Scientific proof of flood.

[LittleNipper]

The Atlantic Ocrean exists because of Continental Drift. If the hand of God was invovled She worked slowly, at least by our perception of time.

FB

That is how it is perceived by some. NO one has been around long enough to see if the speed of Drift has always been constant. I would never presume it was. However, if it was a lot faster at one point, the fossil record of Evolution would have to be reinterpreted. Neither Uniformitarians, Evolutionists nor atheists would enjoy seeing that... I also honor GOD in the masculine as HE is THE Creator as opposed to being a procreator.

 

[Loudmouth]

That is how it is perceived by some. NO one has been around long enough to see if the speed of Drift has always been constant.

You might want to tell Walt Brown that.

However, if it was a lot faster at one point . . .

. . . it would leave evidence that it was faster. Instead, we find such records as the Hawaiian Island archipelago and the Emporer seamounts that evidence a constant rate over the last 70 million years.

If you have evidence to the contrary please present it.

I also honor GOD in the masculine as HE is THE Creator as opposed to being a procreator.

I really don't give a hoot. I usually use "He" out of tradition. But, it does make more sense, in a way, to use "She" for a creator and sustainer of life. "He" has more of a "hit-and-run" connotation in today's world.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I also honor GOD in the masculine as HE is THE Creator as opposed to being a procreator.

What, you think God has a Y chromosome?

FB

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

That is how it is perceived by some. NO one has been around long enough to see if the speed of Drift has always been constant.

I don't think anyone has ever said it has always been constant. In fact different plates move at different rates today varying from as little as 25 millimeters a year to as much as 90 mm/year. What is clear is that drift has proceeded at rates consistent with a young earth.

I would never presume it was. However, if it was a lot faster at one point,

How much faster? You do know that drifting continents create new ocean crust and lithosphere that must be cooled don't you? Do you have any idea how much heat would be released in subducting and creating enough new sea floor and lithosphere for the continents to move to their current positions from Pangea?

the fossil record of Evolution would have to be reinterpreted.

However it might be interpreted it is well documented that the fossil record fasifies the flood myth.

Neither Uniformitarians, Evolutionists nor atheists would enjoy seeing that... .

What are uniformitarians? The most extreme uniformitarian arguments I see these days ironically come from YECs with some of their long refuted "Young Earth Arguments". Evolution is not Atheism and neither has anything to do with the geological and other data that falsify the young earth and global flood.

FB

 

[TrueCreation]

How much faster? You do know that drifting continents create new ocean crust and lithosphere that must be cooled don't you? Do you have any idea how much heat would be released in subducting and creating enough new sea floor and lithosphere for the continents to move to their current positions from Pangea?

A lot.

However it might be interpreted it is well documented that the fossil record fasifies the flood myth.

Can you explain the logic of your method of falsification to me (formally if you can)?

-Chris Grose

 

[TrueCreation]

. . . it would leave evidence that it was faster.

Like what? Can you present anything that does not rely on typical radioisotopic inferences?

-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

A lot.

Don't tell me you are still promoting catastophic plate tectonics. Catastrophic plate tectonics would have ended life on earth. As well as leading to a very different ocean floor both in terms of the depth profile and the characterists of the rocks. Ocean and atmospheric chemistry would also be very different as well from all the CO2 and SO2 released. And those giant super fast cyclonic currents sweeping across the continents that Baumgardner claims the model requires would not have resulted in either geology or paleontology that looks anything like what is found, not to mention being more than a little hard on Noah and his 450 foot floating wooden zoo. I am sure we have discussed this in considerable detail before.

Or are you now one of those who claims the continents moved in the time of Peleg about 100 years after the flood? That is the way most YEC try to explain biogeography. It doesn't come close to working but at least it doesn't leave you with absolutely no way to explain how Marsupials, monotremes and got to Australia and flightless birds got to New Zealand.

Can you explain the logic of your method of falsification to me (formally if you can)?

-Chris Grose

You want me to explain what geologists have realized for more than 150 years(Except for those who have sworn oaths not to realize it). I thought you knew something about geology and palenotology. Am I wrong? I don't really have time to go through the whole fossil record right now but every YEC explanation I have seen for flood deposition of the fossil record is total nonsense and easily falsified. I doubt you like Walt Brown's liquifaction model. Do you like hydrodynamic sorting? Or is it differential escapability up the mountains most YECs say weren't even there before the flood? You know, the one where grass outran velociraptors. Or was it that one about ecological zones at different levels on the mountains that supposedly weren't there before the flood. You know, the one where mangroves, water lilies and muscrats lived high on the mountains that weren't there before the flood while all Permian animals lived down in swamps that didn't have any angiosperms like mangroves, water lilies or willows in them and all the dinos lived just above them. That's the one where all the trilobites lived deeper than modern bottom dwellers but not as deep as the bacteria that formed the stromatolite fossils. Then of course there are all those trace fossils that show obvious evidence of both land and sea animals going on about their daily lives as if nothing special were happening during this global flood that was supposedly rearranging all the world's geology. You're a bright guy. I thought you might have given up on YEC by now. IIRC you have long ago realized that Brown and Hovind are full of nonsense. I guess it will still take you a little longer to realize that AiG and ICR are too.

FB

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Like what? Can you present anything that does not rely on typical radioisotopic inferences?

-Chris Grose

Well if it was fast enough, like say all in one year, it would have sterlized the earth. That would be pretty good evidence.

FB

 

[duordi]

That's your problem.

And you don't I suppose?

Duane

 

[duordi]

Which of course you don't know. How consistent is the sampling?

Good point this of course will take some.
I am also curious as to the process used.

Duane

 

[TrueCreation]

Don't tell me you are still promoting catastophic plate tectonics. Catastrophic plate tectonics would have ended life on earth.

'promoting' is hardly the word.. My only argument would be that CPT retains decent credibility as an incipient underdeveloped hypothesis--and one which would require reinterpretation of much geological and geophysical data if it were true.

As well as leading to a very different ocean floor both in terms of the depth profile and the characterists of the rocks. Ocean and atmospheric chemistry would also be very different as well from all the CO2 and SO2 released.

Reasoned by what? This is why I have asked you for you to present the logic behind your methods of falsification. How do you determine that falsification has been achieved and what significance do you attach to this conclusion of falsification by your logical method? I am assuming that your method of determining falsification is logically fallaceous because the conclusion that CPT would "[lead] to a very different ocean floor, both in terms of the depth profile and the characteristics of the rocks" requires that you have a well developed and understood model from which such conclusions can be determined at all.

And those giant super fast cyclonic currents sweeping across the continents that Baumgardner claims the model requires would not have resulted in either geology or paleontology that looks anything like what is found, not to mention being more than a little hard on Noah and his 450 foot floating wooden zoo. I am sure we have discussed this in considerable detail before.

I do not agree with Baumgardner's confidence in his references to hypercanes and cyclonic currents.

Or are you now one of those who claims the continents moved in the time of Peleg about 100 years after the flood? That is the way most YEC try to explain biogeography. It doesn't come close to working but at least it doesn't leave you with absolutely no way to explain how Marsupials, monotremes and got to Australia and flightless birds got to New Zealand.

No.

You want me to explain what geologists have realized for more than 150 years(Except for those who have sworn oaths not to realize it). I thought you knew something about geology and palenotology. Am I wrong?

All I asked was for you to present your methods of logical deduction for the determination fo falsification. Whatever we apply those methods to (star formation, paleosol interpretation, hydrothermal systems, or any other processes which make hypothetical statements) is not relevant to my question.

I doubt you like Walt Brown's liquifaction model. Do you like hydrodynamic sorting? Or is it differential escapability up the mountains most YECs say weren't even there before the flood? You know, the one where grass outran velociraptors. Or was it that one about ecological zones at different levels on the mountains that supposedly weren't there before the flood. You know, the one where mangroves, water lilies and muscrats lived high on the mountains that weren't there before the flood while all Permian animals lived down in swamps that didn't have any angiosperms like mangroves, water lilies or willows in them and all the dinos lived just above them. That's the one where all the trilobites lived deeper than modern bottom dwellers but not as deep as the bacteria that formed the stromatolite fossils.[/quote]
I am currently not the person to discuss biogeography with, it is a subject within which I have sufficient understanding. I do plan on doing research in this area eventually--perhaps at least within the next 20 years.

However, I do have interest in paleopedology and thus an interest in trace fossils as they are significant to soil and paleosol interpretation.

Then of course there are all those trace fossils that show obvious evidence of both land and sea animals going on about their daily lives as if nothing special were happening during this global flood that was supposedly rearranging all the world's geology.

Well most burrowing species probably are not very intelligent. Perhaps a good experiment is to go outside in your yard and throw sand on an ant hill and see if they (a) just stay there and try to correct the damage or (b) migrate off of your property so that you no longer throw sand on their home again.

You're a bright guy. I thought you might have given up on YEC by now. IIRC you have long ago realized that Brown and Hovind are full of nonsense. I guess it will still take you a little longer to realize that AiG and ICR are too.

I gave up YEC a long time ago. Brown, Hovind, AiG, ICR.. they all are getting it wrong. I think that the root of their error is in their "scientific" methodology. If corrected, they could make more progress.

-Chris Grose

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I would expect multiple strikes to take the surface off right down to the bedrock.
Or are you suggesting the impacts should have no effect on the area?

Duane

I don't see how impacts would take the surface down to bedrock, except in the crater which goes well into the bedrock. Bedrock is exposed in the Canadian and Baltic Shields because of the advance and retreat of continental glaciers during the ice ages.

FB

 

[TrueCreation]

Well if it was fast enough, like say all in one year, it would have sterlized the earth. That would be pretty good evidence.

How have you deduced this? As I said in my previous post--assertions like this require you to have a well developed and understood model from which such conclusions can be determined.

Nevertheless, there are quite a few dead things in the fossil record

-Chris Grose

 

[dlamberth]

The possibility is that the FLOOD and the meteor/asteroid strikes could be the very reason that the Atlantic Ocean exists at all-----that and of course the hand of GOD...

no...the Atlantic Ocean exists because continental plates migrate all over the place. There is no evidence that meteor/asteroid strikes have ever produced lava flows, let alone break up continents.


.

 

[dlamberth]

I would expect multiple strikes to take the surface off right down to the bedrock.
Or are you suggesting the impacts should have no effect on the area?

One might think this might happen, but there is no evidence anywhere that is does.

.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

'promoting' is hardly the word.. My only argument would be that CPT retains decent credibility as an incipient underdeveloped hypothesis--and one which would require reinterpretation of much geological and geophysical data if it were true.

You seem to have a good grasp of geophysics but maybe you need to study some thermodynamics and chemistry to understand more of what is wrong with CPT.

Reasoned by what? This is why I have asked you for you to present the logic behind your methods of falsification. How do you determine that falsification has been achieved and what significance do you attach to this conclusion of falsification by your logical method? I am assuming that your method of determining falsification is logically fallaceous because the conclusion that CPT would "[lead] to a very different ocean floor, both in terms of the depth profile and the characteristics of the rocks" requires that you have a well developed and understood model from which such conclusions can be determined at all.

You know well that Joe Meert presented this. I didn't see you refute it and I do understand the relationship between the age and depth of the seafloor. The equations are relatively simple.

As to rocks, you need hyper-rapid cooling of the crust which would lead to very fine grained rocks. The papers have found on the subject seem to indicate that course grained gabbros are more common than obsidian or very fine grained rocks. Without some very special method to blow the heat into space the oceans would boil and the earth would be too hot to live on for a long time. The only way the planet can shed heat into space is black body radiation and even Baumgardner realizes that BB radiation is insufficient to get rid of the heat but if you cool most of the crust this way you will get a lot very fine grained rock.

I am quite sure I went through effects on the chemistry of the oceans for you before. The pH gets very acid. I don't know if can find it again. Have you forgotten it? I don't recall that you refuted it when I presented it.

I do not agree with Baumgardner's confidence in his references to hypercanes and cyclonic currents.

So if he is wrong about that, why do you think he is right about the rest of his model?

All I asked was for you to present your methods of logical deduction for the determination fo falsification. Whatever we apply those methods to (star formation, paleosol interpretation, hydrothermal systems, or any other processes which make hypothetical statements) is not relevant to my question.

Why don't you try to explain how the fossil record is consistent with flood deposition? You can start with a flood with boiling oceans and steamy hot rain falling on the earth since that is the one you seem to like?

I am currently not the person to discuss biogeography with, it is a subject within which I have sufficient understanding. I do plan on doing research in this area eventually--perhaps at least within the next 20 years.

when you do you maybe you will realize how absurd it is to think that animals coming off a boat two by two in the middle east could repopulate the world in a fashion consistent with today's biogeography. I have discussed this with YECs who claim to be experts in biogeography and they have no answers either so don't feel too bad.

However, I do have interest in paleopedology and thus an interest in trace fossils as they are significant to soil and paleosol interpretation.

Well most burrowing species probably are not very intelligent. Perhaps a good experiment is to go outside in your yard and throw sand on an ant hill and see if they (a) just stay there and try to correct the damage or (b) migrate off of your property so that you no longer throw sand on their home again.

But if I throw several feet on them every day while they are immersed in water I don't expect them to keep building nests. Do you? I don't expect underwater burrowing animals to keep feeding and burrowing while sediment is being deposited on them at enormous rates. Do you?[/quote]

I gave up YEC a long time ago.

You are still doing a pretty good imitation.

Brown, Hovind, AiG, ICR.. they all are getting it wrong. I think that the root of their error is in their "scientific" methodology. If corrected, they could make more progress.

-Chris Grose

When all their errors are corrected I predict you will find that there is nothing left but a 4.5 billion year old earth with no global flood. I seem to recall that there was a time when you believed all of them. Of course you were very young then. At least you are far too educated for Hovind and Brown and some of the AiG and ICR stuff by now. Have you gone from being a YEC to a MAEC? (Middle Aged Earth Creationist?) Maybe someday you will get all the way to OEC like Hugh Ross or the people at Answers in Creation. Maybe you will have a further change of mind like Davis A. Young did when he studied geology.
FB

 

[duordi]

I beg to differ, but if it seemed that way, my apologies. However, I still have a number of comments which I haven't seen you address:

1. We wouldn't find many confirmed craters in hard to reach areas (either geographically or politically) because craters have to be explored to be confirmed. Only satellite data is not enough for the craters to be confirmed craters.

My proof does not require all or some unexplored areas to be addressed.

It only requires one (1) explored area with a proven non-random meteor strike condition that does not have geological or data gathering technics which would cause the distortion to the magnitude shown.

The meteor strikes must also have geological column based dates with large time separations.

If these conditions are met then data from other locations are not required.

This in not to suggest that the data from other locations is not necessary for other discoveries which are of equal importance.

2. In the picture you showed of Europe, central and Southern Europe have been geologically very active regions in the past, with mountain building and high vulcanic activity. So we wouldn't expect to find craters there.

I reduced my observed area to the Baltic Shield and the same results were evident.

See the attached image.
Note ( The dot in the upper left is an example indicator and does not indicate a strike )

3. As pointed out by FB, the Western part of America shows the same problem.

And some other problems that your theory faces which just come up would also need to be addressed:

Again only one location is needed to indicate the meteor dispersion.

Once we agree a multiple meteor strike event occurred then we can look at other locations to determine more information about the event.

4. The crater impacts show a pretty random distribution in America, but not in Europe. Why?

I disagree with you of course as the Western portion of the continent has less then the Eastern portion.

The distribution may be partly due to geological changes.

But my intent is not to prove all meteors strikes are from a common event, and indeed North America may or may not be as I have not studied it in depth.

Only the proof of one multiple meteor strike event is necessary.

Europe was chosen because it has an extremely high concentration of meteor strikes which cause the strikes shown in small areas of a common geological conditions or population concentrations to be inspected to determine if the non-random condition still is apparent.
If the non-random condition is still apparent then the influence did not have a strong enough affect on the data to prevent the proof from being validated.

5. If the crater impacts were the result of a single event, this event would have taken 24 hours. How can that be possible?

I am curious as to your meaning on this point for I was not able to put a time constraint on the event.

6. There are few craters found in India and surrounding regions. Again, this is a very geologically active region with a lot of mountain building still going on.

Again, I see no need to inspect the entire planet as only one multiple meteor strike event must be proven and locations are chosen based on their ability to indicate if a specific condition has altered the meteor data base and to what extent .

I must apologize if one of your previous posts contained more good questions I missed.

This last post was very well written and I believe I understood all of your inquiries except one.

Posts like your last are a joy to respond to as little interpretation is required on my part and I hate to have to guess what is intended in a post.

Duane

 

[duordi]

This question can be answered by modelling impacts. Smaller impacts may not form a crater in the ocean floor but larger ones will. Their energy is sufficient to vaporize the water in their path and the ocean floor. A good program for simulating impacts can be found here. A 250 m diameter iron-nickel meteor hiting at 45 degrees with a typical velocity of 17 km/sec makes a crater about 4 km across and about 400 meters deep in water 1000 m deep. If it hits sedimentary rock it will make a crater about about 6 km wide and 500 meters deep. With bigger objects the relative difference is less. A 15 km diameter rocky asteroid would make a crater 150 km wide and 1.3 km deep in water 1000 m deep and a crater 157 km wide and 1.4 km deep in sedimentary rock. This is just a bit smaller than the Chicxulub impact at the K/T boundary. Such an impact would deliver kinetic energy equivalent to about 100 million megatons of TNT. Here is another page with an impact calculator that gives similar results. Note that with large impacts in says " Ohh! Look at all the dust in Earth's atmosphere! It's going to block the sunlight and make it very very cold there for many years. There will be another wave of mass extinctions. You humans will not survive"

Now you are claiming that all these impacts occured at the same time apparently to start the flood. There a several big problems with this.

First most YECs attribute most of the world's sedimentary record to the flood. If the impacts were at the start of the flood year why didn't the flood bury all the craters completely? Most of the terrestrial craters are on rocks that most YEC attribute to the flood. Sudbury and Vredefort might be exceptions here.

Second, the total energy released into the atmosphere is enormous. Even the relatively small impacts would have released tremendous energy. Those that made 5 km diameter craters, of which there are many would have released about 3,000 megatons. Chicxulub is estimated at 100,000,000 megatons. This is roughly 5 billion times the energy released by the Atom bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. The Vredefort and Sudbury craters are significantly larger and would have had energies in the range of 500 million megatons. These are only the craters we see. There must have been many more objects that hit the oceans even if the distribution was not random. We could ignore them but I think you need some ocean impacts to start the flood, right? In any case the total energy would exeed 1000 million megatons or about 4x10^24 Joules. Much of this energy goes into melting the crust and blasting ejecta to high altitudes but quite a lot goes into the massive fireballs and blasting hot water and hot rocks into the air. Eventually it would be converted to heat. Even if the ark was not burned to a crisp by a fireball from a nearby impact, or buried by hot ejecta or blown apart by overpressure from a blast or swamped by massive waves from an ocean impact, the atmosphere would get pretty hot. The heat capapacity of the atmosphere is about 5x10^21 J/degree C so it take about 5x10^23 J to heat the air to 100 C and the meteor strikes will release nearly 10 X that. Large ocean strikes will vaporize huge amounts of water and that steam will condense from vapor releasing its latent heat into the air. Molten rock will be ejected from the craters on ballistic trajectories spreading heat and destruction. The craters will radiate heat into the air for months. Flood water rushing into the craters will initially boil adding heat to the air. To shed this heat into space during the "flood" year would require the earth to radiate as a perfect BB radiator at about 175 F and of course the albedo of the earth will be reduced by the dust so things will get pretty hot for a while anyway.

The "good" news is it would cool off soon. The massive amounts of ejecta blasted into the upper atmosphere would block a significant fraction of the light from the sun for years. Of course one wonders how Noah would see that rainbow through all the dust and why the Bible doesn't explain how Noah and his giant zoo dealt with little sunshine and the eventual nuclear winter when they came off the ark. If you need this nuclear winter to create your ice age you better explain how anything grew on a planet that had just been completely underwater for months and had greatly reduced sunshine for years. The idea that all those pairs of animals could survive on flood devastated planet with a totally out wack predator/prey ratio and no mature trees and not much growing for anything to eat except each other is absurd enough without adding the complication of a "nuclear winter" from hundreds of meteor strikes. As with all models for the global flood that I have seen, yours falsifies itself and what you think is evidence for the flood actually falsifies it.

FB.

First I should say your references were much appreciated.

I have not had time to explore it all yet.

I agree with many of your assumptions as far as weather and temperature condition possibilities.

Catastrophic events can be complicated and it is difficult to know exactly how things progressed.

For an example, where did the meteors come from?

Are they in an orbit of some sort that will cause us to cross paths periodically causing multiple meteor strikes several times?

Did parts of the meteor orbit and fall over a period of time or was it a one pass condition?

What affect does the compression and decompression of the atmosphere have on the energy calculations?

What affect does the rain have on dust concentrations?

You mentioned Noah.

He would have been on the boat for over a year before the rainbow incident.

So before one can dismiss the possibility of life surviving, you must define what you are assuming happened.

With so many variables and possible modifications to the scenario it would seem unlike that we can be sure life would not survive.

I am willing to listen if you want to have a go at it.

Duane

 

[duordi]

The meteor strike data for Europe look a little less than random because Europe has experienced mountain building and extreme glaciation. You will notice that few strikes are found in the area of the Alps for example. The data for North America, excluding the geologically active west show a very random distribution. If you don't think Europe is geologically active cast you mind back to Pompeii.

I do agree that erosion and geological influences will affect the meteor record.

The point in using the Baltic Shield was to observe the meteor distribution in a common geological condition.

See attached image.

I did not intend to imply conditions have not influenced the meteor strike data.

My intent was to determine if the influence was sufficient to explain the distribution completely or if a common event was also necessary to account for the data given.

The data for large strikes show what looks to me like a random distribution around the world. Notice that for all the craters more than 30 km in diameter there is one in Norway and one in Sweden and the rest are not in Europe but distributed around the world. Your claim of a single event is not supported by the actual distribution. Of course we have no idea what the distribution in the ocean which probably received 3 or 4 times as many strikes as the land looks like. Even so what you would get would be tsunamis that would swamp a big wooden boat but not a global flood that would cover mountains. If you are going to tell us there were no mountains you better stop using "higher ground" to sort fossils.

The data that indicates a common event also indicates that a specific multiple event is constrained to a relatively small portion of the Earth. If the strikes in Europe did not extend into ocean areas as seems to be the indication why would it be necessary to cover the Planets oceans with hypothetical meteors?

I have no idea what geological abortion is but it is the other factors such as heat loss from black body radiation to space, can be calculated and the heat capacity of atmospheric gases is straightforward to calculate.

The subsequent rain returns whatever heat was absorbed by evaporation to the atmosphere. Energy is conserved. The source of the heat is the kinetic energy from the meteors. This energy goes into vaporizing the meteor and some of the crust and the large strikes all produce enormous fireballs. They also put a huge amount of dust into the air. The short term extreme heating from energy equivalent to about a billion 1 megaton of TNT hydrogen bombs will eventually give way to nuclear winter as the sun is totally hidden by massive clouds of ejecta in the stratosphere. As I said before one would think that the Bible would have mentioned the absence of sunlight for a few years after the flood and the rainbow at the end would have been obscured by huge amounts of atmospheric dust. Whether you like it or not your model falsifies itself and all those craters falsify the young earth.

"Geological abortion" is either a slip of the spell check or a meteor strike which wipes the poor thing out before it has a chance to developed.

If water is contained in the atmosphere and rains out then all of the pressure due to the weight of the water above a specific volume of air is removed.

The atmosphere must then expand as the pressure applied to it is reduced according to the equation PV=NRT. I am sure you are familiar with the related work equations.

The energy absorption of an expanding atmosphere is not commonly considered.

As long as the atmosphere remains in the expanded state it will not release the energy absorbed.

Noah’s trip was not a pleasure trip spent on the deck basking in the sun.

He was inside over a year, which is long enough for a clear sky to develop and yes even a rainbow.

Duane

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

First I should say your references were much appreciated.

I have not had time to explore it all yet.

I agree with many of your assumptions as far as weather and temperature condition possibilities.

Catastrophic events can be complicated and it is difficult to know exactly how things progressed.

For an example, where did the meteors come from?

Are they in an orbit of some sort that will cause us to cross paths periodically causing multiple meteor strikes several times?

So are you now saying it wasn't all one event?

Did parts of the meteor orbit and fall over a period of time or was it a one pass condition?

I don't think they would orbit. Smaller meteor will break up an hit in an elliptical pattern. Larger ones tend to stay in one piece until they hit.

What affect does the compression and decompression of the atmosphere have on the energy calculations?

Some of the energy goes into blast overpressure. The blast winds are eventually slowed by friction as the wind energy is converted to heat.

What affect does the rain have on dust concentrations?

I think a lot of the dust will be in the upper stratosphere where it won't be affected much by rain.

You mentioned Noah.

He would have been on the boat for over a year before the rainbow incident.

With that amount of dust in the air I don't think a rainbow would have been visible. Models from just one of these big impacts indicate restricted sunlight for years and you want to put a lot of them at one time.

So before one can dismiss the possibility of life surviving, you must define what you are assuming happened.

Remember that life not only has to survive it has to recover from a flood that has killed all land animal life except for survivors on a single boat, wiped all the top soil off the land and killed all plant life. Now you add restricted sunlight because of multiple meteor strikes.

With so many variables and possible modifications to the scenario it would seem unlike that we can be sure life would not survive.

Some sea life and a few land plants might survive. However, most life would not survive.

I am willing to listen if you want to have a go at it.

Duane

Don't forget that in addition to these catastrophic meteor strikes you need to figure out how to squeeze several supervolcanos including Toba which was 10,000 times the size of St. Helens 1980 eruption, several eruptions of the Yellowstone supervolcano and the Bruneau Jarbridge supervolcano just to name a few. Then you need to figure out when the Deccan and Siberian Traps and the Columbia River flood basalts flowed out on your young earth. That's a lot of catastropies in a few thousand years or were they all in the flood year in your model.

FB