Re: asteroids and energy

Bill Payne (
Thu, 18 Mar 1999 01:19:34 -0600

On Tue, 16 Mar 1999 23:54:22 PST "Adam Crowl" <> writes:

>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

Since most of the earth is covered w/ sedimentary rx which supposedly
were deposited during the flood, then any pre-flood craters could be
buried in the PreCambrian basement. And the subsequent mountain-building
may have distorted the basement to the point that any pre-flood craters
would now be obliterated or at least unrecognizable.

>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.

The cause of the hypothesized explosion is a separate question. If we
can't imagine what the cause was, that still should not limit our
consideration of the hypothesis.

>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.

Do you mean to say that it doesn't _require_ 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.

The comets that we can see obviously weren't raised beyond escape
velocity, or they wouldn't return. There are comets which range up to
just under escape velocity, but all of them are gravationally bound to
the solar system, implying an origin within the 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.

Ummm...what about our moon? About 25-30% of the near side is covered
with lunar mares, while there are _no_ mares on the far side. I would
think that's a rather stark example of hemispheric cratering asymmetry.

Tom Van Flandern had previously written to me (w/ permission to forward):

"The Mercury cratering asymmetry can be seen in the
Mariner spacecraft photos. Even though over 1/3 of the surface has yet to
seen close up, a strong asymmetry is already evident. On Venus, the known
surviving asymmetry is in the large craters over 20 km in diameter. Since
Venusian craters cannot survive as long as a billion years because of the
temperatures and pressures there, no special event is needed to wipe the
cratering record clean. Only a recent source of fresh cratering is
Since asteroids in Venus-crossing orbits get swept up in under 10 million
years, a continuing source of such bodies is an unsolved problem to
mainstream astronomy. All astronomers know that Icarus is icy bright on
side (the trailing hemisphere) and coal dark on the other by a factor of
five in mean albedo. Its spectrum and albedo are similar to that of
carbonaceous chondrites. Half of the bright and half of the dark
always face Saturn, while Iapetus rotates with respect to the Sun. The
material is distributed throughout the solar system in just the way a
blast wave could produce. [Name deleted] should glance over the synthesis
of evidence in Chapter 11 of my book, which includes evidence that does
not fit the

"With uniform illumination all over, Iapetus (a satellite of Saturn with
slow rotation) is coated with dark material on one half, and bright
on the other. The dark hemisphere leads it in orbit. It always keeps the
same face toward Saturn, but rotates with respect to the Sun. Icarus is
unrelated asteroid. I mentioned Iapetus as the best example of evidence
a blast wave spreading out through the whole solar system from the

>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.

Last year Steven Schimmrich challenged me to give a review of a serious
paper published by Bob Gastaldo in which Bob basically answered Steve
Austin's "Floating Mat Model" for the deposition of coal. I picked Bob's
paper apart. I also backed Glenn Morton into admitting that the best
explanation for the origin of the Pittsburg Coal seam is a model like
Steve Austin's rather than the prevalent theory in geology that coal
formed in swamps. I have a fossil tree stump on the back of my pick-up
right now which measures 24 inches across at the base, about 18 inches
across at the top, and is about 22 inches tall. This stump came from a
construction project in Birmingham, AL where 4 coal seams are exposed
over a distance of about 300 feet. One would think that in 1200 linear
feet of coal, there would be at least one stump exposed which was growing
in the "swamp" when the swamp was flooded and buried with mud. There are
none, only horizontal bedding evident in each coal seam.

Recently, when I tried to engage Steve Schimmrich in another discussion
on coal, he said "I won't discuss this since it was discussed elsewhere."
I'm beginning to think that many OECs on these lists take a rather sumg
attitude toward YECs as, IMHO, you did above, and when you run across a
challenge you can't handle you ignore it.

So tell me Adam, Steve or anyone: Why is that we find tree stumps and
trunks above and below coal seams, but not in the coal - at least none
that I have ever seen? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm asking a
legitimate question which should be addressed by the OECs. I'd also like
to know how the Pittsburg Coal seam, which covers 15,000 square miles,
can have a 4-inch shale split in the middle of the coal seam, which is
reportedly consistent over the entire 15,000 square miles. That would be
quite a swamp. As I recall, the Joggins, Nova Scotia tree drawing on the FAQ-coal site is typical of what I have observed and
supports a floating origin rather than having grown in situ in a swamp.

If you're going to say:

>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

then I invite you to point out the flaws in my thinking. A failure on
your part to do so, Adam, would imply that I have confirmed YECism in
nature, and we wouldn't want that now would we? :-)


Get secure free e-mail that you don't need Web access to use
from Juno, the world's second largest online service.
Download your free software at