Re: Meteor Program

From: glenn morton (
Date: Thu Aug 03 2000 - 01:49:34 EDT

  • Next message: Wendee Holtcamp: "Fw: new book on dinosaurs"

    Allen Roy wrote:

    AR: In order to deal with this I need more that vivid descriptions. Where
    are the figures? All these things and other similar descriptions I have
    read before. I have no trouble making them a part of the catastrophic
    flood model. I have done some computing which you have not comment on.
    You have chosen to go off on tangents and ignore the computations.
     I believe that some of these vivid descriptions are slightly exaggerated
    and that they do not take into consideration global rains occurring at the
    same time. I'd be more than willing to deal with figures as I did on the
    other occasions but here there is nothing.<<<

    As to where the data is, it is in the libraries where you can go look it up
    like any other researcher. A good researcher shouldn't expect everyone to
    spoon-feed them the data that needs to be considered. A bit of hard
    library work is often called for. Secondly,I have only seen one
    mathematical equation in any of your posts and it was in reply to George
    Murphy and it didnt address any of the issues I am raising. If I have
    missed these 'calculations' please point me to the ASA note where you
    posted them. I can't find it on the archives and I just spent 5 minutes
    looking through all your notes over the past month and a half. Normally,
    computations involves math. I see none. So, If you want me to comment on
    your 'computations' you must first post them. But better do it today or
    tomorrow, I leave Saturday.

    Allen wrote:

    AR: What is the distribution of the impact energy here? How much is take
    to space with the fire ball? How much entrained ejecta are we talking

    For Chixulub, there calculations of those who have doen them show that the
    ejecta is spread over the entire earth starting fires all over the world.
    It is irrelevant to your scenario to demand an exact accounting of all
    energy distribution (which I don't have) if those who have calculated such
    things say that the re-entering ejecta would emit so much heat as to burn
    nearly everything in sight!

    I quoted the Sci.American article:
    "The impact of a comet-size body on the earth, creating a crater 150
    kilometers in diameter, would clearly kill everything within sight of the
     AR: Within site, I talked before about this, mentioning a radius of 1000
    miles as being far more than what would be in sight of the blast, and so it
    would contain the initial results of the blast. This represent a
    relatively small part of the surface of the earth.

    Yes, but it it is only referring to instant kill. The killing that begins
    just about 5 minutes later is equally lethal to a high percentage of the
    creatures. Such killings are due to re-entry of particles causing the sky
    to radiate at around 200 degrees. Wouldn't you love to be on a beach that
    day? Then there is the killing that takes place over the next few days, due
    to acid rain etc. is also lethal. This is what you want to avoid.

     Allen Wrote:
    >>> AR: in the case of the Flood you have 12 months to wait out many of
    these effects. And there is a factor they do not take into consideration.
    Continual, global rains for 150 from waters blasted and entrained into
    space and the high atmosphere. These rains would wash out the pollutants
    and dilute the effects they describe above -- darkness, cold, fire, acid
    rain and greenhouse heat. The dust lofted into the atmosphere could be
    largely removed by the waters also lofted into the high atmosphere and
    above. basically, they don't consider the effect of many impacts at once.<<<

    Oh yes the researchers do consider these effects and if they were
    significant they would mention them. I think you don't want to deal with
    these issues because it would mean the death of your flood model.

    The Sci. Am. article said,
    "In 1981 Cesare Emilliani of the University of Miami, Eric Krause of the
    University of Colorado and Eugene M. Shoemaker of the USGS pointed out that
    an oceanic impact would loft not only rock dust but also water vapor into
    the atmosphere. The vapor, trapping the earth's heat, would stay aloft much
    longer than the dust, and so the impact winter would be followed by
    greenhouse warming. More recently John D. O'Keefe and Thomas J. Ahrens of
    the California Institute of Technology have suggested that the impact might
    have occurred in a limestone area, releasing large volumes of carbon
    dioxide, another greenhouse gas. Many plants and animals that survived the
    extreme cold of impact winter could well have been killed by a subsequent
    period of extreme heat.
    Allen replied:
    >> You combine large quantities of dust with large quantities of water
    vapor in the high cool atmosphere spells condensation -- rain. I believe
    that this projection is full of holes.<<
    Allen, go look at what the ICR researchers like Vardiman, Rush and
    Bousellot say about how adding water vapor in the atmosphere would raise
    the temperature to the point of cooking the earth. Or go see my web page

    Sci. Am article said,

    "Meanwhile John S. Lewis, G. Hampton Watkins, Hyman Hartman and Ronald G.
    Prinn of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have calculated that
    shock heating of the atmosphere during impact would raise temperatures high
    enough for the oxygen and nitrogen to combine. The resulting nitrous oxide
    would eventually rain out of the air as nitric acid--an acid rain with a
    vengeance. This mechanism may well explain the widespread extinction of
    marine invertebrate plants and animals, whose calcium carbonate shells are
    soluble in acidic water.
    Allen replied:
    >> AR: The amount of rain would dilute the effects of these acids. The
    Flood model proposes large quantities of rain.<<

    What, we just say that there would be lots of rain and it is supposed to
    happen? Great, I am a millionaire! Gee, I don't see any money around here
    what is the problem? Allen, you have to do some calculations to see what is
    POSSIBLE. Verbage doesn't make things come true. One can't wish nature into
    complying with our desires and that seems to be what you are doing.

    Allen wrote:
     AR: I pointed out before that continual rain and continual clouds would
    reduce the effect of infrared radiation from reentering ejecta. Also, one
    would expect fires during the Flood especially close to impact sites. The
    pre-flood's forests were likely several times larger than today, so the
    amount of soot may only represent a small portion of the global forests at
    that time.
    The problem with all these descriptions is that energy figures are not
    given so it is not possible to analyze their conclusions.
    Then perform your own finite-difference calculations and then let people
    see your code. (I can write a program which simply says, "The global flood
    is true" and tell everyone that a computer proves that the global flood is
    true. Here is the program in Basic: 10 Print"The global flood is true".)

    And I will be delighted to give my meteor code away. It is written in Pascal.

    You are making a suggestion and it isn't enough for you simply to say, I
    don't beleive the other guys calculations therefore my view is correct!
    That is silly. Simple verbage won't make what you say real any more than it
    made me a millionaire. You need to present your calculations showing that
    what you say is possible. And like I said, I haven't seen very much math
    out here supporting your criticisms. I have seen a lot of verbage.

    Foundation, Fall and Flood
    Adam, Apes and Anthropology

    Lots of information on creation/evolution

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 06:46:57 EDT