Scientific proof of flood.

[LittleNipper]

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.

I believe that IF there is a CREATOR, HE could create this world as it exists in a moment. Now IF the CREATOR did just that, just how old would you believe it to be----if you were born 8000 years later and there had occurred a catastrophic meteoric shower, FLOOD, and a violent series of earthquakes roughly 6000 years ago? Be honest ---- Millions, maybe BILLIONS of years old. You see it really doesn't matter what you want too believe. The TRUTH is all that really matters, and some 6000-8000 years later, you really do not know the truth, only what you suppose. The reality is that I choose to accept the Bible because GOD has caused me to accept HIS SALVATION. If that were not the case, I'd likely choose to believe what you believe, because I would not know any better...

 

[notto]

I believe that IF there is a CREATOR, HE could create this world as it exists in a moment. Now IF the CREATOR did just that, just how old would you believe it to be, if you were born 8000 years later and there had occurred a catastrophic meteoric shower, FLOOD, and a violent series of earthquakes roughly 6000 years ago? Be honest ---- Millions, maybe BILLIONS of years old. You see it really doesn't matter what you want too believe. The TRUTH is all that really matters, and some 6000-8000 years later, you really do not know the truth, only what you suppose. The reality is that I choose to accept the Bible because GOD has caused me to accept HIS SALVATION. If that were not the case, I'd likely choose to believe what you believe, because I would not know any better...

Great. Plenty of Christians accept Gods salvation but they don't deny the creation as it is right in front of us. I don't see what one has to do with the other.

There is no evidene of a catastrophic meteoric shower, flood or earthquakes 6000 years ago. I would expect that if there was, there would be evidence that it happened. There isn't. Certainly God could have done all this. God obviously choose not to and the creation bears this out.

 

[Loudmouth]

I believe that IF there is a CREATOR, HE could create this world as it exists in a moment.

So there is as much evidence for God creating the Universe 13 billion years ago as there is evidence that God created the world 1 hour ago? Your serious about this?

Now IF the CREATOR did just that, just how old would you believe it to be

A few minutes old.

----if you were born 8000 years later and there had occurred a catastrophic meteoric shower, FLOOD, and a violent series of earthquakes roughly 6000 years ago? Be honest ---- Millions, maybe BILLIONS of years old.

You can date meteor impacts by the formation of tektites. These are small glass-like spherules. They are formed when molten rock from the impact is ejected into the atmosphere, cools, and then falls to earth as a round glassy ball. In the molten state these spherules release all of the gasses contained in them, including argon. When these spherules cool and become solid the potassium-40 in the spherule produces argon-40 at a known and rate. Therefore, the spherules can be used to date the impact. If those impacts occurred 6,000 years ago then there should be very little to any argon found in those tektites. Instead, we find an amount of argon-40 that is consistent with an impact that occurred millions of years ago. How do the creationists deal with this known mechanism of dating? Claim it doesn't work and ignore it.

You see it really doesn't matter what you want too believe. The TRUTH is all that really matters, and some 6000-8000 years later, you really do not know the truth, only what you suppose.

Which is a better supposition, one that is supported by evidence from every field of science or one that is derived from a 2,000 year old holy book?

The reality is that I choose to accept the Bible because GOD has caused me to accept HIS SALVATION.

But then He requires you to ignore all of the evidence in His Creation? Doesn't sound like a god I want to believe in.

If that were not the case, I'd likely choose to believe what you believe, because I would not know any better...

You seem to forget that many accept both the Hebrew God, the Christian Savior, and the scientifically derived age of the Earth.

 

[Tomk80]

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

Or realize that the dates given are incorrect.

There are three clusters. North America, Western Europe and Australia. Which one is a singular event? Furthermore, clustering can occur, and does occur, frequently with random events. It's inherent in random events that things aren't going to be spread out nicely and you'll need to give us a statistical analysis to make it reasonable that clustering has indeed occurred.

Furthermore, your reasoning is awful here. First, you draw the conclusion based on the location that the strikes are due to a single event. But when independent methods go against that conclusion, you suddenly draw the conclusion that these independent methods are incorrect, without giving an explanation on how they could be incorrect or how their results can be dependent on the conclusion you draw. Your reasoning goes around in circles, in stead of in a straight line, and it's making people dizzy.

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

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

and see the same result.

So Western Europe isn't a cluster now? I'm not sure what you're trying to show me here. Especially when you take into account that Eastern Europe has been a very geologically active region, IIRC. That is why you don't see many strikes there, same as in Western America.

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.

So? All sites have been explored, which was what I was telling you. There are no confirmed sites in the jungles because you need to go there to confirm them, which is kind of hard. It would be good if you responded to that.

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..

Why? Before stating that odds are very high, please give me calculations. Then rule out other explanations, like the ones given by me and FB.

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.

Hold it right there. You say here that a single large object disintegrated, struck nothern America and Europe but somehow, miracoulously completely missed the Atlantic ocean?

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

Again somehow completely missing the atlantic ocean but fully hitting the continents on either side of it?

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.

And somehow you reject all the detailed investigation already done by experts? Why?

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.

Wrong. Sourthern Europe did not have a high geological stability in the past. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have large number of dormant vulcanoes. The Netherlands, Denmark and the north of Germany are run-off regions from the mountains in the middle of the continent. All of those would likely have removed traces of meteor strikes.

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

I'm not sure how to respond to this. You throw assertions around like they are facts, for example in your claim that Europe was not an active geological region, turn a blind eye to some of the most astounding problems with your pet theory and then understand my desire to maintain faith in my presently accepted theory. I would try to not make such comments when I would have such little knowledge on geology as you do. As such, I don't and can only wonder about your desire to do so.

 

[Valkhorn]

I believe that IF there is a CREATOR, HE could create this world as it exists in a moment. Now IF the CREATOR did just that, just how old would you believe it to be----if you were born 8000 years later and there had occurred a catastrophic meteoric shower, FLOOD, and a violent series of earthquakes roughly 6000 years ago? Be honest ---- Millions, maybe BILLIONS of years old. You see it really doesn't matter what you want too believe. The TRUTH is all that really matters, and some 6000-8000 years later, you really do not know the truth, only what you suppose. The reality is that I choose to accept the Bible because GOD has caused me to accept HIS SALVATION. If that were not the case, I'd likely choose to believe what you believe, because I would not know any better...

More creationist dribble, I see. Plenty of randomly capitalized words, blind assertions, nothing to back it up.

*compares it to Duane's*

He is pretty similar yet doesn't capitalize random words. He does refuse to back up most of his claims though.

Sometimes its hard to even take creationists seriously when all they have is this.

 

[duordi]

That is why science is based on evidence and not on "traditions."

Oh, but science is based on traditions.

It is based on information available and decisions made during a preceding time period and not based on information that is available now.

This is because it takes time for change and acceptance of theories to occur.

Where is this Garden now?

I think this discussion will be to far beyond your Bible knowledge level to have any meaning for you but it was located at Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

Were these pure animals protected from the Flood?

Yes, they were on the Ark.

You are doing much more extrapolating with old bible stories than modern geologists do with the evidence.

About the same yes, which is just fine because they are theories.

Theories are acceptable as long as they are defined as such.

I specifically stated this was a guess and that I was not an expert.

So every attempt was made to be honest about the origins of the theory given.

Of course there is reasoning behind each aspect of the theory.

Not only can we measure plate movement today, but we also have supporting evidence for the existence of Pangea (which I assume you are saying is a wild extrapolation) in the form of biogeography and the shape of the continents themselves. In addition, old geological features such as mountain ranges line up surprisingly well when the continents are placed together as Pangea (for example the Appalachians in N. America and mountains in Northern Europe)

This can also be explained by a constant Earth surface curvature forming when the continents rose out of a world ocean.

I recommend reading "The Restless Earth," by Nigel Calder. It is an old book (1972) but the basics have not changed since then. It is old enough that your local library should have a copy.

Yes, these are also theories and are wonderful tools as long as you realize they are a guess.

Personally I prefer to use data which is as recent as possible.

Trilobites are found all over the world and are never found with flounders or any other fish. Nor are they ever found with crabs, lobsters, shrimps, or any extant species of any kind! Why is that??

Why don't they die with any modern species??

They may have lived in very deep water which would separate them from other species.

This is a good point. It shows how much variation is inherent in a species, and was one of Darwin's important arguments for evolution.

Yes but even more variation then evolution can explain, that is why the Bible description of variation of the species is more accurate then Darwin’’s.

However, no one would think these animals were from different families or classes based on their skeletons.

You said yourself that a t-rex can not be a ostrich just be cause of the size difference.

Why do you think someone else would not make the same assumption with a very large and a very small dog?

No one has ever claimed T rex blood was the same as an ostrich's. Just that they had similarities.

I agree, t-rex blood is like an ostrich’’s blood and unlike the blood of other animals.

They would break.. very good idea!

Ha Ha, well maybe but more likely the box with the t-rex bones did not come with instructions and they put the wings on backwards.

It is mainstream scientists that have recently concluded that theropod dinosaurs are related to birds. It is "creation scientists" like D. Gish that claim otherwise.

I would prefer to speak for myself instead of someone you select speak for me.

Somehow I think I will be better off.

But thanks anyway.

How does any of this mean that the scientific community has drifted from the truth?? You are making no sense. ???

I have never seen a display of a t-rex that looked like a bird.

Have you?

This indicates that entertainment is more important then knowledge.

Duane

 

[duordi]

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?



You seem to be assuming this.




Non sequitor.



Yes. This seems the most likely scenario.




Please show us the odds and how you calculated them.




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?



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.

The intent of this theory is to lay a framework for others who are more adapt to calculation of orbit trajectories and probability calculations to complete the necessary calculations.

It is also intended to encourage an inspection of areas of the Earth which have few meteor strikes.
As always the truth is the goal not a personal agenda.

Duane

 

[duordi]

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

The data showing the meteor strikes is not as uniform as your plots.

Why don't you run the program until it has an equal density variation.

I am sure it will be a long night for you.

Of course the world map has a much higer density variation the then Europe.

Does your estimate of heat gain consider the energy absorbed by an expanding atmosphere, geological abortion, the portion which is released into space, and the evaporation condition that will occur.

The evaporation and subsequent rain is necessary to provide the world flood condition.

Catastrophic science is not as easy as you may have assumed.

Duane

 

[duordi]

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


There are three clusters. North America, Western Europe and Australia. Which one is a singular event? Furthermore, clustering can occur, and does occur, frequently with random events. It's inherent in random events that things aren't going to be spread out nicely and you'll need to give us a statistical analysis to make it reasonable that clustering has indeed occurred.

Furthermore, your reasoning is awful here. First, you draw the conclusion based on the location that the strikes are due to a single event. But when independent methods go against that conclusion, you suddenly draw the conclusion that these independent methods are incorrect, without giving an explanation on how they could be incorrect or how their results can be dependent on the conclusion you draw. Your reasoning goes around in circles, in stead of in a straight line, and it's making people dizzy.


So Western Europe isn't a cluster now? I'm not sure what you're trying to show me here. Especially when you take into account that Eastern Europe has been a very geologically active region, IIRC. That is why you don't see many strikes there, same as in Western America.



So? All sites have been explored, which was what I was telling you. There are no confirmed sites in the jungles because you need to go there to confirm them, which is kind of hard. It would be good if you responded to that.


Why? Before stating that odds are very high, please give me calculations. Then rule out other explanations, like the ones given by me and FB.



Hold it right there. You say here that a single large object disintegrated, struck nothern America and Europe but somehow, miracoulously completely missed the Atlantic ocean?


Again somehow completely missing the atlantic ocean but fully hitting the continents on either side of it?


And somehow you reject all the detailed investigation already done by experts? Why?


Wrong. Sourthern Europe did not have a high geological stability in the past. France, Spain, Italy and Greece have large number of dormant vulcanoes. The Netherlands, Denmark and the north of Germany are run-off regions from the mountains in the middle of the continent. All of those would likely have removed traces of meteor strikes.


I'm not sure how to respond to this. You throw assertions around like they are facts, for example in your claim that Europe was not an active geological region, turn a blind eye to some of the most astounding problems with your pet theory and then understand my desire to maintain faith in my presently accepted theory. I would try to not make such comments when I would have such little knowledge on geology as you do. As such, I don't and can only wonder about your desire to do so.

Your comments were mostly accuisations without merrit except one.

The question about the ocean creators is interesting because of the water coverage a creator does not form unless the object reaches the ocean floor.

This is a question I am curious about.

Thanks for your imput.

Duane

 

[duordi]

Wow this site has really taken off.

But its friday and I have a life.

See you next week.

Duane

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The data showing the meteor strikes is not as uniform as your plots.

Why don't you run the program until it has an equal density variation.

I am sure it will be a long night for you.

Of course the world map has a much higer density variation the then Europe.
Duane

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.

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.

Does your estimate of heat gain consider the energy absorbed by an expanding atmosphere, geological abortion, the portion which is released into space, and the evaporation condition that will occur.

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 evaporation and subsequent rain is necessary to provide the world flood condition.

Catastrophic science is not as easy as you may have assumed.

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.

FB

 

[Split Rock]

Oh, but science is based on traditions.

It is based on information available and decisions made during a preceding time period and not based on information that is available now.

This is because it takes time for change and acceptance of theories to occur.

Old theories are always being tested by new data. There isn't any "tradition" involved.

I think this discussion will be to far beyond your Bible knowledge level to have any meaning for you but it was located at Jerusalem and the surrounding area.

Why is that beyond my understanding of scripture?

Yes, they were on the Ark.

Really? All of them were? I thought only two of every species was, with the exception of "clean" animals of which there were seven of every species. Unless scripture is wrong, most of the animals in Eden must have been left to die in the Flood.

You are doing much more extrapolating with old bible stories than modern geologists do with the evidence.

About the same yes, which is just fine because they are theories.

Theories are acceptable as long as they are defined as such.

I specifically stated this was a guess and that I was not an expert.

So every attempt was made to be honest about the origins of the theory given.

Of course there is reasoning behind each aspect of the theory.

A Theory in scientific terms, is not a "guess." The closest to a guess would be an Hypothesis.

This can also be explained by a constant Earth surface curvature forming when the continents rose out of a world ocean.

Where does this come from?? Any references or evidence for this idea?

Yes, these are also theories and are wonderful tools as long as you realize they are a guess.

Again, when I write about theories in scientific terms, they are not "guesses," as in commmon venacular. Theories are hypotheses that have withstood attempts to falsify them and that make predictions which have been verified.

Personally I prefer to use data which is as recent as possible.

As I indicated, the main points brought out in the book concerning plate tectonics have not changed. Obviously, we know much more in terms of details today, but the basics have held up well. I figured this was a good book to recommend because it has been out there a long time and should be easy to find. Also, the book is written for laymen.

They may have lived in very deep water which would separate them from other species.

Does that include other species which also live in deep water, such as squid and the many benthic species of fish alive today?

Yes but even more variation then evolution can explain, that is why the Bible description of variation of the species is more accurate then Darwin’’s.

What "bible description" are you referring to?.. "each after its kind?" All this indicates is that species reproduce more of their species. Evolutionary theory says no different. Each succeeding generation is a little bit different than the preceeding one, but it is still true that species "reproduce after their kind," as the bible indicates.

You said yourself that a t-rex can not be a ostrich just be cause of the size difference.

Why do you think someone else would not make the same assumption with a very large and a very small dog?

I did not say it was "just" because of the size difference... I also indicated that T rex had teeth and did not have wings. There are many other differences as well.

I agree, t-rex blood is like an ostrich’’s blood and unlike the blood of other animals.

Similar, but not identical. This only shows they are related to each other, not the same species.

Ha Ha, well maybe but more likely the box with the t-rex bones did not come with instructions and they put the wings on backwards.

Well, maybe zoologists and paleontologists know more about comparative anatomy than you do.

I would prefer to speak for myself instead of someone you select speak for me.

Somehow I think I will be better off.

But thanks anyway.

That is fine, I was not trying to imply that Gish's ideas were yours, only that it was Mainstream scientists that discovered that theropod dinosaurs and birds are related. For this reason I do not understand your claims that mainstream scientists misrepresent this relationship.

I have never seen a display of a t-rex that looked like a bird.

Have you?

This indicates that entertainment is more important then knowledge.

Duane

Modern reconstructions of theropod dinosaurs do look more like birds than in the past. I visit New York at least once a year, and one of my favorite museums in NYC is the American Museum of Natural History. A few years ago, they completely revamped the dinosaur halls and changed the displays to reflect modern thinking about how dinosaurs stood. The T. rex, for example, used to stand straight up with his tail dragging on the floor. Now it is balanced with its head foward and its tail held up of the ground, which is more bird-like. Modern artistic reconstructions of many smaller theropods often include feathers, or feather-like down covering their bodies. This is based on the recent finds in China showing impressions of these structures preserved around some theropod fossils.

 

[Tomk80]

Your comments were mostly accuisations without merrit except one.

The question about the ocean creators is interesting because of the water coverage a creator does not form unless the object reaches the ocean floor.

This is a question I am curious about.

Thanks for your imput.

Duane

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The data showing the meteor strikes is not as uniform as your plots.

Why don't you run the program until it has an equal density variation.

I am sure it will be a long night for you.

Of course the world map has a much higer density variation the then Europe.

Duane

Actually it only takes a few minutes to come up with true random distributions that don't look random. The first figure is a random distribution. If you look close you will see two places where the "craters" lay nearly atop one another. Now suppose just a couple of craters are lost to geological activity in the upper center. Suddenly you have a distribution that looks anything but random. It isn't exactly random but it came from a random scatter with one small area excluded. It seems to me that you won't allow yourself to be convinced by any amount of analysis but I hope that anyone with an open mind can see that you are misinterpreting the data.

FB

 

[Tomk80]

To compare the meteor craters to geological activity and hard-to-reach places, I decided to take out my old trusty atlas, take the map of meteor craters and draw in the mountaineous regions (black lines) and jungles (green areas). Admittedly, the resulting picture is but a crude approximation, but I think it does illustrate what happens quite well.

Indeed, most confirmed craters are in Central and Eastern North America, Scandinavia and the Central and Western parts of Australia. And the mountaneous regions are in Western North America, Western South America, Central and Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Azian region and East Australia. Furthermore, the jungle regions show almost no craters either.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the most active geographic regions as well as the most hard to reach geographic locations have almost no confirmed craters, while the geographically stable locations have a lot of them. I haven't drawn in some other important features, such as the border of the permafrost and run-off by streaming water and age of the top geological plates, because that would only make the image too messy. However, those agree quite well with the results of the map. For example, most craters are in areas where the seismic activity is low and the top geological plate is relatively old and areas that are situated on high plains or mountains show few, if any, craters.

So this comparison supports the conclusion that meteor strikes probably were random and might have had a more uniform distribution across the earth, but that evidence of a lot of them might have been destroyed due to geological activity and that evidence of a number of others may be hard to obtain due to the problems in reaching the area.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Your comments were mostly accuisations without merrit except one.

The question about the ocean creators is interesting because of the water coverage a creator does not form unless the object reaches the ocean floor.

This is a question I am curious about.

Thanks for your imput.

Duane

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.

 

[duordi]

I took the weekend off from typing and spent some time composing a model to attempt to determine the probabilities that a random condition caused the meteor strike distribution in Europe.

I know, I know, so I am addicted to science, I admit it.

My intent is to measure the radial density of the meteor strike area and have a random generator attempt to mimic the condition.

The number of attempts required before a successful event is recorded.
This process will be repeated multiple times to determine an estimation of the probability that the meteor strike record is random.

From the map of Europe I selected the portion 40 to 70 degrees latitude and 10-40 longitude.

From this site.

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

I selected this area for several reasons as follows.

1. The greater geological changes happen where the greatest concentration of meteor strikes are recorded. It is therefore concluded that geological movement is not responsible for the removal of meteor strikes from areas which contain few recorded strikes.

2. The area is in an accessible and technologically advanced location, making it unlikely the area has not been well searched and that appropriate satellite information is available.

3. My intent is to measure meteor strike density. Distortion of the map due to the forming of a flat map of a curved surface of the Earth causes the upper portion of the map to be stretched. The highest concentration of meteor strikes occur in the upper portion of the map which will cause the meteor strikes to appear to disperse slightly.

This will give the random generator a slightly better chance to match the condition as the skewed meteor data will give a slightly less dense condition.

This location therefore is immune the argument that map distortion is hurting the chance for a successful random condition.

4. This location does not contain deep water conditions and there is also a body of water close to the center of the meteor concentration, so it can not be argued that the placement of bodies of water have disproportionately prevented, removed or hidden meteor strike data.

The following modifications were made to the raw data.

1. On close inspection it was discovered that there was not a location number 1 and that there were two locations numbered 36. One of the locations assigned as 36 was reassigned to location number 1.

2. A portion of the area used included areas in Asia and information from the Asian map was used to position four meteor strikes.
The Asian map is at this site.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/asia.html

3. Several meteor strikes which were included on the map of Europe but were not within the designated latitude and longtitude limits and were excluded.

4. Meteor strikes which left a crater less then one Kilo Meter in diameter were removed from the data base to assure the data base contained only craters that were large enough to be detected easily and consistently.
This was done to eliminate that argument that small craters had been found only in specific densely populated areas causing the data base to be flawed.

When these modifications to the data were completed the information was renumbered to provide a sequential assignment for data entry in a computer program.

The meteor strike map was printed on an 11" x 17" sheet.

The map was then printer over with a 100 x 100 grid.

Locations of all 35 qualifying meteor strikes were recorded to 0.5 increments.

Quick basic was used to create the computer simulation.



The data of an X and Y component for each meteor were assigned to an array.

The average X and Y values were determined to locate the "center of the meteor" strikes.

The distance from the "center of the meteors" to each meteor was determined using the pythagorean theorem.

The meteor offset distances were averaged and used as an indication of meteor strike radial concentration density.

A random generator was then used to assign (35) X and Y coordinates to (35) hypothetical meteor strikes.

A meteor strike concentration density was derived for the hypothetical meteor strike condition about the hypothetical meteor strike center and checked to see if it was equal to or closer packed then the actual meteor strike data.

If the hypothetical meteor strike data was less dense then the actual meteor strike data then the attempt was considered a failure.

The number of failures were recorded and sequential attempts were made until a successful attempt occurred.

The program repeated this process until 100 successful attempts were completed.

The average number of attempts required to produce a successful attempt was then given.


The program had run for several hours and indicated it had made about 4.5 millions failed attempts without a successful attempt.

I terminated the program prematurely to determine if it had a flaw.

The number of hypothetical meteor strikes was reduced to 10 and a successful attempt was accomplished in a short time.

I then modified the program to start with (3) hypothetical meteors and progress to (35) hypothetical meteors.

As each hypothetical meteor count was finished an average number of attempts were output.

I left the computer run over night and in the morning it had progressed from (3) hypothetical meteors ( repeated 100 times and averaged) requiring about 3.5 attempts to produce a successful attempt, through (25) hypothetical meteors ( repeated 100 times and averaged) requiring about 641,000 attempts.

Due to my knowledge of mathematical probability functions, it was suspected that the function of the number of attempts would be as follows.

F(x) = A ^ (n) = average number of failed attempts to produce a successful attempt.

Where A was an unknown variable and (n) was the number of hypothetical meteors.

The function matched the random generated data well if A = 1.575.

By extrapolation if A = 1.5 the number of attempts would be about 1 million.

If A = 1.6 then number of attempts would be about 14 million.

I will need hundreds or thousands of successful attempts to produce a reliable distribution pattern of 35 hypothetical meteors and therefore it is necessary to make the program as fast as possible and then compile it (or let it run for forty days and forty nights).

As soon as I finish I will post as much material as possible however considering the limitations of this site I am not sure what form it will take.

This process could be repeated with a more complicated model using several Earth locations or even the entire planet but odds of millions to one should be enough to indicate the meteor strike pattern is not a random condition.

I am curious bout the ability of a mathematical prof to convince individuals who would reject the obvious condition of the maps shown which they can see with their own eyes?

My guess is that this is a faith based decision and not a logical decision.
I suspect therefore it will have no more success then the visual evidence.

However I have been wrong before.
We shall see.

Duane

 

[notto]

I took the weekend off from typing and spent some time composing a model to attempt to determine the probabilities that a random condition caused the meteor strike distribution in Europe.

I know, I know, so I am addicted to science, I admit it.

My intent is to measure the radial density of the meteor strike area and have a random generator attempt to mimic the condition.

The number of attempts required before a successful event is recorded.
This process will be repeated multiple times to determine an estimation of the probability that the meteor strike record is random.

From the map of Europe I selected the portion 40 to 70 degrees latitude and 10-40 longitude.

From this site.

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

I selected this area for several reasons as follows.

1. The greater geological changes happen where the greatest concentration of meteor strikes are recorded. It is therefore concluded that geological movement is not responsible for the removal of meteor strikes from areas which contain few recorded strikes.

2. The area is in an accessible and technologically advanced location, making it unlikely the area has not been well searched and that appropriate satellite information is available.

3. My intent is to measure meteor strike density. Distortion of the map due to the forming of a flat map of a curved surface of the Earth causes the upper portion of the map to be stretched. The highest concentration of meteor strikes occur in the upper portion of the map which will cause the meteor strikes to appear to disperse slightly.

This will give the random generator a slightly better chance to match the condition as the skewed meteor data will give a slightly less dense condition.

This location therefore is immune the argument that map distortion is hurting the chance for a successful random condition.

4. This location does not contain deep water conditions and there is also a body of water close to the center of the meteor concentration, so it can not be argued that the placement of bodies of water have disproportionately prevented, removed or hidden meteor strike data.

The following modifications were made to the raw data.

1. On close inspection it was discovered that there was not a location number 1 and that there were two locations numbered 36. One of the locations assigned as 36 was reassigned to location number 1.

2. A portion of the area used included areas in Asia and information from the Asian map was used to position four meteor strikes.
The Asian map is at this site.
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/asia.html

3. Several meteor strikes which were included on the map of Europe but were not within the designated latitude and longtitude limits and were excluded.

4. Meteor strikes which left a crater less then one Kilo Meter in diameter were removed from the data base to assure the data base contained only craters that were large enough to be detected easily and consistently.
This was done to eliminate that argument that small craters had been found only in specific densely populated areas causing the data base to be flawed.

When these modifications to the data were completed the information was renumbered to provide a sequential assignment for data entry in a computer program.

The meteor strike map was printed on an 11" x 17" sheet.

The map was then printer over with a 100 x 100 grid.

Locations of all 35 qualifying meteor strikes were recorded to 0.5 increments.

Quick basic was used to create the computer simulation.



The data of an X and Y component for each meteor were assigned to an array.

The average X and Y values were determined to locate the "center of the meteor" strikes.

The distance from the "center of the meteors" to each meteor was determined using the pythagorean theorem.

The meteor offset distances were averaged and used as an indication of meteor strike radial concentration density.

A random generator was then used to assign (35) X and Y coordinates to (35) hypothetical meteor strikes.

A meteor strike concentration density was derived for the hypothetical meteor strike condition about the hypothetical meteor strike center and checked to see if it was equal to or closer packed then the actual meteor strike data.

If the hypothetical meteor strike data was less dense then the actual meteor strike data then the attempt was considered a failure.

The number of failures were recorded and sequential attempts were made until a successful attempt occurred.

The program repeated this process until 100 successful attempts were completed.

The average number of attempts required to produce a successful attempt was then given.


The program had run for several hours and indicated it had made about 4.5 millions failed attempts without a successful attempt.

I terminated the program prematurely to determine if it had a flaw.

The number of hypothetical meteor strikes was reduced to 10 and a successful attempt was accomplished in a short time.

I then modified the program to start with (3) hypothetical meteors and progress to (35) hypothetical meteors.

As each hypothetical meteor count was finished an average number of attempts were output.

I left the computer run over night and in the morning it had progressed from (3) hypothetical meteors ( repeated 100 times and averaged) requiring about 3.5 attempts to produce a successful attempt, through (25) hypothetical meteors ( repeated 100 times and averaged) requiring about 641,000 attempts.

Due to my knowledge of mathematical probability functions, it was suspected that the function of the number of attempts would be as follows.

F(x) = A ^ (n) = average number of failed attempts to produce a successful attempt.

Where A was an unknown variable and (n) was the number of hypothetical meteors.

The function matched the random generated data well if A = 1.575.

By extrapolation if A = 1.5 the number of attempts would be about 1 million.

If A = 1.6 then number of attempts would be about 14 million.

I will need hundreds or thousands of successful attempts to produce a reliable distribution pattern of 35 hypothetical meteors and therefore it is necessary to make the program as fast as possible and then compile it (or let it run for forty days and forty nights).

As soon as I finish I will post as much material as possible however considering the limitations of this site I am not sure what form it will take.

This process could be repeated with a more complicated model using several Earth locations or even the entire planet but odds of millions to one should be enough to indicate the meteor strike pattern is not a random condition.

I am curious the ability of a mathematical prof to convince individuals who would reject the obvious condition of the maps shown which they can see with their own eyes?

My guess this is a faith based decision on their part and not a logical decision.
I suspect therefore it will have no more success then the visual attempt.

However I have been wrong before.
We shall see.

Duane

You should repeat the process on a section of the moon to test your model. I'm guessing that you will find that if your model determines that the small number of earthbound strikes indicates that they are non random that you will find the same model will determine that the moon is nonrandom as well.

If it did, what would that tell us about your model?

Remember, garbage in, garbage out.

Of course you model still doesn't accurately represent the data because it doesn't account for the fact that we know the meteors didn't happen at the same time. The dating and location of the meteor craters themselves tell us that. All you will be able to do is show that your model is flawed if you don't account for the data you have been given.

 

[Tomk80]

Before you begin, how do you account for the high past geological activity in Central and Southern Europe? Scandinavia (more specifically Sweden and Finland), which is where the highest number of meteor craters is located, has not been very geologically active in the past (not experienced mountain building and no vulcanoes) and has a low run-off due to water streams at present. On the other hand, Southern and Central Europe show a large degree of mountain building in the past (including many dormant vulcanoes) and large destruction of sediment layers due to large amounts of run-off.

You'll also need to take into account that the plates in Sweden and Finland are very old (precambrian), while those in Spain, Germany, France and Greece (well, all countries in Western/Southern Europe actually) are much younger (Tertiary in many places). This basically means that Finland and Sweden have been collecting craters for over 500 million years, while France, Spain and Greece have been collecting craters for less than 65 million years.

You'll need to take these things into account if you want to make an accurate model.

 

[duordi]

You should repeat the process on a section of the moon to test your model. I'm guessing that you will find that if your model determines that the small number of earthbound strikes indicates that they are non random that you will find the same model will determine that the moon is nonrandom as well.

If it did, what would that tell us about your model?

It would indicate that meteors break up before impact on the moon also.

If it does not cluster then it would indicate that meteors do not breakup before impact.

Remember, garbage in, garbage out.

Of course you model still doesn't accurately represent the data because it doesn't account for the fact that we know the meteors didn't happen at the same time. The dating and location of the meteor craters themselves tell us that. All you will be able to do is show that your model is flawed if you don't account for the data you have been given.

So the only reason you reject the obvious conclusion is that it doesn't agree with your theories.

I am somewhat disappointed in you Notto, but I did not really expect you to turn your back on ideas you have held for a lifetime.

Realize however that as you linger, rejecting scientific evidence you will appear to be hypocritical adopting an emotional based belief system which is just what you have criticized YECs for.

Isn’t it amazing that you are just as human as the ones you are criticizing.

Welcome to the club.

Duane