenty to back it up and take the data into effect.

*yawns* If this is all creationists can do, it seems pretty futile to me.

LittleNipper · Aug 19, 2005

Valkhorn said:
Since this was directed at me, I'll respond.

Seems to me all you've posted is a load of hot air. Nothing but conjecture with nothing to back it up.

Whereas counter arguments have plenty to back it up and take the data into effect.

*yawns* If this is all creationists can do, it seems pretty futile to me.

Unimportant conjecture because it disagrees with the conjecture of the authoratatively "accepted" natualistic/evolutionistic theories. When is data not data?---------when it is contrary.

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2005

duordi said:
If the meteor impacts are from a single event then there can't be millions of years between impacts as the dating would indicate.

I think this sums things up rather nicely. Creationists and crack-pots all deny that they force data to fit their model. Here we have the evidence that they do indeed shoehorn the data.

The hypothesis: "The meteor craters are from a single event".

The experiment: "The ages of the meteor craters will all be the same."

The results: "The ages of the meteor craters are very different."

Conclusion: "The dates are wrong because the meteor craters are from a single event."

The hypothesis becomes the conclusion. Gotta love that "creation science".

At least the non random portion of the impact pattern must be from an identical date.

And yet still unable to formulate a test for determining which ones are non-random.

This can be use to verify / correct dating systems or give indications as to just how accurate the dates are.

How? Without independent evidence that these impacts happened from a single event they can not be used to calibrate dating methodologies.

At least some of the dates should have a close match. By assuming these date are exactly identical a variation error can be determined.

The variation error (ie standard deviation) can be determined by dating several samples from a single crater.

As often is the case with science every step bings many more questions then answers.

Unlike creation science which stops once someone claims "Goddidit".

Frumious Bandersnatch · Aug 19, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Unimportant conjecture because it disagrees with the conjecture of the authoratatively "accepted" natualistic/evolutionistic theories. When is data not data?---------when it is contrary.

Since all relevant data are contrary to the global flood myth just what are you talking about?

FB

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2005

LittleNipper said:
Unimportant conjecture because it disagrees with the conjecture of the authoratatively "accepted" natualistic/evolutionistic theories. When is data not data?---------when it is contrary.

Look at my post (go two up). Duane throws out the dating of meteor craters because it disagrees with his hypothesis. Creationists throw out constant decay rates because it disagrees with their bible. Creationists are the ones throwing out data, not real scientists.

notto · Aug 19, 2005

duordi said:
Sure it will, the data will keep coming in and the truth will be known.
Will it be accepted?
That is another question.

Duane

From this I can only conclude that you will only accept new data coming in if it already agrees with your circular conclusions.

Why don't you accept the data that is already in? Because it disagrees with your religious beliefs.

If new data comes in, I'm sure you will reject it just as you are rejecting the data behind the graphic you keep referring to.

You will do this willfully. That's fine, just don't try to convince us that you are approaching this objectively or that you have considered the data on the table in any reasonable way. You haven't.

LittleNipper · Aug 19, 2005

Frumious Bandersnatch said:
Since all relevant data are contrary to the global flood myth just what are you talking about?

FB

The relevant data is not contrary, simply misunderstood by people who haven't a desire to accept their limited capacity to disagree...

Nightson · Aug 19, 2005

LittleNipper said:
The relevant data is not contrary, simply misunderstood by people who haven't a desire to accept their limited capacity to disagree...

You mean Christians? Because you know they are the ones who first falsified the whole flood thingie.

notto · Aug 19, 2005

LittleNipper said:
The relevant data is not contrary, simply misunderstood by people who haven't a desire to accept their limited capacity to disagree...

So far nobody arguing the creationist side has looked at the data that is behind the graphic that keeps getting shown. The data is contrary to the conclusions.

Basically you expose the creationists 'science'. There is none to be found. It is a preconceived conclusion wrapped in willfull denial.

LittleNipper · Aug 19, 2005

Loudmouth said:
Look at my post (go two up). Duane throws out the dating of meteor craters because it disagrees with his hypothesis. Creationists throw out constant decay rates because it disagrees with their bible. Creationists are the ones throwing out data, not real scientists.

I can imagine that under extreme conditions that decay rates would change. The logic would be to prove that such extremes do not effect the data at all. If you cannot prove that, you cannot say that the data has not been corrupted in some way.

ImmortalTechnique · Aug 19, 2005

even when independent dating methods all come up with the same conclusions? you don't have a leg to stand on here

notto · Aug 19, 2005

LittleNipper said:
I can imagine that under extreme conditions that decay rates would change. The logic would be to prove that such extremes do not effect the data at all. If you cannot prove that, you cannot say that the data has not been corrupted in some way.

Extreme conditions do not affect decay rates in any significant way related to dating methods, at least none that we have been able to produce on earth or that would allow a wooden ark to survive.

It has already been proven that they dont so I guess we can conclude the data has not been corrupted, right?

(waits for the next denial or goal post shifiting).

Loudmouth · Aug 19, 2005

LittleNipper said:
I can imagine that under extreme conditions that decay rates would change. The logic would be to prove that such extremes do not effect the data at all. If you cannot prove that, you cannot say that the data has not been corrupted in some way.

So your imagination trumps actual data?

We already know what conditions are needed to affect decay rates, and those conditions can not occur on earth. Only conditions found in the center of suns can affect the decay rates of the isotopes used for dating.

Scientific proof of flood.

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Conflation of Blathers

Contributor

Attachments

Contributor

the Antifloccinaucinihilipili ficationist

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Contributor

Legend

Contributor

Take two snuggles and call me in the morning

Legend

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Legend

Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency