This discussion is really getting involved. Let's get a few facts
>From: Bill Payne <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: asteroids and energy
>Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:22:26 -0600
>On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 22:40:10 -0800 "Blaine D. McArthur"
>If we take the scripture literally, then Noah was shut in the ark by
>and probably couldn't see out. (Genesis 7:15) Since everyone else
>not on the ark) died, there were no eyewitnesses who survived whatever
>came next. Also, if the earth were bombarded by space debris all at
>time and if the debris hit the western hemisphere, then those on the
>eastern hemisphere wouldn't have been able to see anything anyway.
A bombardment "all at one time" wouldn't be a good idea, and doesn't fit
the scenario that Allen is discussing which involves tsunamis causing
sediment movements necessary to build the geological column. A
simultaneous impact wouldn't fit the observed cratering on Earth and
would probably puncture the crust into the mantle. A fire fountain
kilometres high would not be pretty and hasn't been observed in the
>Tom Van Flandern (www.metaresearch.org - I think that's still a good
>address; I don't have web access right now so I can't check it) has
>developed the "Exploded Planet Hypothesis" which says that there once
>a planet occupying the current asteroid belt. The planet exploded, and
>some of the debris was hurled out with less than the solar system
>velocity and has become comets. Debris which left with > escape
>has, of course never returned. All comets are gravitationally bound to
>the solar system, and ice (water) makes up a significant portion of
>comets' mass. Asteroids presumably originated near the planets core,
>therefore did not aquire much velocity from the explosion.
Flandern's theory now incorporates three planetary explosions, all
caused by antimatter trapped in the planet's cores. How it got there is
anybody's guess. His original study of cometary origins has long since
been shown to be an artifact of other orbital effects and doesn't
indicate an exploding planet. To detonate a planet requires a lot more
energy than it takes to vaporise [or even ionise] a planet. Very little
organised matter would remain, so as a source of asteroids it's unlikely
to say the least. And comets show no sign of the extreme heating implied
in a detonation sufficient to raise them beyond escape velocity.
>If the planet which exploded was largely water, then the expanding
>of debris from the explosion could have "flooded" the earth from above,
>and supplied a nice covey of asteroids as well. Support for this
>hypothesis is supplied by the hemispheric asymmetry of many moons and
>some of the planets in our solar system.
Actually Mars' hemisperic asymmetry is the only example known and it was
probably due to early oceans. Other "planets" show pretty much uniform
cratering, if they've got craters. As for the cosmic water cloud - it'd
impact the Earth at greater than escape velocity and probably ionise.
Big chunks of ice might survive in part, but they'd be big enough
[individually] to vaporise enough ocean to cause a super green house
effect at ~ 2000 K.
>As an aside, I think it's interesting that _God_ shut Noah in the ark.
>If God performed a "discontinuous" miracle at the beginning of the
>then He could certainly have continued in the miracle mode during the
All this is true, but [critically] unrecorded in the Bible. The
inconsistency displayed by YECs and Flood Geologists is breath-taking -
to defend the Bible they must add and add and add, with the slimmest of
Biblical justification. But they can't allow the kinds of concessions
that theistic evolutionists are willing to accept.
And look at Allen's version. He's willing to admit a huge amount of
variation amongst species since the Flood - far higher than any
evolutonist would venture. Yet he still sees evolution as the enemy.
What's going on here? Just about every major vertebrate transition is
now reasonably well linked between classes - even formerly intractable
puzzles like fish-to-tetrapods or land-mammals-to-whales.
On of my issues with YECism is it's willingness to make up anything that
sounds plausible [even if quantitatively flawed] but to then not
actually confirm it either in Nature or the Bible.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com