DOCSLIB.ORG

Adventists and Genesis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Adventists And Genesis The Primary Time Theory Refuted By Paul Nethercott 2008 Three Angels Website www.CreationismOnline.com 1 Biblical Creationism Genesis 1:1 Genesis 2:3 The Literal Week 168 Hours 4,000 BC 4,000 BC 2 SDA Bible Commentary, Volume 1, Page 218, 1978. The Primary Time Theory Genesis 1:1 Genesis 1:3 Genesis 2:3 Primary Time Creation Week 4,500 Million Years 168 Hours? 4,500,000,000 BC 4,000 BC 4,000 BC Invented By Jehovah’s Witnesses The New Creation, 1904, Pastor Charles Russell, page 18,19. “Creation,” 1927, Judge Rutherford, Page 14, 27, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45 Evolution Or By Creation?, Chapter 3, 1985 Edition Evolution Or Creation, 1985, Page 26 All Scripture Inspired, 1990, Page 14 Aid To Bible Understanding, Page 476 Reasoning From The Scriptures, 1989, Page 88 3 Awake!, May 8, 1997, page 12 The Watchtower, April 1, 1986, pages 12-13 Awake!, March 22, 1983, pages 12-13 Awake, September 2006, Pages 3, 18, 19, 20, 28 4 Primary Time Diagram G Geological Creation Biological Creation Rest Days Rest Days Light Day And Night Plants Snow, Continental Drift, Rivers Dry Land, Volcanoes, Glaciers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Mountains, Erosion, Rain Volcanic Ash, Meteor Craters Sun, Work Days Solar System 4,500,000,000 BC 4,0005 BC 4,000 BC Invented By Jehovah’s Witnesses The Creation Week Genesis 1:1 Genesis 1:3 Genesis 2:3 5,000 Million Years Ago 6,000 Years Ago Geological Creation Biological Creation Light Land Day 1 Day And Night Plants Snow, Continental Drift, Rivers Dry Land, Volcanoes, Glaciers Day 3 Day 2 Day 3 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Mountains, Erosion, Rain Volcanic Ash, Meteor Craters Day 3 Twice Sun, Moon, Meteorites Day 4 Solar System Sea Life And Birds 4,500,000,000 BC 4,0006 BC 4,000 BC Taught By Primary Time Theory Reconciling Genesis With Science? Geological Era Geological Period Years Duration Years Ago GENESIS 1:3 PLUS ONE LITERAL WEEK 0.025 6,000 Cenozoic Neogene 26,000,000 26,000,000 Paloegene 39,000,000 65,000,000 Mesozoic Cretaceous 71,000,000 136,000,000 Jurassic 54,000,000 190,000,000 Triassic 35,000,000 225,000,000 Paleozoic Permiam 55,000,000 280,000,000 Pennsylvanian 45,000,000 325,000,000 Missisipian 20,000,000 345,000,000 Devonian 50,000,000 395,000,000 Silurian 35,000,000 430,000,000 Ordovician 70,000,000 500,000,000 Cambrian 70,000,000 570,000,000 Phanerozoic Proterozoic 2,000,000,000 2,570,000,000 Archaean 1,500,000,000 4,000,000,000 GENESIS 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING GOD 500,000,000 4,500,000,000 7 Jehovah’s Witness Publications The New Creation, 1904, Pastor Charles Russell, page 18,19. “Creation,” 1927, Judge Rutherford, Page 14, 27, 30, 35, 36, 37, 45 Evolution Or By Creation?, Chapter 3, 1985 Edition Evolution Or Creation, Watchtower Society, 1985, Page 26 All Scripture Inspired, Watchtower Society, 1990, Page 14 Aid To Bible Understanding, Watchtower Society, Page 476 Reasoning From The Scriptures, Watchtower Society, 1989, Page 88 Awake!, May 8, 1997, p. 12 The Watchtower, April 1, 1986, pp. 12-13 Awake!, March 22, 1983, pp. 12-13 Awake, September 2006, Page 3, 18, 19, 20, 28 Primary Time Publications SDA Bible Commentary, Volume 12, Page 419. Randall Younker, Ogden Utah CD, 2003, Pages 259-261 Australian Record, March 11, 1995, Pages 6-9 God’s Creation - Exploring The Genesis Story , Randall Younker, 1999, Page 33. Origin By Design, Harrold Coffin, Washington DC, 1983, Page 286. Magazine Reference Internet Location Origins, “Geo And Cosmic Chronology”, Vol. 8, Page 20. Jehovah’s Witnesseshttp://www.grisda.org/origins/08020.pdf Origins, “A Reference On Radiometric Dating”, Volume 6, Page 47, 48. http://www.grisda.org/origins/06047.pdf Origins, “An Age Old Question”, Volume 19, Page 89. http://www.grisda.org/origins/19087.pdfJehovah’s Witnesses Origins, “The Oklo Phenomenon”, Vol. 17, pages 87, 91. http://www.grisda.org/origins/17086.htm Dr. Clyde Webster, Geo-Science Reports, page 8. http://www.grisda.org/georpts/2108.htm“In the beginning God created the heavens and the Origins, 1990, Volume 17, Number 2, pages 82-85. http://www.grisda.org/origins/17082.htmEarth.” (Genesis 1:1) Just how long ago the starry Benjamin Clausen, Geo-Science Reports, 1997. http://www.grisda.org/georpts/2201.pdfheavens and the earth were created is not stated In Questions And Answers http://www.GriSda.orgthe/faq. Bible.html Therefore, there is no basis for Bible Ministry Magazine, May 1973, Pages 16-17 http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1973-05.pdfscholars to take issue with scientific calculations of the 8 age of earth’s rock-mass. Scientists variously estimate Ministry Magazine, February 1958, Pa ges 8-11 http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN1958-02.pdf the age of the rocks as three and a half to four Ministry Magazine, February 2007, Page 25 http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/MIN/MIN20070201-02.pdf Review, December 8, 1983, page 15 http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH19831208-thousand million or more yearsV160-49/index.djvu. [Aid To Bible Spectrum Magazine, Winter 1971 http://spectrummagazine.org/files/archive/archive01-05/3-1brown.pdfUnderstanding, Watchtower Society, Page 476] Complete Watchtower Articles Primary Time Sources Creation Of The Earth: Measuring Its Age: Aid To Bible Understanding, 1971, Page 476 Aid To Bible Understanding, page 476 Awake!, 1939, May 3, page 21 All Scripture Inspired, 1990, Page 14 Awake!, 1952, June 22, page 5-9 Awake!, 1946, January 16, page 16-17 Awake! February 8, 1990, page 4-5, 10-11 Awake!, 1956, July 8, page 14 Awake!, 1948, November 22, page 24-26 Awake!, March 22, 1983, pages 12-14 Awake!, 1961, May 22, page 23 Awake!, 1952, August 8, page 17-19 Awake!, 1963, April 22, page 4-7 Awake!, 1952, February 22, page 13-16 Awake!, March 8, 1983, pages 12-13 Awake!, 1963, May 22, page 31 Awake!, 1952, February 8, page 14-20 Awake!, May 8, 1997, page 12 Awake!, 1963, October 8, page 6-9 Awake!, 1954, November 22, page 20 Awake!, September 22, 1986, page 17-20, 27 Awake!, 1964, May 8, page 7 Awake!, 1956, November 22, page 8-11 Awake!, 1967, April 22, page 29 Awake!, 1958, April 22, page 22 Awake, September 2006, Page 3, 18-20, 28 Awake!, 1971, January 8, page 5 Awake!, 1958, March 8, page 12-15 Creation, 1927, Judge Rutherford, Page 14, 27, 30, 35-37, 45 Basis For Belief, page 21-22 Awake!, 1962, October 22, page 9-11 Did Man Get Here By Evolution? 1967, page 97 Did Man Get Here By Evolution?, page 97 Awake!, 1967, April 22, page 14-16 Evolution Versus New World, page 35-36 Awake!, 1968, June 22, page 30 Evolution Or By Creation?, 1985, page 26-32 Let Your Name Be Sanctified, page 14 Awake!, 1969, November 8, page 29 Evolution Or Creation?, 1985, Page 26 Life- How Did It Get Here?, page 128-141 Awake!, 1972, April 8, page 15 Insight Into The Scriptures, 1988, Volume 1, Page 667 New Heavens And New Earth, page 34-53 Awake!, 1973, May 8, page 19 Insight Into The Scriptures, 1988, Volume 1, Pages 527-528 Paradise Lost And Regained, page 9-13 Awake!, 1986, Sep 22, page 17-20, 27 Truth Makes You Free, page 54-68 Basis For Belief, page 21-22 Insight Into The Scriptures, 1988, Volume 2, Page 1032 The Watchtower 1962, page 165, 426 Is The Bible God’s Word?, page 27-29 Is There A Creator?, 2006, Page 23, 86-87, 91-93 The Watchtower 1976, page 681-682 Life- How Did It Get Here?, page 26 Reasoning From The Scriptures, 1989, Page 88 The Watchtower, 1944, page 180 New Heavens And New Earth, page 34-35 The Watchtower, 1950, page 423 Reasoning From The Scriptures, page 88 The New Creation, 1904, Pastor Russell, pages 18, 19 The Watchtower, 1956, page 723-724 The Watchtower, 1952, page 644 The Watchtower, April 1, 1986, pages 12-13 The Watchtower, 1961, page 390-391 The Watchtower, 1953, page 675 The Watchtower, September 1, 1986, page 30 The Watchtower, 1963, page 459-460 The Watchtower, 1956, page 723-724 The Watchtower, 1970, page 119 The Watchtower, 1965, page 741 The Watchtower—September 1, 1994, Page 6 The Watchtower, 1944, page 180 The Watchtower, 1950, page 423 Creation Of Dinosaurs: The Watchtower, 1956, page 723-724 Awake!, 1990, February 8, pages 4-5, 10-11 The Watchtower, 1961, page 390-391 The Watchtower, 1963, page 459-460 9 The Watchtower, 1970, page 119 Two Stage Creation Theory Two Stage Creation Theory How Old Are Moon Rocks? According to Genesis 1:14-19 the Moon was made on day 4 of the creation week. According to radiometric dating methods the Moon is: Thorium - Lead Dating = 4.87 to 28.14 Billion Years Old. Uranium-Lead Dating = 5.06 to 10.28 Billion Years Old. Lead - Lead Dating = 5 Billion Years Old. Potassium-Argon Dating = 2.1 to 17 Billion Years Old. Earth And Planetary Science Letters, Volume 14, 1972, Page 281 - 304 Mission Sample No. Rock Type Method Billion Years Apollo 11 10044 Low - K Ar - Ar 3.69 Ar - Ar 3.66 Ar - Ar 3.66 Rb - Sr 3.62 10062 Low - K Ar - Ar 3.78 Ar - Ar 3.79 Sm - Nd 3.88 Rb - Sr 3.92 Apollo 17 72417 Dunite Rb - Sr 4.47 Feldspar Ar - Ar 4.22 Granitoid U - Pb 4.36 Norite Sm - Nd 4.26 Trocolite Sm - Nd 4.26 Norite Rb - Sr 4.33 (The Age Of The Earth, G.
Recommended publications
  • Contents Page

    Contents Page

    Contents Page Adventists and Genesis The Primary Time Theory Refuted By Paul Nethercott 2008 Contents Introduction Jehovah Witness Viewpoint Seventh Day Adventist Viewpoint The Age Of the Earth Is the Age Of Mankind Scientific Contradictions To The Book Of Genesis No Gap Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:3 Radioactive Dating Is Whole Rock Dating Radioactive Dating And Fossil Ages Radioactive Dating Of ‘Pre‐Cambrian’ Rocks Genesis Versus Radio‐Active Dating Chronology Controversy Over Radiometric Dating Methods The Days Of Creation Are Literal 24 Hour Days Ellen G. Whites Comments Gunter Faure Brent Dalrymple History Of Modern Creationism The Biblical Account Of Origins In the Beginning Where Did the Light on the First Day Come From? Light On The First Day Of Creation Loma Linda University Conclusions References www.CreationOnTheWeb.org Adventists And Genesis 1 Introduction The Men Behind The Idea The Founders Of The Primary Time Theory Pastor Russell Judge Rutherford Nathan Homer Knorr Jehovah’s Witnesses The Bible does not say how long a period elapsed between the beginning when God created the heaven and the earth, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses beginning of the creative week used in perfecting it for man: nor do Long before the beginning of those Jehovah’s Witnesses geologists agree amongst seven days the molten mass had “In the beginning God created the heavens and the themselves as to the period of this thrown off great quantities of mineral interval‐‐a few extremists indulge in Earth.” (Genesis 1:1) Just how long ago the starry substances in vapor form, and these heavens and the earth were created is not stated In wild speculations of millions of had formed into rings around the years.
  • The Tennessee Meteorite Impact Sites and Changing Perspectives on Impact Cratering

    The Tennessee Meteorite Impact Sites and Changing Perspectives on Impact Cratering

    UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN QUEENSLAND THE TENNESSEE METEORITE IMPACT SITES AND CHANGING PERSPECTIVES ON IMPACT CRATERING A dissertation submitted by Janaruth Harling Ford B.A. Cum Laude (Vanderbilt University), M. Astron. (University of Western Sydney) For the award of Doctor of Philosophy 2015 ABSTRACT Terrestrial impact structures offer astronomers and geologists opportunities to study the impact cratering process. Tennessee has four structures of interest. Information gained over the last century and a half concerning these sites is scattered throughout astronomical, geological and other specialized scientific journals, books, and literature, some of which are elusive. Gathering and compiling this widely- spread information into one historical document benefits the scientific community in general. The Wells Creek Structure is a proven impact site, and has been referred to as the ‘syntype’ cryptoexplosion structure for the United State. It was the first impact structure in the United States in which shatter cones were identified and was probably the subject of the first detailed geological report on a cryptoexplosive structure in the United States. The Wells Creek Structure displays bilateral symmetry, and three smaller ‘craters’ lie to the north of the main Wells Creek structure along its axis of symmetry. The question remains as to whether or not these structures have a common origin with the Wells Creek structure. The Flynn Creek Structure, another proven impact site, was first mentioned as a site of disturbance in Safford’s 1869 report on the geology of Tennessee. It has been noted as the terrestrial feature that bears the closest resemblance to a typical lunar crater, even though it is the probable result of a shallow marine impact.
  • Unbroken Meteorite Rough Draft

    Unbroken Meteorite Rough Draft

    Space Visitors in Kentucky: Meteorites and Asteroid “Ida.” Most meteorites originate from asteroids. Meteorite Impact Sites in Kentucky Meteorite from Clark County, Ky. Mercury Earth Saturn Venus Mars Neptune Jupiter William D. Ehmann Asteroid Belt with contributions by Warren H. Anderson Uranus Pluto www.uky.edu/KGS Special thanks to Collie Rulo for cover design. Earth image was compiled from satellite images from NOAA and NASA. Kentucky Geological Survey James C. Cobb, State Geologist and Director University of Kentucky, Lexington Space Visitors in Kentucky: Meteorites and Meteorite Impact Sites in Kentucky William D. Ehmann Special Publication 1 Series XII, 2000 i UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY Collie Rulo, Graphic Design Technician Charles T. Wethington Jr., President Luanne Davis, Staff Support Associate II Fitzgerald Bramwell, Vice President for Theola L. Evans, Staff Support Associate I Research and Graduate Studies William A. Briscoe III, Publication Sales Jack Supplee, Director, Administrative Supervisor Affairs, Research and Graduate Studies Roger S. Banks, Account Clerk I KENTUCKY GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Energy and Minerals Section: James A. Drahovzal, Head ADVISORY BOARD Garland R. Dever Jr., Geologist V Henry M. Morgan, Chair, Utica Cortland F. Eble, Geologist V Ron D. Gilkerson, Vice Chair, Lexington Stephen F. Greb, Geologist V William W. Bowdy, Fort Thomas David A. Williams, Geologist V, Manager, Steven Cawood, Frankfort Henderson office Hugh B. Gabbard, Winchester David C. Harris, Geologist IV Kenneth Gibson, Madisonville Brandon C. Nuttall, Geologist IV Mark E. Gormley, Versailles William M. Andrews Jr., Geologist II Rosanne Kruzich, Louisville John B. Hickman, Geologist II William A. Mossbarger, Lexington Ernest E. Thacker, Geologist I Jacqueline Swigart, Louisville Anna E.
  • Cumberland Gap National Historic Park

    Cumberland Gap National Historic Park

    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620 ON THE COVER Pinnacle Overlook Photograph by D. McPherson Natural Resource Condition Assessment for Cumberland Gap National Historical Park Natural Resource Report NPS/CUGA/NRR—2013/620 Gary Sundin, Luke Worsham, Nathan P. Nibbelink, Michael T. Mengak, Gary Grossman Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources University of Georgia 180 E. Green St. Athens, GA 30602 January 2013 U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Fort Collins, Colorado The National Park Service, Natural Resource Stewardship and Science office in Fort Collins, Colorado, publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics. These reports are of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received formal peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, or reporting of the data, and whose background and expertise put them on par technically and scientifically with the authors of the information.
  • Shatter Cone and Microscopic Shock-Alteration Evidence for a Post-Paleoproterozoic Terrestrial Impact Structure Near Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

    Shatter Cone and Microscopic Shock-Alteration Evidence for a Post-Paleoproterozoic Terrestrial Impact Structure Near Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA

    Earth and Planetary Science Letters 270 (2008) 290–299 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Earth and Planetary Science Letters journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/epsl Shatter cone and microscopic shock-alteration evidence for a post-Paleoproterozoic terrestrial impact structure near Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA Siobhan P. Fackelman a, Jared R. Morrow b,⁎, Christian Koeberl c, Thornton H. McElvain d a Earth Sciences Department, University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO 80639, USA b Department of Geological Sciences, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, USA c Department of Lithospheric Studies, University of Vienna, Althanstrasse 14, A-1090 Vienna, Austria d 111 Lovato Lane, Santa Fe, NM 87505, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Article history: Field mapping, morphologic description, and petrographic analysis of recently discovered shatter cones Received 7 January 2008 within Paleoproterozoic crystalline rocks exposed over an area N5km2, located ∼8 km northeast of Santa Fe, Received in revised form 19 March 2008 New Mexico, USA, give robust evidence of a previously unrecognized terrestrial impact structure. Herein, we Accepted 20 March 2008 provisionally name this the “Santa Fe impact structure”. The shatter cones are composed of nested sub- Available online 7 April 2008 conical, curviplanar, and flat joint surfaces bearing abundant curved and bifurcating striations that strongly Editor: R.W. Carlson resemble the multiply striated joint surfaces (MSJS) documented from shatter cones at Vredefort dome. The cones occur as a penetrative feature in intrusive igneous and supracrustal metamorphic rocks, are unusually Keywords: large (up to 2 m long and 0.5 m wide at the base), display upward-pointing apices, and have subvertical, shatter cones northeastward-plunging axes that crosscut regional host-rock fabrics.
  • IMPACTS II: TERRESTRIAL CRATERS 6:00 P.M

    IMPACTS II: TERRESTRIAL CRATERS 6:00 P.M

    42nd Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2011) sess321.pdf Tuesday, March 8, 2011 POSTER SESSION I: IMPACTS II: TERRESTRIAL CRATERS 6:00 p.m. Town Center Exhibit Area Watt N. Bouchet R. Lee C.-T. A. Exploration of Tektite Formation Processes Through Water and Metal Content Measurements [#1109] To better explore the effects of impacts on surface materials, we measured the compositions of tektites from Vietnam. While zinc/lead ratios were linearly correlated, there was no correlation between water content and zinc or lead contents. Craig M. A. Osinski G. R. Flemming R. L. Cloutis E. A. Spectral Identification of Impact Glasses Via NIR Reflectance Spectroscopy [#2411] Impact glasses from Haughton and other known impact sites possess what appears to be a unique NIR spectral feature that may be indicative of their impact origin. As such, it is possible that impact glasses may be identified via the use of reflectance spectroscopy alone. Osinski G. R. Tornabene L. L. Grieve R. A. F. Impact Ejecta Emplacement on Terrestrial Planets [#1866] Current models of ejecta emplacement do not account for several important observations of planetary ejecta deposits; in particular, the presence of double or multiple layers of ejecta. Here, we present a new working model in which ejecta is emplaced in a multi-stage process. Chanou A. Osinski G. R. Grieve R. A. F. Ames D. E. Quantitative Digital Image Analysis of Impact Melt-Bearing Breccias (“Suevites”) [#2164] Preliminary quantitative digital image analysis of ‘suevites’ with minimal manual intervention. Parameters including modal abundances of ‘suevite’ components were measured after particles of interest were segmented and analyzed using ImageJ software.
  • Scientific Contradictions to the Book of Genesis

    Scientific Contradictions to the Book of Genesis

    Scientific Contradictions To The Book Of Genesis www.CreationismOnline.com How Old Are Moon Rocks? According to Genesis 1:14-19 the Moon was made on day 4 of the creation week. According to radiometric dating methods the Moon is: Thorium - Lead Dating = 4.87 to 28.14 Billion Years Old. Uranium-Lead Dating = 5.06 to 10.28 Billion Years Old. Lead - Lead Dating = 5 Billion Years Old. Potassium-Argon Dating = 2.1 to 17 Billion Years Old. Earth And Planetary Science Letters, Volume 14, 1972, Page 281 – 304 The Moon was made on day 4 of the creation week. According to current consensus the Moon is about 5 Thousand Million years old. Science, Volume 167, January 30th, 1970, Page 461-483. Earth And Planetary Science Letters, Volume 14, 1972, Page 169-175, 281 - 304. Clyde Webster states that the Solar System is 4,500 million years old: “Is it possible that the beginning for the consolidation of our Solar System within the universe could have been 4,500 million years ago? Does that impact on scripture? If I understand scripture properly, I have to come back and say NO.”. Record, “A Scientist Talks About Creation”, March 11, 1995, Page 6-9. In an earlier book he states that the Solar System is only 6,000 years old: “These objections can be overcome if we interpret the fourth day of the creation week as addressing only our Solar System and not the entire Universe.” The Earth: Origins And Early History, Dr. Clyde Webster, North American Division Press, 1981, Chapter 3.
  • An Unusual Occurrence of Coesite at the Lonar Crater, India

    An Unusual Occurrence of Coesite at the Lonar Crater, India

    Meteoritics & Planetary Science 52, Nr 1, 147–163 (2017) doi: 10.1111/maps.12745 An unusual occurrence of coesite at the Lonar crater, India 1* 1 2 1 3 Steven J. JARET , Brian L. PHILLIPS , David T. KING JR , Tim D. GLOTCH , Zia RAHMAN , and Shawn P. WRIGHT4 1Department of Geosciences, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York 11794–2100, USA 2Department of Geosciences, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama 36849, USA 3Jacobs—NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas 77058, USA 4Planetary Science Institute, Tucson, Arizona 85719, USA *Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected] (Received 18 March 2016; revision accepted 06 September 2016) Abstract–Coesite has been identified within ejected blocks of shocked basalt at Lonar crater, India. This is the first report of coesite from the Lonar crater. Coesite occurs within SiO2 glass as distinct ~30 lm spherical aggregates of “granular coesite” identifiable both with optical petrography and with micro-Raman spectroscopy. The coesite+glass occurs only within former silica amygdules, which is also the first report of high-pressure polymorphs forming from a shocked secondary mineral. Detailed petrography and NMR spectroscopy suggest that the coesite crystallized directly from a localized SiO2 melt, as the result of complex interactions between the shock wave and these vesicle fillings. INTRODUCTION Although there is no direct observation of nonshock stishovite in nature, a possible post-stishovite phase may High-Pressure SiO2 Phases be a large component of subducting slabs and the core- mantle boundary (Lakshtanov et al. 2007), and Silica (SiO2) polymorphs are some of the simplest stishovite likely occurs in the deep mantle if basaltic minerals in terms of elemental chemistry, yet they are slabs survive to depth.
  • The Geological Record of Meteorite Impacts

    The Geological Record of Meteorite Impacts

    THE GEOLOGICAL RECORD OF METEORITE IMPACTS Gordon R. Osinski Canadian Space Agency, 6767 Route de l'Aeroport, St-Hubert, QC J3Y 8Y9 Canada, Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT 2. FORMATION OF METEORITE IMPACT STRUCTURES Meteorite impact structures are found on all planetary bodies in the Solar System with a solid The formation of hypervelocity impact craters has surface. On the Moon, Mercury, and much of Mars, been divided, somewhat arbitrarily, into three main impact craters are the dominant landform. On Earth, stages [3] (Fig. 2): (1) contact and compression, (2) 174 impact sites have been recognized, with several excavation, and (3) modification. A further stage of more new craters being discovered each year. The “hydrothermal and chemical alteration” is also terrestrial impact cratering record is critical for our considered as a separate, final stage in the cratering understanding of impacts as it currently provides the process (e.g., [4]), and is also described below. only ground-truth data on which to base interpretations of the cratering record of other planets and moons. In this contribution, I summarize the processes and products of impact cratering and provide and an up-to-date assessment of the geological record of meteorite impacts. 1. INTRODUCTION It is now widely recognized that impact cratering is a ubiquitous geological process that affects all planetary objects with a solid surface (e.g., [1]). One only has to look up on a clear night to see that impact structures are the dominant landform on the Moon. The same can be said of all the rocky and icy bodies in the solar system that have retained portions of their earliest crust.
  • Economic Natural Resource Deposits at Terrestrial Impact Structures

    Economic Natural Resource Deposits at Terrestrial Impact Structures

    Downloaded from http://sp.lyellcollection.org/ by guest on September 23, 2021 Economic natural resource deposits at terrestrial impact structures RICHARD A. F. GRIEVE Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K14 OE4 Abstract: Economic deposits associated with terrestrial impact structures range from world-class to relatively localized occurrences. The more significant deposits are introduced under the classification: progenetic, syngenetic or epigenetic, with respect to the impact event. However, there is increasing evidence that post-impact hydrothermal systems at large impact structures have remobilized some progenetic deposits, such as some of the Witwatersrand gold deposits at the Vredefort impact structure. Impact-related hydro- thermal activity may also have had a significant role in the formation of ores at such syngenetic 'magmatic' deposits as the Cu-Ni-platinum-group elements ores associated with the Sudbury impact structure. Although Vredefort and Sudbury contain world-class mineral deposits, in economic terms hydrocarbon production dominates natural resource deposits found at impact structures. The total value of impact-related resources in North America is estimated at US$18 billion per year. Many impact structures remain to be discovered and, as targets for resource exploration, their relatively invariant, but scale- dependent properties, may provide an aid to exploration strategies. Natural impact craters are the result of the reported that there were 17 known impact struc- hypervelocity impact of an asteroid or comet tures that have produced some form of with a planetary surface and involve the virtu- economic resources. This contribution repre- ally instantaneous transfer of the considerable sents an update of their review.
  • Terrestrial Impact Structures- a Bibliography 1965-68

    Terrestrial Impact Structures- a Bibliography 1965-68

    Terrestrial Impact Structures- A Bibliography 1965-68 By JACQUELYN H. FREEBERG GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1320 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1969 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director Library of Congress catalog-card No. 74-650225 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 30 cents paper cover CONTENTS Page Abstract--------------------------------------------------------- 1 Introduction______________________________________________________ 1 Seria~----------------------------------------------------------- 2 Bibliography______________________________________________________ 3· Distribution and general characteristics of impact structures_________ 3: Impact sites___________________________________________________ 12: Agnak Island Oraters _ _ __ _ __ _ __ __ _ __ __ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ 1Z Aouelloul Crater___________________________________________ 12 Arn Valley Craters________________________________________ 12 Barringer Crater__________________________________________ 12 Bass Strait_______________________________________________ 13 Boxhole Crater____________________________________________ 14 Brent Crater______________________________________________ 14 Butare Crater_______________________________________ ------ 14 Campo del Cielo Craters----------------------------------- 14 Carswell Lake structure _________________________ . _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ 15 Chassenon
  • BRIEF NOTE Evidence of Maximum Age of the Serpent

    BRIEF NOTE Evidence of Maximum Age of the Serpent

    OHIO JOURNAL OF SCIENCE K. A. MILAM AND OTHERS 53 BRIEF NOTE Evidence of Maximum Age of the Serpent Mound Impact Event from Shatter Cones Keith A. Milam1 and Chad Gabreski, Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, OH; Mark Baranoski, Ohio Department of Geological Survey, Columbus, OH; and David W. Miller, Clark State Community College, Springfield, OH OHIO J SCI 110 (3): 53-54, 2010 I nitial investigations of the 7-8 km diameter Serpent Mound by the presence of only Ordovician carbonate and shale bedrock impact crater, a complex crater formed exclusively in sedimentary in the core studied. rock in southwestern Ohio (39.0356° N, 83.4039° W), suggested At pressures >2-3 GPa, conical fractures characteristic of that the impact event occurred during the Early Mississippian – Late impact, known as shatter cones, form as target rock fails (e.g. Dietz Permian interval (Bucher 1933; Reidel 1975; Watts 2004; Schedl 1968; French 1998; Sagy and others 2002; Baratoux and Melosh 2006). Indications of a post-Mississippian event emerged after 2003). Only rock present at the time of impact will contain these geologic mapping (Bucher 1933; Reidel 1975; Reidel and others definitive macro-scale indicators of shock metamorphism. Shatter 1982) suggested that the Lower Mississippian Cuyahoga Formation cones were first discovered by Dietz (1960) in residual boulders in was the youngest geologic unit to have been deformed by the impact the central peak of the Serpent Mound crater. Others have since event. While Upper Devonian-Lower Mississippian strata appear observed them in Cambrian-Middle Silurian strata (Reidel 1975; to be displaced down below normal stratigraphic positions (Bucher Reidel and Koucky 1981; Reidel and others 1982; Baranoski and 1933; Reidel and others 1982), recent observations of new drill cores others 2003).