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
about?
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
fireball.
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
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/canopy.htm
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.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Aug 03 2000 - 06:46:57 EDT