Scientific proof of flood.

[notto]

So there should be strikes here.

See attachment and
http://www.unb.ca/passc/ImpactDatabase/europe.html

How geologically stable is the area? Do you take this into account?

Can you make any statistical determinations about
a) how many strikes have yet to be uncovered since we are still finding more?
b) how the geology impacts the area and how many strikes have been removed due to geology?
c) do you have any specific knowledge about what areas have been searched and NOT had any strikes found?

You should exclude unexamined areas from your methodology if you want to find non-randomness or randomness because we don't know what will be found there.

(Your entire method of analysis is too simplistic to come to any valid conclusions. That is my entire point)

 

[duordi]

How geologically stable is the area? Do you take this into account?

Yes at the top of this branch.

If we just consider the Baltic Shield the distribution non-random.

Can you make any statistical determinations about

a) how many strikes have yet to be uncovered since we are still finding more?

There is no need as long as we have a consistent sampling.

b) how the geology impacts the area and how many strikes have been removed due to geology?

We just considerd the Baltic Shield which has consistent geology.

c) do you have any specific knowledge about what areas have been searched and NOT had any strikes found?

This is a good question.

Are you saying that you will agree the dating systems you use are worthless if I am able to prove a consistent search was implemented in the specific areas in question?

(Your entire method of analysis is too simplistic to come to any valid conclusions. That is my entire point)

But why is simplicity of approach bad.

I used simple methods because the evidence is so overwhelmingly in one direction it was not necessary to have extremely accurate results to prove the point.

If my methods were more complicated they would be rejected.

If my methods were less complicated they would be rejected.

If my methods remain the way they are they will be rejected.

It is not the methods you detest but the answer they give.

That is because it undercuts the foundation of your evolutionary religion.

The meteor strike concentrations do not follow population density, geological activity, accessibility or technological ability of an area.



Duane

 

[outlaw]

Can you be certain that the northern area has been searched as well as the southern?

It is interesting to note that the density of found strikes correlates to the population density of the area. I wonder why that is?

It is also interesting to note that the density of found strikes corresponds to the flatness of the terrain.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

It is also interesting to note that the density of found strikes corresponds to the flatness of the terrain.

You make a good point. No strikes are found in the Northern Kjolen mountains between Norway and Sweden just as few strikes are found in the Alps or in the Western United States or in other area where mountain building has occured. Also the map is quite deceptive as to the relative size of these area because it is a flat projection. Look at a globe to see what I mean.

FB

 

[UniversalAxis]

I don't understand how you think all this proves the Flood. You're arguing that the Grand Canyon must have been caused by water erosion -- but we know that. No reputable scientist argues that something other than water erosion was the primary force that shaped the Grand Canyon. But the water that did this was the Colorado River, not a global flood.

Actually the picture he is using is from Bryce Canyon in southern Utah; not the Grand Canyon. I, myself have a great many pictures of the area.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

As you will read in the description of site selection this area was chosen because the concentrated meteor impact location is positioned at the areas of high geological activity to prove geological changes have not destroyed the crater evidence.

Except as pointed out you have picked areas of low not high geological activity.

The dates you have given are incorrect as is proven by the evidence that the meteor strikes occurred as a common event.

As pointed out you have not proven that the strikes are a common event.

The geological column theory can no longer be considered correct as the different strata containing the meteor impact record are all of identical age.

The geologic column exists. This was already pointed out to you.

Radioactive dating which assumes there was time for certain trace elements to evaporate during strata formation or that the trace elements did not exist at the formation of the strata is a void assumption.

The trace elements measured only indicate the process of formation of each strata and how much of the trace elements escape and do not indicate a date.

You are still totally misunderstanding how radioactive dating works. Please read Radiometric Dating-a Christian Perspective. It has been recommended to you several times but you clearly haven't read it or if you have you completely misunderstand it. You should at least try to obtain a correct understanding of the science you are vainly trying to refute. A bit of knowledge of isochron dating methods might also help you to uderstand how the science is actually done.

The theories you have accepted for a life time are incorrect.

There is no evidence that the science I have studied for a lifetime is incorrect regarding the age of the earth and massive evidence that you insist on ignoring that it is correct. You are still grossly misinterpreting the meteor data. Have you considered the fact that putting all these strikes at one time would wipe out poor old Noah and his floating zoo either during the bombardment or the subsequent blocking of the sun by enormous dust released? You seem to be ignoring that little problem with your model.

FB

 

[notto]

There is no need as long as we have a consistent sampling.

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

 

[Tomk80]

See the post I gave to Frumious Bandersnatch below as I attempted to answer some of your questions there.
I of course would not agree with your date assumptions as the material presented proves they are incorrect.

Duane

Absolute nonsense. Remember, you are simulating our model, not yours. So you will need to take into account our assumptions and conclusions in that model, not yours. You draw the conclusion that the earth is young and dating methods are incorrect from the pattern of the strikes, arguing that the pattern has to have occurred due to a single event.

But if the pattern is random, as you are testing, in the line of reasoning you have presented, there is no reason to think that the dating is incorrect. So you'll need to take that dating into account when simulating the strikes as multiple, random events.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are engaging in the the fallacy of the false dichotomy again. The young earth was rejected by Bible believing scientists long before Darwin published anything. The final falsification of the global flood was provided by Agassiz who never accepted "Darwinism". Modern science has shown that the Bible believing geologists who collected the data that falsified their original beliefs were correct to reject their original hypothesis. There is less chance of the global flood making a return as a scientific explanation for the world's geology than there is of the return of phlogiston theory as an explanation of combustion.

FB

No, the Bible was not rejected by Bible believing Christians. Liberal German theologians were already working to redefine what was "scriptural" and what was not; what Christ actually may have said and what HE did not. These "experts" were well on their way to embracing "scientific" thought. This in, and of itself, was even then moving Europe towards facist philosophy and evolutionary propaganda... The reality is, that GOD promised that there would NEVER be another FLOOD to compare with that of Noah's day. There is no scientific way to observe such a Flood using today's perceived statistics. One MUST be willing to comprehend a different geography, a different topogrphy, a different oceanography, a different atmosphere, and likely even a different looking solar system------from what we SEE presently. All you want to see is a steady progression that will provide enough TIME for evolution to be mathematically feasible (if it ever could be). Presently, the math doesn't add up...

 

[Tomk80]

Presently, the math doesn't add up...

Show me the math.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

No, the Bible was not rejected by Bible believing Christians. Liberal German theologians were already working to redefine what was "scriptural" and what was not; what Christ actually may have said and what HE did not. These "experts" were well on their way to embracing "scientific" thought. This in, and of itself, was even then moving Europe towards facist philosophy and evolutionary propaganda... The reality is, that GOD promised that there would NEVER be another FLOOD to compare with that of Noah's day. There is no scientific way to observe such a Flood using today's perceived statistics. One MUST be willing to comprehend a different geography, a different topogrphy, a different oceanography, a different atmosphere, and likely even a different looking solar system------from what we SEE presently. All you want to see is a steady progression that will provide enough TIME for evolution to be mathematically feasible (if it ever could be). Presently, the math doesn't add up...

You need to study the actual history of geology. The young earth was abandoned even by Cuvier who was a catastrophist, before 1800. The falsifications of the global flood and young earth have absolutely nothing to do with evolution or rejecting the Bible. Haven't you ever heard of Old Earth Creationism?

FB

 

[duordi]

You make a good point. No strikes are found in the Northern Kjolen mountains between Norway and Sweden just as few strikes are found in the Alps or in the Western United States or in other area where mountain building has occured. Also the map is quite deceptive as to the relative size of these area because it is a flat projection. Look at a globe to see what I mean.

FB

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

 

[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

Large strikes put holes in the bedrock. This is why they show up on areas with stable bedrock such as the Canadian and Baltic Shields. However when the bedrock is folded up into mountains the evidence of the strikes may be lost.

FB

 

[LittleNipper]

You need to study the actual history of geology. The young earth was abandoned even by Cuvier who was a catastrophist, before 1800. The falsifications of the global flood and young earth have absolutely nothing to do with evolution or rejecting the Bible. Haven't you ever heard of Old Earth Creationism?

FB

Cuvier gained the confidence of a great number of Christians by introducing elements that actually undermined Flood geology...
This professor of Comparative Anatomy in the Museum of Natural History in Paris was subtle in his opposition to THE FLOOD geology. Cuvier INSISTED that the SUPERFICIAL deposits on the earth were the result of the FLOOD; however, he also preached that the major fossiliferous strata were the result of a series of GREAT FLOODS----separated by immense epics of time before the creation of man. Each "GREAT FLOOD" (according to Cuvier) would result in the near annihilation of all the animals. The survivors would spread out over the earth again until the next "GREAT FLOOD." The last of these was Noah's FLOOD... His successor, Alcide d'Orbigny, taught that each succession of pre-Adamic "FLOODs" were followed by an entirely NEW creation of animals. Alcide popularized the "gap theory."
Charles Lyell (an English attorney) wrote PRINCIPLES of GEOLOGY, where he basically accepted the teachings of James Hutten. The foundation being that everything we see in geology are the result of repetitive events dragged out over very long periods of time. Lyell had a hatred for anything suggesting a sudden catastrophy. Charles Darwin was a disciple of Lyell.
Rev. John Fleming bolstered Lyell's UNIFORITARIANISM by proposing the TRANQUIL THEORY. Fleming believed that the FLOOD must have been tepid, since Lyell was suggesting that the catastastrophic markers were "actually" the result of eons of everyday occurances. Besides, the ark would have been destroyed and what about the vegitation.......... Charles Lyell was happy because the TRANQUIL THEORY harmonized with his own uniforitarian philosophy. So as a result, the UNIVERSAL FLOOD of NOAH was divorced from geologic thinking... Not because there was no evidence, but because the Genesis story had been so compromised, it was no longer considered anthing but a tranquil event that disturbed nothing-------not even olive trees... It is sad what self-appointed misguided individual can do. But then GOD want to build FAITH and not personal THORIES.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Cuvier gained the confidence of a great number of Christians by introducing elements that actually undermined Flood geology...
This professor of Comparative Anatomy in the Museum of Natural History in Paris was subtle in his opposition to THE FLOOD geology. Cuvier INSISTED that the SUPERFICIAL deposits on the earth were the result of the FLOOD; however, he also preached that the major fossiliferous strata were the result of a series of GREAT FLOODS----separated by immense epics of time before the creation of man. Each "GREAT FLOOD" (according to Cuvier) would result in the near annihilation of all the animals. The survivors would spread out over the earth again until the next "GREAT FLOOD." The last of these was Noah's FLOOD... His successor, Alcide d'Orbigny, taught that each succession of pre-Adamic "FLOODs" were followed by an entirely NEW creation of animals. Alcide popularized the "gap theory."
Charles Lyell (an English attorney) wrote PRINCIPLES of GEOLOGY, where he basically accepted the teachings of James Hutten. The foundation being that everything we see in geology are the result of repetitive events dragged out over very long periods of time. Lyell had a hatred for anything suggesting a sudden catastrophy. Charles Darwin was a disciple of Lyell.
Rev. John Fleming bolstered Lyell's UNIFORITARIANISM by proposing the TRANQUIL THEORY. Fleming believed that the FLOOD must have been tepid, since Lyell was suggesting that the catastastrophic markers were "actually" the result of eons of everyday occurances. Besides, the ark would have been destroyed and what about the vegitation.......... Charles Lyell was happy because the TRANQUIL THEORY harmonized with his own uniforitarian philosophy. So as a result, the UNIVERSAL FLOOD of NOAH was divorced from geologic thinking... Not because there was no evidence, but because the Genesis story had been so compromised, it was no longer considered anthing but a tranquil event that disturbed nothing-------not even olive trees... It is sad what self-appointed misguided individual can do. But then GOD want to build FAITH and not personal THORIES.

You left out a few people like Buckland and Sedgewick who both started out defending the flood as the source of the world's geology but realized they were wrong, as well as Hugh Miller and Louis Agassiz. A detail account of the history of "flood" geology can be found here in a piece written by Evangelical Christian Davis Young.

FB

 

[duordi]

Large strikes put holes in the bedrock. This is why they show up on areas with stable bedrock such as the Canadian and Baltic Shields. However when the bedrock is folded up into mountains the evidence of the strikes may be lost.

FB

True, the rest of the top strata may have been removed by small impacts.

I am of course assuming that it was a common event and that only the larger impacts survived to the present time.

If it was the breakup of a large objects it would seem the individual pieces would be of all sizes.

Duane

 

[dlamberth]

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?

I just want to point out that when looking at these clusters, when they happened is important. Remember, just 100 million years ago, even 60 millions years ago, North America was much, much closer to Europe than it is today. The Atlantic Ocean wasn't much of an Ocean back than and it could have been very possable to have a large object disintegrate, strike northern America AND Europe AND not strike the Atlantic Ocean.

I know this doesn't help the Young Earthers very much, but in geology, it sometimes helps to know where the various parts of the earth surfaces were when looking at world wide geologic phenomena.


.

 

[LittleNipper]

I just want to point out that when looking at these clusters, when they happened is important. Remember, just 100 million years ago, even 60 millions years ago, North America was much, much closer to Europe than it is today. The Atlantic Ocean wasn't much of an Ocean back than and it could have been very possable to have a large object disintegrate, strike northern America AND Europe AND not strike the Atlantic Ocean.

I know this doesn't help the Young Earthers very much, but in geology, it sometimes helps to know where the various parts of the earth surfaces were when looking at world wide geologic phenomena.


.

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...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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...

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

 

[Valkhorn]

I am of course assuming

That's your problem.