>-----Original Message-----
>From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
>Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2002 4:07 PM
>I don't fully understand what you are saying. Are you saying that
>the impact
>of a meteor which was large enough to create a crater with a
>diameter of two
>miles could not have triggered a major earthquake, and that such an
>earthquake could not have caused a large area of land just north of the
>Persian Gulf to sink twenty feet (Gen. 7:20), and that if it did that land
>area could not have returned to its previous elevation within a year?
A meteor impact would cause an 'earthquake' because that is part of the
process of dissipating the meteor's energy. But the earthquake caused by
the meteor would be of the same nature as that of a large quarry blast or
nuclear bomb test. The ground shakes, but doesn't drop or lift, except
within the immediate blast zone.
>
>I wonder if anyone really knows for certain what the effects and
>after-effects of such a large meteor impact might be.
Of course we know what the effects are. The laws of physics are known quite
well. Much of the information comes elucidating this physics comes from
nuclear testing. From this information finite difference models can be
created showing the effects at various stages of the impact and the out put
can be compared with known craters caused by known quantities of energy
imput. And a meteor which makes a 2 mile wide crater is not a large impact
(and to this point all you have is a circular depression, with no evidence
it was an impact).
One other point. The 1908 Tunguska event created a crater about a mile wide
and the land didn't life or drop.
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 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 02:38:35 EDT