Slashdot Mirror
Antarctic Craters Reveal Asteroid Strike
dhuff writes "Scientists using satellites have mapped huge craters under the Antarctic ice sheet caused by an asteroid as big as the one believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs 65m years ago."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Severe gravitational anomolies...
Meteor impact causes the magnetic poles to shift...
Global water levels rise 2 feet but without any tidal waves beacuse of all of 'ice bergs'...
Is it just me, of is that article have the stench of bullshit about it?
Especially sand-niggers.
...another day full of michael
mo7e forward, The time to meet irRecoverable
The one we're talking about, smartass. Water going down drains.
There is no rotational effect. Water does not go down the drain in opposite directions in the North and South hemispheres. I thought I made that clear in my first post, when I labelled this 'rotation effect' notion a fallacy.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
forwards we must 1. Therefore it's quaareled on
Not to mention that you can't stop the Lord's work.
Face it people we are at His mercy.
Accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior.
Naaaaawww. Most slashdotters would never do that. They wouldn't dare to actually consider the fact that a lot of their "scientific evidence" is incorrect or could be looked at at... *gasp!* ...another way.
They all just kind of pressume that the earth has always developed at the same rate. Water has always flowed at the same rate, therefore the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form.
They leave out the possibility of a disaster like a world-wide flood (OMGoodness! Just like the Bible talks about).
If there was a world-wide flood, the water run-off could carve out a good portion of the Grand Canyon or Niagra Falls in a few hours.
They completely ignore the fact that trees and ANIMALS are found that are embedded through several layers of sediment... proving that those animals stood in the same spot for many millions of years????!!! No.
They completely ignore the fact that many of the "prehistoric" animals are found with food -- still green, undigested, and perfectly preserved -- in their stomachs. Um... obviously these creatures must have died and been preserved fairly quickly!
They would prefer to believe that somehow all of the matter (with no origin) came together by a force (with no origin), spun around and blew up (though many planets, moons, and galaxies, don't follow one of the laws of physics: that particles exploding off of a spinning object spin the same direction as that object). At that point, the earth was a big soup (molten rock). The soup came alive (for no reason), figured out how to reproduce itself, and eventually mutated (though the phenomenon has never been observed to the point of a total change of species) into all of the creatures that this earth has today.
That's much more intelligent!
As for animals embedded in sediment, what do you think would happen to a dead animal? The geological stratum somehow expands to surround the skeleton? Of course not - successive layers of sediment would collect in and around the skeleton, which (surprise surprise) is exactly what we find to happen.
You forgot that I stated that the animals were standing up! They died naturally, but continued standing up?!
Another thing you forgot was the fact that I mentioned that other animals were found with preserved, green, plants undigested in their stomachs. They must have died very quickly and been preserved very quickly as well, as even after an animal dies it's stomach acids still work for some time afterwards!
OK, suppose there was a world-wide flood (i.e. a flood of water in large enough volume to cover the major land areas in water) - how would it run off? Unless you're suggesting a rainstorm that somehow produced water from absolutely nothing and dumped it in the space of a few days or months, after which the water once again disappeared back where it came from.
Quote from Genesis 7:11-12:
In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. {windows: or, floodgates} 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
Well, I have to say that we Christians don't know it all, but we have a few theories based on the Bible. As just stated in the Bible, the fountains of the deep were broken up. We have the underwater geysers and things like that that we know about now (they were actually mentioned in the Bible long before scientists discovered them), so I'm going to guess that the ground broke up and all the water underneath came gushing up (because God told it too. It wasn't a spontaneous thing, like the "big-bang." God did cause some of it to happen). As for the "windows of heaven", there is a theory based on the following Scripture:
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. - Genesis 1:7-9
the theory states that God placed a water-vapor canopy over the earth on this day of creation. That is what is referred to by the "waters above the firmament (sky)", and later by the "windows of heaven."
As for where the water went, well most of it went back down into the cracks in the deep that God emptied.
And as for your last point, you seem to be so limited in your view of God that you can't comprehend the possibility of the Universe coming into existence as the result of Divine Will, with everything else occurring thereafter being the result of the physical conditions within that Universe
I am "limited in [my] view of God"??? Only because I believe the Bible and what it says.
I suppose you are suggesting that God caused the big-bang. That isn't what the Bible says. I believe in the God in the Bible. If that limits my view of God, well then I am enjoying my limitation in it's fullest, because my theory agrees with 1)the Bible and 2)the evidence.
In the end, I really can't prove my theory is true, but neither can you. And you have much more trouble doing it! The only major differences between our theories is that:
1) Mine is backed by the Bible while yours isn't.
2) Yours is government funded, while mine isn't.
Before you start trying to criticise theories, at least learn to reason logically, OK?
How has my reasoning been illogical?! Mostly, I just posed several facts! I didn't really do too much reasoning.