>-----Original Message-----
>From: MikeSatterlee@cs.com [mailto:MikeSatterlee@cs.com]
>Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 7:08 PM
>Thank you for your response.
>
>You wrote: 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.
>
>That is not the opinion of another scientist I have discussed this subject
>with.
>
>He told me that, "A large meteor impact will produce earthquakes
>... the down
>and up motion that you need for your model ... is produced by ... a
>particular sequence of tectonic events ... [which] may be possible."
This is like an 'unnamed source' in journalism. Who is this unnamed
scientist who speaks with many ellipses? I don't think this guy, whoever he
is, knows what he is talking about--but that doesn't stop lots of people
from talking.
>
>You wrote: The 1908 Tunguska event created a crater about a mile
>wide and the
>land didn't life or drop.
>
>For one thing, if the alleged "meteor crater" recently discovered
>in southern
>Iraq is indeed a meteor crater it is a much larger crater than the one to
>which you refer. As such the meteor which created it would have struck the
>earth with far greater force than the one which struck Siberia. Also to be
>considered is the fact that the meteor which formed the meteor
>crater in Iraq
>may have been only one of several which then stuck that are of the
>world.
As I said in my first note, Belief overcomes evidence. You have jumped from
a circular depression, to this is a meteor crater, to this is one of many
meteors which hit the world at that time without a single shred of evidence
that it is a meteor impact in the first place. That is simply silly
science. One must take things one step at a time, or at least that is what a
careful investigator would do. Once your Iraqi depression is shown to be an
impact crater rather than a salt collapse structure, or a karst sink hole,
then before you can claim many meteors hit the earth, you need to show that
there are many other craters of the same time.
For
>the Gilgamesh epic refers to "seven" torches in the sky which smashed into
>the earth at the time of the flood. Finally, the earth beneath the
>Tunguska
>area of Siberia may be much more solid and stable than the earth beneath
>southern Iraq and Kuwait which is, as we know, peppered with
>pockets of oil.
>
>However, as the scientist who told me that my model for Noah's flood
>occurring in southern Mesopotamia "may be possible" also told me,
>my scenario
>"requires documentation of appropriate faults and evidence of major
>earthquakes" in that area of the world.
I agree with that--you need documentation, not speculation, which is all you
have right now.
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
>Mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jun 25 2002 - 03:17:04 EDT