As I mentioned, I am going through a year and a half of geological
literature and ran into the following report which concisely outlines the
things real geologists go through in order to determine if a feature is due
to an impact. Milstein writes:
"Eight characteristics of the Calvin structure lend support
to origin by
impact. The structure exhibits: 1) morphological characteristics of complex
impact craters in sedimentary targets; 2) recognized relationships between
depth, diameter and structural uplift used to identify surface impact
craters; 3) geophysical patterns analogous to those of recognized impact
craters with similar lithologic components; 4) a polymictic microbreccia; 5)
quartz grains exhibiting single and multiple sets of decorated shock
lamellae, Bohm lamellae, rhobohedral cleavage, and radiating conclusion
fractures; 6)no igneous or hydrothermal mineralization associated with the
structure; 7) time synchronous black metallic spherules, similar to those
associated with meteoritic ablation and impact ejecta, in close proximity to
the structure; and 8) a necessary energy release for structural origin of at
least 5.9 x 10^18 J of energy without development of magma or any igneous
material." Randall L. Milstein "Geology of the Calvin Impact Structure,
Cass Co. Michigan," AAPG Bulletin, August 2001, p. 1536-1537
On this supposed Iraqi meteor impact, none of the above has been
investigated. All that has been done is mere speculation. The original
report suggest,
"It is POSTULATED that the structure was formed by a Recent bolide impact in
the marshlands of southern Iraq, thus accounting for its geometry and the
apparent rim and annulus visible in pre-1993 imagery." S. Master, ìA
Possible Holocene Impact Structure in the Al ëAmarah Marshes Near the
Tigris-Euphrates Confluence, Southern Iraq,î Abstracts, 64th Annual
Meteoritical Society Meeting, 2001, p. 5196?
Postulated, means just that--postulated. No other evidence supports this as
a bolide impact. Even if it is an impact, there is no age for this event. It
might be 2300 BC it might be 500 AD, It might be 5000 BC. Thus certain
people make 2 assumptions in using this to support a flood--that it is a
meteor and that it was at the correct time--neither of which has any
evidence other than circularity.
glenn
see http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/dmd.htm
for lots of creation/evolution information
anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
personal stories of struggle
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jul 10 2002 - 17:17:28 EDT