Jump to content


Photo

Problem I - Cratering. 2. The Earth


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#1 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 31 July 2014 - 08:47 PM

Following on from the first thread on Craters, the Earth is now the focus of this thread.

There are numerous large, and potentially catastrophic impact craters on the earth.

This is a brief list, featuring the largest.

I selected one from the list which is significant as it represents the likely culprit for the KT boundary - the Chicxulub Crater.

This is a brief abstract describing the likely results from this impact.

By itself, this is a devastating event.

Now, add in the rest on just that first list and have them occur within a young earth time frame of around 10,000 years - however, if you only use the ones that struct land, this becomes 4,000 years and we quickly see there are some serious problems here for the young earthers - like how did life on earth as we know it survive at all?

I can't find the article, but a mathematician did a calculation on the top five, and they alone produced enough energy to raise the atmospheric temperature by approximately 100 degrees - enough to basically sterilize the planet.

Only about 160 craters have been identified on the earth but geological events could have obliterated many and many more would have hit the oceans as they occupy more of the planet's surface.

As an example, the Moon has around 180,000 craters of a kilometer or more, while Mars has a staggering 385,000 due to it's larger size. Using that matrix it is quite possible that even with an atmosphere, earth has likely had tens of thousands of such impacts.

Considering the two op's on just the craters, it becomes apparent that the young earth scenario is looking decidedly doubtful.



#2 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 01 August 2014 - 04:06 AM

8

I can't find the article, but a mathematician did a calculation on the top five, and they alone produced enough energy to raise the atmospheric temperature by approximately 100 degrees - enough to basically sterilize the planet.

Looking at your list, I think there were only 3 craters larger than 160 km (100 miles).  The moon has 60 such craters.  The physics favors Earth as a target by at least a factor of 5 just due to the surface area..... leave alone the 6 fold gravitational attraction the Earth has compared to the moon.  Based on that, the Earth should have suffered a minimum of 300 such impacts.... about one every 20 years.  The impact of a bolide big enough to make a 100 mile smoking hole in the ground is going to be noticed for a very great distance.... and the hole is going to be there a long time.

 

Using the crater to impactor size calculator at http://www.lpl.arizo...n/crater_p.html with the following parameters:

Crater diameter 160 km (100 miles) Final

Projectile density 1500 kg/m3.  This is about the density of an asteroid or comet.

Impact velocity 17 km/sec.  Since energy is a function of velocity squared, this will tend to reduce total energy.

Imapct angle 45 degrees.

Target density 3000 kg/m3.  Roughly the density of granite.

Acceleration of gravity.... Earth (9.8 m/sec2)

Target type component rock or saturated soil.

 

Result.... impactor size 7450-19200 meters (depending on method of calculation)  energy before impact = 2e23 joules (about 47.7 million hydrogen bombs).

 

The mass of Earth's atmosphere is about 6e24 kg and the specific heat of air is about 1000 j/kg-degree.  So, basically 6e27 joules will heat the atmosphere by 1 degree C.  At 2e23 joules, this bolide would only add about0.00003 degrees to the atmosphere.  As per your citation, the aerosols produced in the blast will cause a cooling effect as they block the sun's energy from reaching the surface.

 

Of course, nearby it's a scorched Earth.  Using the effects calculator at http://impact.ese.ic.../ImpactEffects/ with the same input parameters and 19200 meters for the impactor size,

If you're 800 km (500 mi) from the impact site

at 11 seconds, the fireball will reach maximum intensity.  Over the next 40 minutes the average heat energy will be around 164 times what we get from the sun.  Clothing will ignite; much of the body will get 3rd degree burns; newspaper ignites; plywood flames; deciduous trees ignite; grass ignites.

At 2.67 minutes the ground waves from the magnitude 10.5 earthquake arrives .... damage is slight.

At 7.24 minutes the ejecta begins to reach your location.  You'll end up with about 0.75 m (30 inches) of material with a mean diameter of 4 mm ... about 1/6 inch.

At 40.4 minutes, the air blast hits with a maximum velocity of over 400 m/s .... more than 900 mph.

If that isn't enough, if the impact is in the water, and you're lucky enough to have ocean front property, at about 108 minutes you'll come face-to-face with a tsunami of between 250 and 500 meters.

 

I think it's safe to say nothing would survive within a radius of 500 miles.

 

At 1600 km (1000 miles) things are a lot better.)

The fireball is below the horizon, so nothing cooks.  The earthquake at 5.33 minutes is noticeable, but does no real damage.  The ejecta arriving at 11 minutes is tiny and only accumulates to less than 10 cm (about 3.8 in).  The air blast of about 150 m/s (331 mph) that arrives at about 81 minutes might be a problem though.  If you're on the beach, the tsunami is down to 125-250 m (400-800 feet). and you have about 2.5 hours before it arrives.

 

Not much will survive out to a radius of 1000 miles either.....



#3 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 01 August 2014 - 05:53 AM

Just a friendly reminder that according to YEC,  except for life on the Ark, every living thing that walked the earth was indeed killed during the year-long flood, and no doubt most of the terrestrial plant-life... and a large amount of marine life as well.   According to YEC, the history of the Earth is unfathomably catastrophic on a global scale.



#4 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 01 August 2014 - 05:39 PM

Just a friendly reminder that according to YEC,  except for life on the Ark, every living thing that walked the earth was indeed killed during the year-long flood, and no doubt most of the terrestrial plant-life... and a large amount of marine life as well.   According to YEC, the history of the Earth is unfathomably catastrophic on a global scale.

Let me ask you, where do all the geologic strata come from?



#5 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 02 August 2014 - 05:29 AM

Let me ask you, where do all the geologic strata come from?

 

The majority of the Phanerozoic strata was deposited during the Genesis flood.



#6 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 02 August 2014 - 04:07 PM

 

The majority of the Phanerozoic strata was deposited during the Genesis flood.

The "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis makes absolutely no sense when one examines the marine brachiopods.



#7 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 02 August 2014 - 05:29 PM

The "hydraulic sorting" hypothesis makes absolutely no sense when one examines the marine brachiopods.

 

Okay... neither does the "evolutionary" hypothesis make any sense when one notes that brachiopods appear suddenly in great numbers with no precursor forms.

 

And I think their pattern in the fossil record has much more to do with pre-flood biogeography of different marine populations than hydraulic sorting. 


  • mike the wiz likes this

#8 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 02 August 2014 - 07:50 PM

 

Okay... neither does the "evolutionary" hypothesis make any sense when one notes that brachiopods appear suddenly in great numbers with no precursor forms.

 

What time frame are you saying is "suddenly"? Strangely enough, no rabbits have been found in the Cambrian either.

And I think their pattern in the fossil record has much more to do with pre-flood biogeography of different marine populations than hydraulic sorting.

 

 What makes you think that?

The use of index fossils is not perfect, however the use of stratigraphy and biostratigraphy are reliable for most time periods. Only geographic distancing causes some gaps in the record but is not enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If you think it is, then you need to refute the reliability of the rest of the indeces. 



#9 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 03 August 2014 - 04:51 AM

texasdave, if you want me to try to 'refute' anything then you have to first present a coherent argument.  Probably should be a new thread because this one has gone off-topic in a hurry.



#10 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:02 AM

texasdave, if you want me to try to 'refute' anything then you have to first present a coherent argument.  Probably should be a new thread because this one has gone off-topic in a hurry.

I can't help it if you will not allow yourself to read something with enough focus to understand. What have you got to fear?



#11 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:20 AM

I can't help it if you will not allow yourself to read something with enough focus to understand. What have you got to fear?

 

texasdave,  this is what you've said so far

 

brachiopods don't make sense for YEC

no cambrian rabbits

index fossils are reliable

 

and then you demand that I try to refute something.

 

I'm not going to piece together an argument for you out of your vague disconnected statements.  You have to make it yourself.   Maybe in your mind you have constructed some amazing knock-down argument against YEC but you have failed to even begin to communicate it.



#12 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 03 August 2014 - 06:29 AM

 

texasdave,  this is what you've said so far

 

brachiopods don't make sense for YEC

no cambrian rabbits

index fossils are reliable

 

and then you demand that I try to refute something.

 

I'm not going to piece together an argument for you out of your vague disconnected statements.  You have to make it yourself.   Maybe in your mind you have constructed some amazing knock-down argument against YEC but you have failed to even begin to communicate it.

I understand your need to sell me short, but isn't that a little less than charitable and unconducive to further dialogue?

If you wish to remain close-minded, that is your prerogative, but please don't project on to me your own shortcomings.



#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 05 August 2014 - 11:23 AM

 

texasdave,  this is what you've said so far

 

brachiopods don't make sense for YEC

no cambrian rabbits

index fossils are reliable

 

How are index fossils determined to be "reliable"?

 

Additionally how is the age determined for the "index" fossil?


  • Enoch 2021 likes this

#14 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 05 August 2014 - 07:32 PM

 

How are index fossils determined to be "reliable"?

 

Additionally how is the age determined for the "index" fossil?

You could investigate this for yourself ya know.

But to put it in layman's terms and in my own words, brachiopod fossils are found in the same strata in most regions around the globe, so in a way, they are homologous.

Here's a link if you are really interested.



#15 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,717 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 07 August 2014 - 03:18 PM

Looking at your list, I think there were only 3 craters larger than 160 km (100 miles).  The moon has 60 such craters.  The physics favors Earth as a target by at least a factor of 5 just due to the surface area..... leave alone the 6 fold gravitational attraction the Earth has compared to the moon.  Based on that, the Earth should have suffered a minimum of 300 such impacts.... about one every 20 years.  The impact of a bolide big enough to make a 100 mile smoking hole in the ground is going to be noticed for a very great distance.... and the hole is going to be there a long time.

By way of revision of the number of 100 mile diameter crater events Earth should have seen.    Based on 60 such craters on the moon, Earth has 5.2 times the surface area of the moon.  With 6 times the gravity, Earth is also a much bigger gravitational well.  Since the force of gravity is inversly proportional to the square of the distance between the objects, the gravitational influence is most likely a function of the square root of 6 or about 2.45. 

 

Therefore, the number of 100 mile craters I would expect on the Earth would be 60 * 5.2 * 2.45 = 764.4.   Rounding off, that would be at least 750 such craters.  Spread over 6000 years, that works out to about one such impact per 8 years on average.



#16 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2014 - 11:14 PM

You could investigate this for yourself ya know.

But to put it in layman's terms and in my own words, brachiopod fossils are found in the same strata in most regions around the globe, so in a way, they are homologous.

Here's a link if you are really interested.

 

Wikipedia again!?! gaah.gif

 

So are you saying that the rocks date the fossils? But don't evolutionists use the fossils to date the rocks?... Isn't that (yet another) case of circular reasoning?... Ooops it seems evolutionists have demonstrated their "intellectual superiority" yet again ;)

 

 

 

However there was a second part to my question...

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

I'll put it another way. When using a radiometric dating method how do evolutionists KNOW that X value corresponds with Y million years...



#17 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:52 PM

Wikipedia again!?! gaah.gif

 

So are you saying that the rocks date the fossils? But don't evolutionists use the fossils to date the rocks?... Isn't that (yet another) case of circular reasoning?... Ooops it seems evolutionists have demonstrated their "intellectual superiority" yet again wink.png

 

Why would I refer you to a scientific article? Are you a geologist or paleaontologist?

You claim it is circular reasoning?

Prove it.

 

However there was a second part to my question...

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

I'll put it another way. When using a radiometric dating method how do evolutionists KNOW that X value corresponds with Y million years...

 

The lower rock strata are always older. This is absolute dating.

The WIKI link explains relative dating, which I wanted you to understand. It was not meant to be a scientific article.



#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 August 2014 - 06:27 PM

Why would I refer you to a scientific article? Are you a geologist or paleaontologist?

 

Perhaps because wikipedia isn't reliable... We have told you this before.

 

I never said a scientific article is needed (so you're adding in your own assumptions). Just a quote from a reputable source would be fine, a science teaching site or whatever...

 

Do I need to be a geologist? Or is this a silly attempt to dodge the issue.

 

 

You claim it is circular reasoning?

Prove it.

 

I had thought it would have been obvious... Perhaps I need to be more direct.

 

 

If you use the rocks to date the fossils as well as use the fossils to date the rocks it is circular reasoning because you have no foundation for the measurement given. It leads to an endless loop with no actual cause for the date.

 

Rocks date the fossils

But those rocks were dated by the fossils

But those fossils were dated by the rocks

But those rocks were dated by the fossils

But those fossils were dated by the rocks... etc

 

This really is the epitome of circular reasoning. Please try and understand this.

 

 

 

 

 


However there was a second part to my question...

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

I'll put it another way. When using a radiometric dating method how do evolutionists KNOW that X value corresponds with Y million years...

 

The lower rock strata are always older. This is absolute dating.

 

The WIKI link explains relative dating, which I wanted you to understand. It was not meant to be a scientific article.

 

 

I've noticed that you haven't actually answered my question.

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

You can say that the rocks were dated by the fossils, or visa-versa, but then I would ask how were their age determined? What was the measure?

 

 

 

 

Why is the lower rocks strata always older? This is an assumption, nothing more.

 

Perhaps you weren't told this, however experiments have demonstrated that assumption to be false...

 

 

What are you going to trust, evolutionist assumptions or demonstrable measurable experiment.... 

 

 

 

Perhaps YOU can explain your point from the wiki link, I am not here to do your homework for you. However after a quick look through the link it doesn't mention "relative dating".... hmm...



#19 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston
  • Age: 57
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Houston Texas

Posted 09 August 2014 - 09:43 PM

 

Perhaps because wikipedia isn't reliable... We have told you this before.

 

Oh? Perhaps you can give a few examples.

Btw, is creationwiki or icr reliable?

I never said a scientific article is needed (so you're adding in your own assumptions). Just a quote from a reputable source would be fine, a science teaching site or whatever...

 

Here ya go - six brief paragraphs of just a few lines each.

If you use the rocks to date the fossils as well as use the fossils to date the rocks it is circular reasoning because you have no foundation for the measurement given. It leads to an endless loop with no actual cause for the date
Rocks date the fossils
But those rocks were dated by the fossils
But those fossils were dated by the rocks
But those rocks were dated by the fossils
But those fossils were dated by the rocks... etc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This really is the epitome of circular reasoning. Please try and understand this.
Perhaps YOU can explain your point from the wiki link, I am not here to do your homework for you. However after a quick look through the link it doesn't mention "relative dating".... hmm...

 

 

 

That dating method is not the only method used - oftentimes several different methods will be used - and especially so when confirmation is used.

Please try and understand this. 

When you do the little bit of reading in that previous link, then you can come back and then reread this nonsense and try again.

 

 

What are you going to trust, evolutionist assumptions or demonstrable measurable experiment....

 

With such certainty, you should now also trust the radiometric dating system. 

Who you gonna trust - creationist desperados who latch onto one false canard and beat it to death to the exclusion of all else that does not fit their agenda, or sound scientific research? wink.png



#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:15 PM

Oh? Perhaps you can give a few examples.

 

Btw, is creationwiki or icr reliable?

 

Can't you understand that a site that allows the general public to change things ensures that the site itself is not going to be reliable... Perhaps I went on wikipedia and wrote a page explaining that evolutionists are idiots and narcissists, (and used the discussions from this forum as evidence), does this mean my new page is also reliable?

 

 

Have I been using creationwiki? Or is this yet another red herring to try and dodge the issue. Seriously, you're making yourself look like a fool each time you do this.

 

 

 

And your argument is? Dave this is a forum for discussion not a swap-meet for links... Using a link and giving quotes (although you gave no quotes), are all well and good. However it must be used as evidence for your arguments... 

 

What can I respond to when you give no arguments? Surely I don't need to educate you on this, surely.

 

 

That dating method is not the only method used - oftentimes several different methods will be used - and especially so when confirmation is used.

 

So when "index fossils" are in doubt you switch to something else... At least admit that this is yet another attempt to dodge the issue I brought up.

 

However my questions STILL remain.

 

How were the ages determined? What was the measure?

 

When you do the little bit of reading in that previous link, then you can come back and then reread this nonsense and try again.

 

Why don't you put forth an argument to try and prove how my demonstration how index fossils are circular is somehow "nonsense"...

 

Simply saying things doesn't make them true, lest I can claim evolutionists are idiots... by your logic that claim is now true also wink.png

 

 

With such certainty, you should now also trust the radiometric dating system. 

 

Why? Radiometric dating is based on assumptions, rather than the experiment I gave you...

 

However this is yet ANOTHER attempt to dodge the issue. I just gave you a video of how the assumptions behind the geological layers are false (lower layers are older), and here you switch to radiometric dating.... Real smooth dude wink.png

 

As I asked, how do you know that the lower layers are the oldest? Please stop ignoring my questions.

 

 

Who you gonna trust - creationist desperados who latch onto one false canard and beat it to death to the exclusion of all else that does not fit their agenda, or sound scientific research? wink.png

 

This is pure ad hominem... I have yet to see any case where any creationist here has excluded REAL science... Sure we doubt your assumption based evolution "science", since it is ASSUMPTION BASED...

 

REAL science isn't founded on assuming conclusions without experiment or confirmation. I can quite easily ask how do you KNOW that radiometric dating is reliable? Considering the constant false positive results given for items of known ages... (Something I have already demonstrated to you in previous threads). Wouldn't such confirm that the method is in fact unreliable?... Yet evolutionists like yourself are unphased by reality and simply assume that the method works perfectly for items of unknown age...

 

 

Say what?!?

 

So when the age of the item is known the method fails miserably.

Yet for some magical reason the method works perfectly when the age of the item is unknown... think.gif

 

However the only way to know if the method is accurate is to test it with items of known age, (this is how lab equipment are tested in order to check their reliability- an item of known weight is put on a scale to test the reliability of the scale)... Otherwise how else can you know that it is accurate?

 

Evolutionist logic in its prime right there. Ignore reality and only go with what you believe is real.

 

 

 

However it is ironic that you make this claim after I give you an example of experiments which debunk your assumption-based "science"... As I asked

 

What are you going to trust, evolutionist assumptions or demonstrable measurable experiment....






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users