Re: Glenn makes front page of AiG today

From: Allen Roy (
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:54:17 EST

  • Next message: Allen Roy: "Re: New Guinea tsunami information."

    From: Glenn Morton <>
    > >What will happen is that within a minute the sand will set on the bottom
    > >the jar. In about the same time a thick layer of mud will come to rest
    > >top of the sand. A thin layer of murky water will swirl above the mud.
    > Have you measured the particle size of the 'mud' of which you speak?
    > is not necessarily what you call mud. It is a size thing.

    Let me see, you said: "Take sand box sand and mix in a dash of dirt, ..."

    Did you measure the particle size of your "dash of dirt" which would keep
    the water "muddy for many hours?" All I know is when I walk through the
    wet dirt in my back yard I get taller.

    > And you can't check Lalomov out. You have absolute faith in Lalomov when
    > are supposed to only have faith in Jesus!

    You are one of the most cynical people I've ever met. Did you know that I'm
    not really here? I'm just a computer drone from the 23rd century. ?

    > Burrows up and down the section with little change in density of them.

    That is what I wanted to know.
    > >> If the Flood is a miracle, then it is the
    > >> highest form of hubris to tell God what miracle he performed.
    > >>
    > >I agree that if one appeals to a miracle for the Flood, then any model is
    > >basic waste of time. At this time, I feel that there are ways that such
    > >heat could be dissipated without boiling away all water,
    > >atmosphere and life
    > >form. One that is being researched now by Baumgardner is water/steam
    > >geysers associated with the oceanic ridges that would carry large
    > >quantities
    > >of heat from the exposed mantle directly into space. I have not yet
    > >how much of the generated heat this may account for. There are problems
    > >with CPT, but I believe that they are not fatal to the concept.
    > How do you know? Can you do the math?

    How do you know?
    > When I got Baumgardner's
    > program I saw that at each level in the atmosphere, he subtracted energy
    > never again accounted for it. Since that day, I have not trusted
    > Baumgardner's programming or calculations.

    Are any of your computer programs used by geologist worldwide?

    > And like Lalimov, you have absolute faith in Baumgardner. You can't deny
    it unless you can claim to
    > know the math Baumgardner is feeding you.

    I have the same faith in Lalimov (and Baumgardner) as I do in any other
    person who has published in peer reviewed journals. If you believe that
    Lalimov had deliberatly mistranslated or even manufactured his quotes, the
    prove it.

    > So now we appeal to the future to overthrow the best work of today? THat
    > no different than Baumgardner believing in miracles to overcome his heat
    > problem. You believe the future. Both believe things without evidence.
    > is the difference? At least Baumgardner places his faith in God.

    Experience shows that what may be the best work of today will likely be
    improved upon and corrected tomorrow. No one must accept whatever happens
    to be promoted today as the last word on the subject.

    > > I believe that many
    > > of these estimates are exagerated (not intentionally).
    > Upon what EVIDENCE do you believe this? Or is it just a prejudicial
    > you have?

    One need only look at the tet-a-tet over the effect the Chixulub impact
    explosion. Some claim it killed off the dinos, other claim it did'nt do
    much of anything and that the supposed evidence has other better
    explanations. The first claims are usually the least accurate. As time
    goes by, and the facts become better known, more accurate data is developed.
    I am of the opinion that Asteroid impact data has been generous on the side
    of the worse-case scenario

    > >I did not say that there would be no mixing, but that it would not be a
    > >single HOMOGENOUS mess. Each impact-tsunami would carry different and
    > >distinct loads according to the rocks, soils, vegetation and life
    > >forms that it picked up in it path.
    > But we find the same order of microfossils around the world--exactly the
    > same in every ocean. Why would this be if each impact carried its own
    > distinct load?

    If you are talking about microfossils in the ocean floors, then I'd say that
    impact-tsunami had little to no effect of them. Impact-tsunami would only
    have effects on continents or shallow waters. Ocean sediments are most
    likely post flood deposits.

    > >It is estimated that it would cause an earthquake of 11 on the richter
    > >scale. The overpressure issue is overblown. It would have had a
    > >devistating effect over a very large part of the earth, but it is
    > >exageration to claim that it would kill most everything.
    > Well you have hundreds of these things hitting all over the earth, each
    > would have its own large area of devastation. In what corner of the world
    > did the asteroids miss where life could survive?

    The average size of known asteroid impact craters is 40 to 50 km across.
    Chicxulub is a rare event.
    There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 known impact craters of all
    sizes in the geologic record. This represents, by and large, only those
    which have impacted on continents. The number of impacts in the oceans is
    unknown and perhaps unknowable give the possibility of CPT with the previous
    ocean floors gone and all new ocean floors existing now. Since oceans cover
    2/3rds of the globe then one could extrapolate up to 600 impact craters,
    which comes to about 4 impacts per day for 150 days. There would only be a
    hand full of large impacts the size of Chicxulub. The others would have
    largly local effects only. There could be several hundred more that did not
    make impact craters.

    If the average area destroyed by the impact explosion was 30,000 square
    miles and we have 600 impacts that makes a total of 18,000,000 square miles
    or approximately 9.8% of the earths surface. That leaves about 90% of the
    surface available to hide in.

    > Scientists are
    > >backing down from early estimations as more information is discovered.
    > >hole in the atmosphere would cause much more energy to escape into space
    > >than your estimate allows. One cannot scale the Tunguska event up to 100
    > >million megatons because the tunguska event was encapsuled in the
    > >atmosphere. The Chicxulub event blew the atmosphere away.
    > Agreed, but if only 10% of it remained on earth, then the consequences
    > be horrendous. You need to rid yourself of 99.999% of it. This is almost
    > impossible because the meteor also would heat the earth's mantle causing
    > huge volcanism.

    There has never been any hint of volcanism associated with the Chicxulub
    impact in any paper about it. In fact, the most that has ever been
    associated with it (far to little so far as I am concerned) are some thin
    tsunami deposites and the rare isotopes in thin beds.

    The explosions represent aproximately 5 percent of the kinetic energy. Most
    of the energy is directed into the earth causing earthquakes of 11 R.
    Blowing the atmosphere away would be like popping the cork on a bottle. The
    fireball, which contains the heat of the explosion would jet into space
    through the void in the atmosphere. I have been emailing various expert
    theorists on asteroid explosions at Sandia and JPL and the like to see if
    there has been any modeling on explosions this big. So for the largest
    computer modeling has been for the Shoemake-Levy 9 atmospheric explosions on
    Jupiter. There may be some larger that I've not found yet. However, the
    fact that the fireballs on Jupiter jeted back out the trajectory paths into
    space above the atmosphere, hints at the probability that the fireball from
    asteroid explosions which blow holes in the atmosphere will jet into space
    through that void and carry the majority of the heat with it.

    > >
    > >> When looked at through all time, from the Cambrian to the
    > >present, we find
    > >> an increase in the numbers and types of burrows and footprints
    > >on geologic
    > >> surfaces.
    > >
    > >In the Haymond formation?? or the geologic column?? There is no such
    > >as the geologic column. There is a geologic record, but not a geologic
    > >column.
    > In the geologic column. And inspite of your claims that there is no
    > geologic column I know of 80 oil wells that drilled through rocks of every
    > single age in Montana and North Dakota.

    Do you mean every single Era, every single Period, or every single Epoch?
    irregardless, the geolgoic column is an invention based on evolutionism.
    The geologic record is real.

    > >All this means, accepting the fabled geologic column for the moment, that
    > >more and more animals were being affected by the flood. The waters are
    > >rising higher and higher onto the continents as impact-tsunami after
    > >impact-tsunami reach higher elevations.
    > So why are primates, who live in relatively low tropical lands found so
    > in the flood? Surely a tsunami would take out their area first before
    > marmots died?

    1. Who's to say just exactly what elevation primates lived at prior to the
    Flood with a global environment different than today?

    2. Tsunami deposits sort by density. In the New Ginea tsunami deposit,
    sand dollars were deposited in the top of the sand layer. not in the bottom.
    the density of animals might preclude their being deposited until after many
    tsunami had come ashore.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:53:42 EST