|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Apr 25, 2022 11:07:05 GMT -5
I haven't been this undecided about which side to choose since Team Edward vs. Team Jacob. I had to google that. Once I found out I was elated that I didn't know that. |
|
|
|
Post by Son Of Beach on Apr 25, 2022 13:32:39 GMT -5
I haven't been this undecided about which side to choose since Team Edward vs. Team Jacob. I had to google that. Once I found out I was elated that I didn't know that. I was married to a young woman once, it was all the rage |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller 
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 25, 2022 16:23:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 25, 2022 22:49:29 GMT -5
Actually both wind and water can create holes. I already posted a link for you with great examples of depressions that look a lot like the bays from New Mexico formed by wind. And if you want to see a lot of other great examples just come out here and go to the Valley of Fire. You will see thousands of holes formed in the sandstone by wind erosion. Like this example: Here are more examples of wind erosion holes: More examples:
Are we discussing holes in solid rock or holes in soft flat wetlands ?  We were discussing your claim that "Wind fills holes. It doesn't make them. Same as water born erosion. " So, I showed examples of wind and water erosion holes. Just like how I showed similar looking oriented depressions from wind erosion in New Mexico.
And again, we have to remember that over the 60,000 years these bays have been dated for that it was not always wetlands.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 25, 2022 22:58:04 GMT -5
A tsunami would have formed if an impact occurred out in the ocean or very close to it. If strong enough to cause tectonics, then it would have also been more than strong enough to form the shock deformation features I keep asking about, but that apparently do not exist giving more evidence against the ice ejecta hypothesis.
Shock deformation features occur with direct high speed impacts from meteors. Not likely with lower velocity ice ejecta. Actually that is only partially correct.
Again, there would be definite for the initial impact site, which is what I keep mentioning the fact that there is no evidence of shock deformation at the supposed initial impact site.
Although, as I already pointed out the ice would have sufficient force to create secondary shock deformation features. Even as the link you provided as evidence clearly pointed out, the ice falling would have the force of 3 megatons, which is more than sufficient to create shock deformation features. So are you now claiming the evidence you posted earlier is faulty?
And again, if this was due to an impact, where is the evidence in the form of increased nickel content at both the supposed initial impact site and at the bays, since such an impact would have deposited fragments of comet/asteroid that would have been high in nickel that is very rare as naturally occurring terrestrial nickel.
Shock deformation features and increased nickel occurrence would be fairly strong evidence of an impact event as you are hypothesizing. Problem is, is that there is no evidence of either.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 25, 2022 23:02:07 GMT -5
The bays were home to many early Natives. Interesting date conflicts. 13,000 year old artifacts in a place all life was wiped out 6000 years ago ? Again, the short comings of accurate dating is in conflict once again. There has always been arguments regarding the absolute ages of stone artifacts. As with the bays... Clovis points were certainly the oldest commonly found point. By layer anyway, always found in the lowest strata. Looks like this survey ended at the Mason Dixon line.  If this is even factual then it could still be explained by various things such as a rapid warming could have melted the ice caps leading to flooding. Could have been the introduction of some disease that was infecting humans or the animals they ate. Could have been a crop failure........ Just like so many civilizations around the world like the Aztecs that suddenly disappeared, yet no evidence of any impacts leading to their sudden disappearance. |
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 25, 2022 23:10:50 GMT -5
A tsunami would have formed if an impact occurred out in the ocean or very close to it. If strong enough to cause tectonics, then it would have also been more than strong enough to form the shock deformation features I keep asking about, but that apparently do not exist giving more evidence against the ice ejecta hypothesis.
Shock deformation features occur with direct high speed impacts from meteors. Not likely with lower velocity ice ejecta. I forgot to add that shock deformation is not specific to impacts. Shock deformation is a well known feature of strong earthquakes, and is also believed to form with some volcanic eruptions. Shock deformed rocks have also formed with the underground nuclear tests that were conducted here in Nevada at the Nevada test site. So no, shock deformation is not only an occurrence with direct asteroid/comet impacts. They do occur for other reasons as well. Although again, the force of 3 megatons that the author in the link you supplied as evidence states the ice would have impacted with is sufficient to cause shock deformation and as has already been pointed out numerous times, would have resulted in deep, not flat bottomed craters. Instead the bays show no shock deformation and are shallow, flat bottomed depressions, not consistent with the ice ejecta hypothesis. |
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 26, 2022 6:59:14 GMT -5
vegasjames too many geologic theories and hypotheses have been canned of recent. The Mt St Helen's event rewrote many of them. It wasn't till 1983 when they discovered hydraulic erosion by high velocity/high flow water flow in a Glen Canyon dam tunnel removed 1000 cu ft of reinforced concrete per second. Event the thick rebar was carved away by vacuum generated cavitation forces. It doesn't take long to carve a Grand Canyon even thru solid granite at that rate of removal. See Missoula flood. Bretz was laughed at for decades until quality aerial images set everyone straight. Just like Lidar exposed the incredible vastness of the bays and their unarguable mathematical signatures of ejecta impacts.
|
|
|
|
Post by vegasjames on Apr 26, 2022 7:51:34 GMT -5
vegasjames too many geologic theories and hypotheses have been canned of recent. The Mt St Helen's event rewrote many of them. It wasn't till 1983 when they discovered hydraulic erosion by high velocity/high flow water flow in a Glen Canyon dam tunnel removed 1000 cu ft of reinforced concrete per second. Event the thick rebar was carved away by vacuum generated cavitation forces. It doesn't take long to carve a Grand Canyon even thru solid granite at that rate of removal. See Missoula flood. Bretz was laughed at for decades until quality aerial images set everyone straight. Just like Lidar exposed the incredible vastness of the bays and their unarguable mathematical signatures of ejecta impacts. And there you go again talking about the ejecta impact hypothesis as if it has been proven. Hate to break it to you, but it hasn't and clearly there is a severe lack of evidence to back it as I have asked numerous times for solid evidence to the ejecta hypothesis, which you claim exists, but have not provided any of it yet. And some of your "evidence" has gone against the ejecta hypothesis, such as the link you gave where the author clearly stated that IF this had happened the ice would have hit with the force of 3 megatons. A fact I had already brought up before you provided the link. And that kind of force would have left shock deformation features and deep craters without flat bottoms. The bays nor the supposed impact site show no evidence of shock deformation, no evidence of flooding or shockwave, no increased nickel content consistent with an extraterrestrial impact event, and the bays are very shallow and flat bottomed.
Yes, some science has changed over time. Another fact I already brought up earlier. The science changed though by the presentation of new and solid evidence. Not by simply claiming anyone who disagreed was wrong. So far, no sold evidence has been presented to support the ice ejecta hypothesis. The number of bays and holes inside of holes is not evidence as again these can form from a variety of things including as I have shown wind and water. Where is any supporting, credible, indisputable evidence to the ice ejecta hypothesis from an impact? As I pointed out earlier, even if this was due to falling chunks of ice it could still have been from a volcano eruption under the ice cap or a comet breaking up. The first one would explain the lack of extraterrestrial nickel and lack of things such as evidence of a shockwave or shock deformation features. And the later would explain the lack of shock deformation features at the supposed impact site at the ice cap, lack of shockwave evidence and could possibly explain the shallower depressions as it could have broken up in to small pieces and most slowed down to terminal velocity before hitting.
As we can see there are just too many possibilities, and too many unanswered questions as to the cause, as well as a severe lack of any substantiating evidence to the ice ejecta hypothesis.
|
|
jamesp
Cave Dweller
Member since October 2012
Posts: 36,602
|
Post by jamesp on Apr 27, 2022 6:31:31 GMT -5
vegasjames too many geologic theories and hypotheses have been canned of recent. The Mt St Helen's event rewrote many of them. It wasn't till 1983 when they discovered hydraulic erosion by high velocity/high flow water flow in a Glen Canyon dam tunnel removed 1000 cu ft of reinforced concrete per second. Event the thick rebar was carved away by vacuum generated cavitation forces. It doesn't take long to carve a Grand Canyon even thru solid granite at that rate of removal. See Missoula flood. Bretz was laughed at for decades until quality aerial images set everyone straight. Just like Lidar exposed the incredible vastness of the bays and their unarguable mathematical signatures of ejecta impacts. And there you go again talking about the ejecta impact hypothesis as if it has been proven. Hate to break it to you, but it hasn't and clearly there is a severe lack of evidence to back it as I have asked numerous times for solid evidence to the ejecta hypothesis, which you claim exists, but have not provided any of it yet. And some of your "evidence" has gone against the ejecta hypothesis, such as the link you gave where the author clearly stated that IF this had happened the ice would have hit with the force of 3 megatons. A fact I had already brought up before you provided the link. And that kind of force would have left shock deformation features and deep craters without flat bottoms. The bays nor the supposed impact site show no evidence of shock deformation, no evidence of flooding or shockwave, no increased nickel content consistent with an extraterrestrial impact event, and the bays are very shallow and flat bottomed.
Yes, some science has changed over time. Another fact I already brought up earlier. The science changed though by the presentation of new and solid evidence. Not by simply claiming anyone who disagreed was wrong. So far, no sold evidence has been presented to support the ice ejecta hypothesis. The number of bays and holes inside of holes is not evidence as again these can form from a variety of things including as I have shown wind and water. Where is any supporting, credible, indisputable evidence to the ice ejecta hypothesis from an impact? As I pointed out earlier, even if this was due to falling chunks of ice it could still have been from a volcano eruption under the ice cap or a comet breaking up. The first one would explain the lack of extraterrestrial nickel and lack of things such as evidence of a shockwave or shock deformation features. And the later would explain the lack of shock deformation features at the supposed impact site at the ice cap, lack of shockwave evidence and could possibly explain the shallower depressions as it could have broken up in to small pieces and most slowed down to terminal velocity before hitting. As we can see there are just too many possibilities, and too many unanswered questions as to the cause, as well as a severe lack of any substantiating evidence to the ice ejecta hypothesis.
Excellent debate James. I appreciate your time and thought investment. I learned a great deal about geological theory. We just have different schools of thought mine being creation and a much younger earth involving rapid hydrological formation of geologic features. The ~6000 year age of the bays makes perfect sense. Recent evidence is disproving conventional geological hypotheses that began back in the 17th century when the science of geology began. The Glen Canyon experience in 1983 found that once water reaches a certain velocity, CO2 bubbles form and act as jack hammers, writing a new chapter about earth feature forming in the textbooks. This one episode opened many eyes to the shaping power of the high speed flow of water carrying rocks and silt. As did the discovery of the smaller scale formation of the scablands. |
|
