Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

The great flood - caused by a comet?

Discussion in 'The Pub' started by robsalvv, Dec 28, 2010.

  1. I saw a tv video just the other day, Mega Disasters, Comet Catastrophe that had a section claiming that the great flood, as in the bible flood, could be the result of a comet. Can't find a link to the video, but the idea is not that radical however it's less than 10 years old.


    Cultures around the globe have a flood myth like the one in the bible. They've been analysed and seem to be about the same time and point to an origin of a flood in the Indian ocean off the coast of Madagascar. There seems to have been socialogical and cultural shifts about that time too.

    There's even a crater where they think should be one, Burckle Crater - so the flood and the rain has been modelled as a result of an impact from a global killer comet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burckle_Crater http://goo.gl/maps/eY59 <-- google map view of the location.

    600ft high tsunamis... a small ice age... estimates of 50 - 80% global population killed... The video is interesting and a quick search of the internet shows that this topic has chatter and hasn't been confirmed or denied either way. It's still an ongoing investigation - the group looking into are doing it under their own steam - it's not a commercial venture.

    Interesting stuff.

    Some interesting discussion about it on this site: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?104445-Did-a-comet-cause-the-Great-Flood&
  2. No, they claim there's a crater where they want there to be one. As far as I can tell the existence of that crater has to date not been confirmed with the only published paper I could find relating to it in the proceedings for a 2005 conference on the lost city of Atlantis - along with such other great papers as "The novelty of the Atlantis myth in the light of Freudian interpretation" (WTF???).

    Not to say that comets haven't hit the Earth before, or that massive tsunamis haven't occured for a variety of reasons (the marine fossils at the top of the Blue Mountains proves that), but to me looks more like an academic with tenure and far too much time on their hands trying to find evidence that fits with their preconceived ideas (which is never a good thing).
  3. The video I saw had them taking core samples in the area... there are numerous references on the web... I don't think I've come across any web mentions casting doubt on the crater's veracity. What would constitute a confirmed claim of a crater at the location JD? Genuine question mate.

    Dunno what authority this paper claims, but fwiw: http://elib.sfu-kras.ru/bitstream/2311/1633/1/05_.pdf It apparently models the tsunami, but with my summer flu, my eyes glazed over trying read it... lots of pretty calculus symbols...

    And a partial 2009 paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28540396/Holocene-Impact-Working-Group-2010
  4. Usually a combination of several things. There's the obvious physical features such as the shape of the feature and the presence of debris caused by impact. These however should also line up with obvious anomolies in the geophysics - ie it should appear different to the surrounding rock with magnetic and gravimetric mapping.

    From what I could find with a (very) brief search the controversy surrounding the Burckle crater is threefold. Firstly, although material has been found in cores samples which can be produced by an impact, there's no geophys data to back it up. Secondly, it is one of many supposed impacts which are all attributed to comets - even though comets only make up a very small percentage of the total Earth impacts. Finally, it's only been identified as a Holocene event because it fits with the supposed anthropological evidence, as yet there does not appear to be any scientific data confirming the age of the rocks.

    They may well be proven right, but I always get sceptical when scientists start making bold claims outside the usual scientific journals. Don't have time to look into it in more detail though, I'm supposed to be on holidays (and have to finish a paper of my own by Jan 15).
  5. it was Goz doing a bomb of the top platform