Natural Disasters and Young Earth Creationism

[fuzzymillipede]

I am making a list of major natural disasters that disprove YEC, by the simple virtue of being too cataclysmic to have all happened during 6000 years of human existence and yet had no effect on us.

So far I have:
-Major Meteor Impacts
-Ice Ages
-Supervolcanos

What events am I missing? Has someone already compiled such a list?

[Kitsune]

How about the flooding of the Black Sea......

[General Zod]

This seems to be a bit of a flawed approach, since it requires the YEC to actually admit that the events in question happened in the first place. Assuming you're using it to argue with a YEC at any rate.

[Darth Wong]

Generally speaking, YECs agree with meteor impact theory, because they are too stupid to realize that it destroys their position. They think that geologic theories are divided up into two warrings camps: "gradualism versus catastrophism". Seriously, that's how they think. And they think that "catastrophism" is a school of thought which gives blanket approval to any geologic theory which involves a catastrophic disaster, hence they believe it supports their moronic "Flood Geology". Similarly, they think that "gradualism" is a school of thought which denies any and all catastrophic explanations for any kind of geologic formation, and that all geologists must choose one side or the other.

I know. The stupidity is enough to make you cry.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Generally speaking, YECs agree with meteor impact theory, because they are too stupid to realize that it destroys their position. They think that geologic theories are divided up into two warrings camps: "gradualism versus catastrophism". Seriously, that's how they think. And they think that "catastrophism" is a school of thought which gives blanket approval to any geologic theory which involves a catastrophic disaster, hence they believe it supports their moronic "Flood Geology". Similarly, they think that "gradualism" is a school of thought which denies any and all catastrophic explanations for any kind of geologic formation, and that all geologists must choose one side or the other.

I know. The stupidity is enough to make you cry.

It actually has driven my old roommate, who is a geologist, to tears, i think. Either that or he was watching The Core...

[The Big I]

Generally speaking, YECs agree with meteor impact theory, because they are too stupid to realize that it destroys their position. They think that geologic theories are divided up into two warrings camps: "gradualism versus catastrophism". Seriously, that's how they think. And they think that "catastrophism" is a school of thought which gives blanket approval to any geologic theory which involves a catastrophic disaster, hence they believe it supports their moronic "Flood Geology". Similarly, they think that "gradualism" is a school of thought which denies any and all catastrophic explanations for any kind of geologic formation, and that all geologists must choose one side or the other.

I know. The stupidity is enough to make you cry.

It actually has driven my old roommate, who is a geologist, to tears, i think. Either that or he was watching The Core...

Hey I loved The Core, Hero Geologists(as we all are) saves the world. But I've never come accross those intersting "theories" during my degree.


As the law of everthing states Geos rule engineers suck

[CaptainChewbacca]

Catastrophism vs. Gradualism USED to mean what Mike says, but after they figured out continental drift in the 1960's, and then found Chixilub (the big honking rock that killed the dinosaurs) they realized both theories applied some of the time.

Also, Geologists rock, but The Core is the 3rd worst geology movie ever made.

[Mayabird]

Yeah, this line isn't really going to work. After all, we've found ancient cities that are more than 6000-ish years old, like Catal Huyuk in Turkey which was apparently founded nearly 10,000 years ago. Heck, Jericho might be even older, more than 10,000 years old (significant because 10,000 is the age that the wishy-washy young Earthers use, possibly knowing somewhere in their seldom-used minds that there are human settlements more than 6000 years old). And that doesn't bother them at all.

While I'm here, I gotta know this. What are the two worst geology movies ever made?

[wautd]

Catastrophism vs. Gradualism USED to mean what Mike says, but after they figured out continental drift in the 1960's, and then found Chixilub (the big honking rock that killed the dinosaurs) they realized both theories applied some of the time.

Also, Geologists rock, but The Core is the 3rd worst geology movie ever made.

Movie? I thought it was an historical documentary

[Darth Wong]

Catastrophism vs. Gradualism USED to mean what Mike says, but after they figured out continental drift in the 1960's, and then found Chixilub (the big honking rock that killed the dinosaurs) they realized both theories applied some of the time.

Also, Geologists rock, but The Core is the 3rd worst geology movie ever made.

It never meant exactly what I said, where "catastrophists" would give blanket approval to any kind of catastrophe-related theory. That's what YECs think.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Catastrophism vs. Gradualism USED to mean what Mike says, but after they figured out continental drift in the 1960's, and then found Chixilub (the big honking rock that killed the dinosaurs) they realized both theories applied some of the time.

Also, Geologists rock, but The Core is the 3rd worst geology movie ever made.

It never meant exactly what I said, where "catastrophists" would give blanket approval to any kind of catastrophe-related theory. That's what YECs think.

Right. Sorry, I could have worded that better.

[CaptainChewbacca]

While I'm here, I gotta know this. What are the two worst geology movies ever made?

That would be 10.5 and 10.5: Apocalypse. NBC will burn for its sins.

[Mayabird]

While I'm here, I gotta know this. What are the two worst geology movies ever made?

That would be 10.5 and 10.5: Apocalypse. NBC will burn for its sins.

That is messed up. The Space Needle falling over from a 7.9? That sucker would need a 9.7 to topple over. It's ridiculously overbuilt.

And it only gets worse from there. Wow.

[fuzzymillipede]

Back to the topic at hand. Craters on the Moon are different than craters on Earth due to the Moon's lower gravity. So, in order to prove that the craters on the Moon do translate into an equivalent amount of probable impacts on Earth, I need to prove that a major impact on the Moon has the same probability as a major impact on Earth. Otherwise, they could just claim that most of the Moon craters were caused by objects too small to do major damage on Earth.

So, if an object that would leave a crater with a diameter of ~100km on the Moon hit Earth, what kind of crater would it make? I suspect that the crater wouldn't really be that much smaller, and since there are over 1000 craters on the Moon that are over 100km in diameter, a comparable amount of impacts on Earth during 6000 years makes absolutely no sense the matter how you try to spin it.

[starslayer]

So, if an object that would leave a crater with a diameter of ~100km on the Moon hit Earth, what kind of crater would it make? I suspect that the crater wouldn't really be that much smaller, and since there are over 1000 craters on the Moon that are over 100km in diameter, a comparable amount of impacts on Earth during 6000 years makes absolutely no sense the matter how you try to spin it.

I'm no impact-crater specialist, but I believe you're pretty much correct. Based on my limited knowledge, I'd expect there to be more terracing and lower walls than on the Moon due to the Earth's higher gravity, but it should be about as deep and about as wide as on the Moon. The ejecta blanket would be smaller, but the damage to the biosphere would still be considerable. Assuming the rate of cratering per unit of cross-sectional area is the same for the Earth as for the Moon, a cratering rate almost ten times that of the Moon's would be expected (the Earth is over three times wider), leading to 10,000 craters of 100 km diameter or more in a 6,000 year period. Those craters would be extremely obvious, as weathering is much too slow to destroy even a much smaller crater (Barringer Crater in Arizona, for example). We don't see those craters, and we exist (that much cratering would have destroyed the populations of any large animals).