Jump to content


Photo

Problem I - Cratering. 2. The Earth


  • Please log in to reply
615 replies to this topic

#21 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

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

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:36 PM

 

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?

 

So that allows you to just automatically handwave any research done therein? How convenient for you.

 

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.

 

Or icr. Just answer the question.

 

 

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... 

 

Pardon me - I took your derogatory jibes at not providing them as the need to do so.

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

 

Wow, there was not even the slightest attempt to disguise that dodge. 

 

 

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.

 

Lol - your autoprogramming will not let you see the big picture will it? Such methods can often be used to cross reference each other. *sigh*

However my questions STILL remain.

 

How were the ages determined? What was the measure?

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Your questions have been answered, but you bias prevents you from seeing it. I tire of this ridiculous merry go round.

 

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...

 

Wow - you do have it bad. Is the computer you are using real, or just an assumption?smashfreak.gif  One wonders just how much about the bible you assume is true.

REAL science isn't founded on assuming things are true.

 

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....

 

You expect me to watch a 38 minute video when not two paragraphs above you tell me this is not a swap meet for links? Hmmm...



#22 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 - 11:05 PM

So that allows you to just automatically handwave any research done therein? How convenient for you.

 

Who was hand-waving anything?

 

All I said was that wikipedia is unreliable due to the public being able to change, add and modify things on it....

 

Is asking you to use creditable sources such a bad thing that you attempt to equate it to "handwaving research"....

 

 

Or icr. Just answer the question.

 

Are you going to admit that wikipedia isn't reliable? Or does this mean my hypothetical page on wikipedia stating evolutionists are idiots and narcissists is also reliable?

 

Any site that allows the general public to make alterations is unreliable, I am pretty sure ICR isn't comparable to this.

 

However as I said I do not use these sites, so it is STILL a red herring... YOU use wikipedia, wikipedia isn't reliable. I asked you to use creditable sites... All you needed to do was say "ok will do next time" or something to that effect, not make a song and dance, with whinging and whining.

 

Pardon me - I took your derogatory jibes at not providing them as the need to do so.
 
 
Yet you gave no argument... A link is great, (it shows you are learning to support your arguments, here is a shiny sticker wink.png ), and it is what your fellow Piasan was trying to teach you too.
 
However a link with no explanation or argument is also a problem...
 
As I said how can I respond when I do not know what your argument is... Or perhaps this means I can simply provide a link to a Bible site and expect you to accept that as an acceptable rebuttal to anything you say... I mean come on, lets be reasonable... I know it might be a tad hard for your pride to be getting schooled on logic and how to debate by a Creationist, however nobody said it was going to be easy. I mean think about my side of things, I have to put up with lame-arse arguments and derogatory prodding in order to try and help you learn something new.
 

 

Wow, there was not even the slightest attempt to disguise that dodge. 

 

There was no dodge... How can I respond when you give no arguments... Simply posting a link does nothing since I have no information as to what from the link you are putting forth as an argument.

 

If I went on forth you would have the opportunity to claim I am creating strawmen / misrepresentation etc... All I want is for you to put your arguments in writing BEFORE you ask me to debunk them... Surely you can admit that I am not a mind reader. Surely wink.png

 

Lol - your autoprogramming will not let you see the big picture will it? Such methods can often be used to cross reference each other. *sigh*
 
Programming implies a programmer... lol
 
You were defending the use of index fossils despite it being known as an example of circular reasoning. Now that I have taught you that it is circular reasoning you wish to escape off to other areas...
 
BEFORE you do so, can you at least admit that index fossils and using the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks is circular reasoning. Once you do this I'll be happy to move onto other things. Until then the issue is still contested, meaning for you to abandon it is you demonstrating your own auto-programing.
 

 

Your questions have been answered, but you bias prevents you from seeing it. I tire of this ridiculous merry go round.

 

Really... Because I didn't see any answer. Perhaps you can point it out, please provide a quote and the post number where you provided this "explanation".

 

Keep in mind my questions were

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

 

Wow - you do have it bad. Is the computer you are using real, or just an assumption?smashfreak.gif  One wonders just how much about the bible you assume is true.

 

So you think evolution assumption-based "science" is responsible for computers?...

 

Please demonstrate how evolution (and only evolution) was responsible for computers, otherwise your response here makes no sense and is yet more evidence of your incoherence.

 

You expect me to watch a 38 minute video when not two paragraphs above you tell me this is not a swap meet for links? Hmmm...

 

I posted the video as evidence of my claim... I didn't demand you watch it.

 

Here was my claim

 

"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..."

 

The video detailed the experiment and how it debunks the assumption that the lower layers are always the oldest.

 

 

I made an argument and gave evidence, yet it seems you are only capable of doing one or the other... Before you were providing arguments and no evidence and now you are providing evidence (for what exactly?) without arguments. Perhaps I should be more lenient if this really is a capability issue. Sorry.



#23 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 10 August 2014 - 05:37 AM

I think Dave should demonstrate his ability to be systematic and empirical by figuring out how the quote function works. ;)

So far I see Gilbo making mincemeat of Dave's effort to "educate" us.

The rock/fossil aging used by evolutionists is hokum that gets more and more painfully obvious as the game is further revealed.

"Look at these exquisite fossils! The same as the ones we found 3000 miles away! We hit the same rock layer."

"This rock layer is interesting. Do we know if we've uncovered it anywhere else?"

"Why, yes! We've found the same fossils in that layer as the one 3000 miles away!"

Dave, wait for it. Wait for it!

You either just allowed yourself to become un-brainwashed or you used the event to secure more mind-forged manacles. ;)
  • gilbo12345 likes this

#24 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 10 August 2014 - 09:14 PM

I think Dave should demonstrate his ability to be systematic and empirical by figuring out how the quote function works. wink.png

 

That would be gratefully appreciated.

 

I think he is Dave from The League of "Reason", since how he is posting is how their forum is set up to post like... (Which is a pain in the ### due to small lettering and code being used for quotes instead of being graphically represented like this forum. Took me ages to write a post there, was always a chore).

 

 

So far I see Gilbo making mincemeat of Dave's effort to "educate" us.

 

Thanks :)

 

Though  I'm quite certain most other Creationists here would do the same if not better ;)

 

 

The rock/fossil aging used by evolutionists is hokum that gets more and more painfully obvious as the game is further revealed.

"Look at these exquisite fossils! The same as the ones we found 3000 miles away! We hit the same rock layer."

"This rock layer is interesting. Do we know if we've uncovered it anywhere else?"

"Why, yes! We've found the same fossils in that layer as the one 3000 miles away!"

Dave, wait for it. Wait for it!

You either just allowed yourself to become un-brainwashed or you used the event to secure more mind-forged manacles. wink.png

 

I realised a few days ago that it allows them to discount any fossils they find out of sequence.

 

If you find a rabbit fossil you must claim that the rock must be younger due to the fossil.

If you find a dino fossil in an upper layer you must claim that the rock is older due to the fossil.



#25 Bonedigger

Bonedigger

    Admin Team

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,422 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Creation, Vertebrate Paleontology-particularly mammals and especially Perissodactyls & Carnivores, Hunting, Shooting, Handloading, Weaving Chainmaille, Hebrew and other Biblically relevant languages, Astronomy
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Colorado

Posted 10 August 2014 - 09:40 PM

That would be gratefully appreciated.
 
I think he is Dave from The League of "Reason", since how he is posting is how their forum is set up to post like... (Which is a pain in the ### due to small lettering and code being used for quotes instead of being graphically represented like this forum. Took me ages to write a post there, was always a chore).


25r30wi.gif If that is the case, it would explain his inability to present a cogent, substantiated argument. He doesn't have a pack of posters waiting in the wings to dog-pile and derail the thread before he has to actually present some meat for you to chew on.



#26 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 10 August 2014 - 09:49 PM

25r30wi.gif If that is the case, it would explain his inability to present a cogent, substantiated argument. He doesn't have a pack of posters waiting in the wings to dog-pile and derail the thread before he has to actually present some meat for you to chew on.

 

Exactly!

 

Hence why I wanted to have a chat with Aron Ra one-on-one however it never happened... We can see why ;)



#27 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

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

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:03 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.

I didn't get behind the paywall, but the short abstract gives a brief description of reasons to support a very hot early earth.



#28 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 11 August 2014 - 07:40 PM

 

Once again no explanation as to how the link supports your claims...

 

What has this got to do with 6000 years?

 

 

Can you please reply to post #22 ;)

 


 



#29 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

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

Posted 11 August 2014 - 07:50 PM

 

 

Once again no explanation as to how the link supports your claims...

 

What has this got to do with 6000 years?

 

It would have been a tad hot underfoot for poor old Adam...;)

 

Can you please reply to post #22 wink.png

 

You may enjoy endless wrangling, but I just don't have the time.

If you have something specific in mind, tease it out for me.


 

 



#30 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 11 August 2014 - 08:07 PM

It would have been a tad hot underfoot for poor old Adam...wink.png

 

 

You may enjoy endless wrangling, but I just don't have the time.

If you have something specific in mind, tease it out for me.

 

Really? Yet that is exactly what you were doing here...

 

http://evolutionfair...pic=6124&page=2

 

 

Really... Because I didn't see any answer. Perhaps you can point it out, please provide a quote and the post number where you provided this "explanation".

 

Keep in mind my questions were

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

 

You claimed you already answered my question, I have asked you for a quote and post number because I do not think you have... (I re-read the thread looking for it too).

 

 

So you think evolution assumption-based "science" is responsible for computers?...

 

Please demonstrate how evolution (and only evolution) was responsible for computers, otherwise your response here makes no sense and is yet more evidence of your incoherence.

 

You equated assumption-based evolution "science" with computers I'd like you to support this claim.

 

 

Programming implies a programmer... lol
 
You were defending the use of index fossils despite it being known as an example of circular reasoning. Now that I have taught you that it is circular reasoning you wish to escape off to other areas...
 
BEFORE you do so, can you at least admit that index fossils and using the rocks to date the fossils and the fossils to date the rocks is circular reasoning. Once you do this I'll be happy to move onto other things. Until then the issue is still contested, meaning for you to abandon it is you demonstrating your own auto-programing.

 

Will you admit that Index fossils and Index rocks constitutes circular reasoning?

 

 

Yet you gave no argument... A link is great, (it shows you are learning to support your arguments, here is a shiny sticker wink.png ), and it is what your fellow Piasan was trying to teach you too.

 
However a link with no explanation or argument is also a problem...
 
As I said how can I respond when I do not know what your argument is... Or perhaps this means I can simply provide a link to a Bible site and expect you to accept that as an acceptable rebuttal to anything you say... I mean come on, lets be reasonable... I know it might be a tad hard for your pride to be getting schooled on logic and how to debate by a Creationist, however nobody said it was going to be easy. I mean think about my side of things, I have to put up with lame-arse arguments and derogatory prodding in order to try and help you learn something new.
 

There was no dodge... How can I respond when you give no arguments... Simply posting a link does nothing since I have no information as to what from the link you are putting forth as an argument.

 

If I went on forth you would have the opportunity to claim I am creating strawmen / misrepresentation etc... All I want is for you to put your arguments in writing BEFORE you ask me to debunk them... Surely you can admit that I am not a mind reader. Surely wink.png

 

This is me trying to teach you how to discuss stuff on a forum properly.



#31 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

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

Posted 11 August 2014 - 08:44 PM

 

 

 

Really? Yet that is exactly what you were doing here...

 

Like I said in another post, I tire of it.

If we go through the posts from you to me, I bet we find out in short order who does most of the wrangling.

Here's a little something for you:- "By his many words a fool is known." Ecc.5v3. wink.png

 

 

 

 

Will you admit that Index fossils and Index rocks constitutes circular reasoning?

 

Will you admit you have no idea of how real Radiometric Dating works, and not just listen to foolish yec garbage?

 

 

This is me trying to teach you how to discuss stuff on a forum properly.

 

This is you living inside your own lunchbox.107.gif



#32 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 11 August 2014 - 09:03 PM

Care to support your claims that you had already answered my questions...

 

Or was that a blatant lie?

 

gilbo12345, on 10 Aug 2014 - 3:35 PM, said:snapback.png

Really... Because I didn't see any answer. Perhaps you can point it out, please provide a quote and the post number where you provided this "explanation".

 

Keep in mind my questions were

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Like I said in another post, I tire of it.

 

Yes I can see why you are tired, you are tired of being proven wrong at each and every turn and then hopelessly defending a fallacious position...

 

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. (Proverbs 12:1)

 

 

Will you admit you have no idea of how real Radiometric Dating works, and not just listen to foolish yec garbage?
 

 

As I said you were defending Index fossils, IF you want to move onto a different topic please be my guest HOWEVER first admit that Index fossils and Index rocks amount to circular reasoning....

 

Although you have failed to answer my questions...

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

So there is no cause for me to accept your proposition here...

 

 

This is you living inside your own lunchbox.107.gif

 

No its the same as what Piasan was trying to teach you on the other thread... If you are going to make claims you need to give evidence and argumentation for them... Or do you think we live in Imagination-land where anything you believe becomes true?

 

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man is he who listens to counsel. (Proverbs 12:15)

 

Even your fellow evolutionist has asked you to support your own claims, at least heed his counsel...



#33 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

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

Posted 12 August 2014 - 08:07 PM

Care to support your claims that you had already answered my questions...

 

Or was that a blatant lie?

 

gilbo12345, on 10 Aug 2014 - 3:35 PM, said:snapback.png

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes I can see why you are tired, you are tired of being proven wrong at each and every turn and then hopelessly defending a fallacious position...

 

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid. (Proverbs 12:1)

 

 

 

As I said you were defending Index fossils, IF you want to move onto a different topic please be my guest HOWEVER first admit that Index fossils and Index rocks amount to circular reasoning....

 

Although you have failed to answer my questions...

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

So there is no cause for me to accept your proposition here...

 

 

 

No its the same as what Piasan was trying to teach you on the other thread... If you are going to make claims you need to give evidence and argumentation for them... Or do you think we live in Imagination-land where anything you believe becomes true?

 

The way of a fool is right in his own eyes, but a wise man is he who listens to counsel. (Proverbs 12:15)

 

Even your fellow evolutionist has asked you to support your own claims, at least heed his counsel...

Getting a bit shrill aren't you?

When you can settle down and tell me you have read the supplied article link on Radiometric Dating I'll consider continuing - it answers  your question.



#34 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 12 August 2014 - 09:18 PM

Getting a bit shrill aren't you?

When you can settle down and tell me you have read the supplied article link on Radiometric Dating I'll consider continuing - it answers  your question.

 

Who is getting shrill now? How in the world can you determine this? Or is this yet more projection on your part.....

 

Perhaps you can DEMONSTRATE how your link answers the questions I have asked you (umpteen times now)... I already told you this when I was trying to teach you how to make a coherent argument... Merely posting links with no reference to how they are relevant is not an argument, (no matter how many times you convince yourself it is).

 

 

I already asked this of you before.... Yet you keep dodging, rather than just lay out the argument for all to see...

 

gilbo12345, on 10 Aug 2014 - 3:35 PM, said:snapback.png

Really... Because I didn't see any answer. Perhaps you can point it out, please provide a quote and the post number where you provided this "explanation".

 

Keep in mind my questions were

 

How was the age determined? What was the measure?

 

 

 

Please note I have asked for quotes and the post number of your supposed explanation... Where are these? Since this would be evidence for your claim.



#35 texasdave

texasdave

    Banned

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

Posted 13 August 2014 - 04:55 AM

 

Who is getting shrill now? How in the world can you determine this? Or is this yet more projection on your part.....

 

Perhaps you can DEMONSTRATE how your link answers the questions I have asked you (umpteen times now)... I already told you this when I was trying to teach you how to make a coherent argument... Merely posting links with no reference to how they are relevant is not an argument, (no matter how many times you convince yourself it is).

 

 

I already asked this of you before.... Yet you keep dodging, rather than just lay out the argument for all to see...

 

gilbo12345, on 10 Aug 2014 - 3:35 PM, said:snapback.png

 

 

Please note I have asked for quotes and the post number of your supposed explanation... Where are these? Since this would be evidence for your claim.

Perhaps you could try to debunk the premise of the article, then I would know you at least read it, instead of continually harping.



#36 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 13 August 2014 - 05:05 AM

Perhaps you could try to debunk the premise of the article, then I would know you at least read it, instead of continually harping.

 

Why should I when you haven't demonstrated how it is related to the issue at hand? Why are you dodging giving an argument?

 

Keep in mind the rules of this forum where you are required to do as I have asked... Demonstrate how your link answers the question, because as I stated earlier when I had a quick read it had nothing to do with what I was asking....



#37 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 05 March 2015 - 05:04 PM

>>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.>>

As I mentioned on the other (Moon craters) thread, the gravity seems to not play much of a role (comparing Moon vs. Mars craters).  And it would not be surface area, but probably the cross-sectional (diameter) area.  I could be wrong on that though since the moon has cratering everywhere including the poles. 

 

Using your site, if you enter 1 for the density of the target (assuming the ocean is hit...not granite) then the energy is cut to about half.  I guess it depends on how deep the impact would go...if it would cut a hole in the rock below the ocean or stop before that. 

 

 

>>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 about 0.00003 degrees to the atmosphere. >>

Why in the world would you expect ALL of the energy would go into the air and NONE into the ocean???  The ocean is far more massive and over 4 times as much energy is needed per kg to raise the ocean by one degree vs. the air.  And even with your crazy assumption if it ALL goes into the air....you still only got it being raised by .00003 d C.  If there were100 of these (way more than we would expect) even IF it all went into the air, the temp would go up by only .0003 C !  And that doesn't count any cooling factors. 

 

>>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.>>

 

Yep...sure could use some extra heating with the Sun being blocked!

 

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

 

Um...did you happen to read that God WAS INTENDING TO KILL OFF EVERYONE BUT NOAH'S FAMILY??? 

 

>>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.....>>

 

If you are 10,000 miles away in a huge ship made to withstand big waves you would be ok.  BTW, tsunami waves are not a big deal until they get near shore.  You ride up the wave gradually and then back down...big ships far from shore are not hurt by tsunamis. 

 

>>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. >>

Not seen when comparing Mars and Moon!  Area is all that affects it, apparently.  Not BOTH gravity and area. 



#38 indydave

indydave

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,801 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Indianapolis, IN

Posted 06 March 2015 - 09:58 AM

(This was posted to "Moon" but I think it is important enough of a point to also post here, which is probably where it should have gone in the first place.)

 

 

Here is a BIG reason the amount of stuff hitting the Moon would be greater...perhaps MUCH MORE than what hits Earth.  The diameter of the Moon is 3.66 times smaller, BUT...the path the Moon is on around Earth is VASTLY larger than the diameter of Earth.  8000 miles for Earth's diameter vs. 500,000 miles for the diameter of the Moon's orbit.  So the thickness of the Moon's path is about 1/3 that of Earth's.  But its WIDTH or SWATH is 62.5 times wider.  So in a few months or years of "sweeping" the general area of Earth's orbit, the Moon would be expected to catch many many more objects than Earth would.  Maybe around 20 times more.

 

 

New:

Perhaps, as God intended, the Moon was "running interference" for Earth for the stuff near Earth's orbit around the Sun.  Brown says that the stuff in the asteroid belt had to be slowly pushed outward by solar heating (and solar wind?) because the asteroids are on a circular orbit beyond Mars.  That means that any stuff inside Earth (nearer the Sun) would slowly move nearer to Earth but the Moon would be the first to encounter those objects, as it sweeps up stuff 250,000 miles before the stuff would reach Earth.  A few objects could still get through but maybe not that many. 



#39 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:36 PM

David has cross posted this particular issue from the other thread, and suggested it may be a better fit here. I agree and for that reason, I'm moving it here.....
 

Here is a BIG reason the amount of stuff hitting the Moon would be greater...perhaps MUCH MORE than what hits Earth. The diameter of the Moon is 3.66 times smaller, BUT...the path the Moon is on around Earth is VASTLY larger than the diameter of Earth. 8000 miles for Earth's diameter vs. 500,000 miles for the diameter of the Moon's orbit. So the thickness of the Moon's path is about 1/3 that of Earth's. But its WIDTH or SWATH is 62.5 times wider. So in a few months or years of "sweeping" the general area of Earth's orbit, the Moon would be expected to catch many many more objects than Earth would. Maybe around 20 times more.

You're kidding, right?
 

Perhaps, as God intended, the Moon was "running interference" for Earth for the stuff near Earth's orbit around the Sun. Brown says that the stuff in the asteroid belt had to be slowly pushed outward by solar heating (and solar wind?) because the asteroids are on a circular orbit beyond Mars. That means that any stuff inside Earth (nearer the Sun) would slowly move nearer to Earth but the Moon would be the first to encounter those objects, as it sweeps up stuff 250,000 miles before the stuff would reach Earth. A few objects could still get through but maybe not that many.

OK.... I guess you're not kidding.

What about objects from ahead of Earth when the Moon is trailing the Earth; the ones coming from the direction of the Sun when the moon is on the far side of the Earth; and the ones coming from the far side when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun?

The fact is that many more objects probably pass between the Earth and Moon than hit either of them.



#40 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

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

Posted 06 March 2015 - 06:50 PM

Sorry, this was accidently posted on the other subject. EFF was having problems last night and when I tried to post it, they were down so I copied it to another document then came back here and pasted it but on the wrong subject. Sorry about any confusion....
 
 

indydave, on 05 Mar 2015 - 6:04 PM, said:
>>Pi wrote:
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.>>

Dave comments:
As I mentioned on the other (Moon craters) thread, the gravity seems to not play much of a role (comparing Moon vs. Mars craters). And it would not be surface area, but probably the cross-sectional (diameter) area. I could be wrong on that though since the moon has cratering everywhere including the poles.

Using your site, if you enter 1 for the density of the target (assuming the ocean is hit...not granite) then the energy is cut to about half. I guess it depends on how deep the impact would go...if it would cut a hole in the rock below the ocean or stop before that.


That the moon has craters at the poles .... as do all other astronomical objects, indicates the number of impacts is a function of surface area. For that reason, 5 times the impacts is a minimum number. Gravity is also a factor. Earth has 6x the moon's gravity. If I were to multiply 6x5 we would get Earth being 30x the target.... which is honestly too high. Because the gravitational influence is a distance square function, the calculation is (6/sqrt 2) x 5 = 21.2. Oard, who is a YEC atmospheric scientist got 19x.... similar to my result. , I get over 21x, so I use 20x for rounding purposes.)

The Mars-Moon comparison isn't really too good because Mars has an atmosphere which can erode many craters. One of the advantages of using the moon for comparison purposes is that it doesn't have erosion. Craters will be preserved ... unless, of course, they're wiped out by a more recent impact. Mercury is probably too close to the Sun to be good for comparison. One thing we do know is that pretty much every astronomical object of any size shows evidence of impact craters.

The moon has 60 impact craters of 100 miles or more. We can reasonably expect Earth to have taken around 1200 of these impacts.

In the case of these 100 mile diameter craters... two things. (1) That's at the low end of the size distribution... some of these impact scars range up to over 500 miles across. (2) A bolide large enough to make a crater this big is in the range of 10km across. For purposes of putting this size in perspective only... when the bottom touches the surface, the top would still be where jet airplanes fly.

Tweak the parameters all you like as long as the final crater size is 100 miles. I'm not too sure a mile or two of water is going to make much difference when the top of the object would still be more than 4 miles in the sky when the bottom touches the bottom of the ocean. (Of course, in actuality, the leading edge of the bolide will be vaporizing before impact.... if the whole thing doesn't blow up in a huge explosion.

Keep in mind, among the craters we're talking about, the ones 100 miles across are the MINIMUM size. Some of these things are in excess of 500 miles across.

There is a different reason I haven't tried to calculate heating of the atmosphere or the ocean due to these impacts. The Chicxulub impact crater in Mexico at 110 miles across is about the small end of the craters we're talking about. The bolide that caused that crater is estimated to have been 6-10 miles (10-16 km) in diameter. That single event is thought to be largely responsible for a major global extinction. The consequences of trying to crowd 1200 of them into even a 6,000 year period are unimaginable.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users