Moontanman

I am God....

You seem to be equating belief with faith, I do not need faith to believe a theory that is supported by verifiable facts. To believe in something that is verifiable by observable and repeatable evidence is not the same as faith. Like the word theory, which hold different meanings in different contexts, in the context of belief with no evidence i hold no such beliefs. I do not believe anything that cannot be verified, if how ever you are talking about things i believe in do to faith then I hold no beliefs...

Awesome craftsmanship....

You are correct Appolinaria but I still question the actual depth, I bet 4000 meters is a typo of sorts...

Hey anyone want to see me nekked?... no wait I'm not a woman... but I'll get a moontan in a heart beat....

I never said that oval craters were impossible or didn't happen but they are rare but the main thing you have to answer about the Carolina Bays is why there is no evidence of any impact at the sites, their ages are around 100,000 years old not a few thousand and there is no shocked quartz or any other mineral, no evidence of any extraterrestrial material associated with the bays, core samples do not indicate they were once deeper and filed with sediment. You show all the triangulation in the world but the fact remains there is no evidence they were caused by impacts, none, shape alone does not a crater make and incredulity about aeolian and water explainations do not make them invalid. I had to go no further than wiki to find the explanation that was given me by local experts who have studied this stuff most of their lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay Theories of Origin More than a dozen bays are shown in this photo in southeastern North Carolina. Several are cleared and drained for farming. Theories of the origin of the Carolina bays fall into two major categories: that these features were created by forces within the Earth, or that they were gouged by an astronomical event or set of events. [edit]Geomorphology Various geomorphological theories have been proposed to account for the bays, including action of sea currents when the area was under the ocean or the upwelling of ground water at a later time. One major theory within the earth sciences academic community is that a combination of processes created the shapes and orientations of these ancient landforms, including climate change, the formation of siliclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these depressions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes. Various proposals that they were either directly or indirectly created by a meteorite shower or exploding comet are disputed by many scientists for an apparent lack of extraterrestrial material, absence of shocked quartz and "bedrock" deformation associated with larger bays, and extremely low ratio of depth to diameter of the larger bays. More information on these theories can be found at: Carolina Bays. Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists argue that the peculiar features of Carolina bays can be readily explained by known terrestrial processes and repeated modification by eolian and lacustrine processes of them over the past 70,000 to 100,000 years. [2]. Also, quaternary geologists and geomorphologists believe to have found a correspondence in time between when the active modification of the rims of Carolina bays most commonly occurred and when adjacent sand dunes were active during the Wisconsin glaciation between 15,000 and 40,000 years and 70,000 to 80,000 years BP [3]. In addition, quaternary geologists and geomorphologists have repeatedly found that the orientations of the Carolina bays are consistent with the wind patterns which existed during the Wisconsin glaciation as reconstructed from Pleistocene parabolic dunes, a time when the shape of the Carolina bays was being modified [4]. [edit]Impact event The cometary impact theory of the origin of the bays was popular among earth scientists of the 1930s and 40s. It said that they were the result of a low density comet exploding above or impacting with the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago.[1] New hypotheses arose again in the 1980s and 1990s, spurred on by various attention to impacts such as the Tunguska event, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and a theorized link to the unsolved scientific mystery of the Younger Dryas event. Impact geologists determined the depressions are too shallow to be impact features. Reports of magnetic anomalies turned out not to show consistency across the sites. There were no meteorite fragments or impact crater geologic structures. None of the necessary evidence for an impact was found. The conclusion was to reject the impact theory at the Carolina bays.[2] And no, wiki is not my only source of information but this particular article was concise and to the point, here is another... http://www.georgehoward.net/cbays.htm Yes I agree that meteor impacts have probably had more influence on the Earth than we give them credit for but every impression in the ground is not a meteorite crater.... An impact that would generate so many craters should have had profound impact on the climate of the day and you are postulating that such oval impact craters were made by more than one impact? While oval craters are occasionally found 100,000's of thousands of them in a small area from more than one impact seems a bit of a stretch to me... especially when more likely causes are logically possible... and again, there is no evidence of impact at any of the bays, even the ones that are miles across....

I never said that oval craters were impossible or didn't happen but they are rare but the main thing you have to answer about the Carolina Bays is why there is no evidence of any impact at the sites, their ages are around 100,000 years old not a few thousand and there is no shocked quartz or any other mineral, no evidence of any extraterrestrial material associated with the bays, core samples do not indicate they were once deeper and filed with sediment. You show all the triangulation in the world but the fact remains there is no evidence they were caused by impacts, none, shape alone does not a crater make and incredulity about aeolian and water explainations do not make them invalid. I had to go no further than wiki to find the explanation that was given me by local experts who have studied this stuff most of their lives. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay Theories of Origin More than a dozen bays are shown in this photo in southeastern North Carolina. Several are cleared and drained for farming. Theories of the origin of the Carolina bays fall into two major categories: that these features were created by forces within the Earth, or that they were gouged by an astronomical event or set of events. [edit]Geomorphology Various geomorphological theories have been proposed to account for the bays, including action of sea currents when the area was under the ocean or the upwelling of ground water at a later time. One major theory within the earth sciences academic community is that a combination of processes created the shapes and orientations of these ancient landforms, including climate change, the formation of siliclastic karst by solution of subsurface material during glacial sealevel lowstands and later modification of these depressions by periodic eolian and lacustrine processes. Various proposals that they were either directly or indirectly created by a meteorite shower or exploding comet are disputed by many scientists for an apparent lack of extraterrestrial material, absence of shocked quartz and "bedrock" deformation associated with larger bays, and extremely low ratio of depth to diameter of the larger bays. More information on these theories can be found at: Carolina Bays. Quaternary geologists and geomorphologists argue that the peculiar features of Carolina bays can be readily explained by known terrestrial processes and repeated modification by eolian and lacustrine processes of them over the past 70,000 to 100,000 years. [2]. Also, quaternary geologists and geomorphologists believe to have found a correspondence in time between when the active modification of the rims of Carolina bays most commonly occurred and when adjacent sand dunes were active during the Wisconsin glaciation between 15,000 and 40,000 years and 70,000 to 80,000 years BP [3]. In addition, quaternary geologists and geomorphologists have repeatedly found that the orientations of the Carolina bays are consistent with the wind patterns which existed during the Wisconsin glaciation as reconstructed from Pleistocene parabolic dunes, a time when the shape of the Carolina bays was being modified [4]. [edit]Impact event The cometary impact theory of the origin of the bays was popular among earth scientists of the 1930s and 40s. It said that they were the result of a low density comet exploding above or impacting with the Laurentide ice sheet about 12,900 years ago.[1] New hypotheses arose again in the 1980s and 1990s, spurred on by various attention to impacts such as the Tunguska event, Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event and a theorized link to the unsolved scientific mystery of the Younger Dryas event. Impact geologists determined the depressions are too shallow to be impact features. Reports of magnetic anomalies turned out not to show consistency across the sites. There were no meteorite fragments or impact crater geologic structures. None of the necessary evidence for an impact was found. The conclusion was to reject the impact theory at the Carolina bays.[2]

How can the Idea of impact forming them be obvious as the nose on your face when none of the data supports the idea of impacts, there is no shocked quartz, many of the bays are of different ages, and a natural method formation has been worked out and it doesn't involve impacts, do you only read that which agrees with you? On top of that oval craters are quite rare, even coming in at an extreme angle usually makes a round crater, we are not talking about bullets here, these impacts would been hugely energetic and when the ice chucks hit they would be balls of hot plasma not chunks of cold ice....

So even though I easily found information that debunks the impact theory completely you are gonna go with an impact anyway? There is no evidence for impact event The bays are of differing ages and show sign of being gradually formed over time They are not as accurately placed as many would have you believe All I had to do was go to wiki and see the very things that people here who actually study these thing have demonstrated to be true.... have told me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay

I'd think you'd have to go a bit deeper than 4000 meters in most places to get 100c temps but I wonder if there is an error about the depth and maybe an extra few zeros were added to the miles measurement?? I messed up. 4000 meters would be 2.4 miles.... I can't even get my measurements right.... but 4000 meters still seems quite deep....

In the USA probably never...

Another thread would be a good idea and i'll see if I can come up with anything to support my assertion other than an old memory... Bold is mine, this is what I was told.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolina_Bay

John, I honestly don't know the details, I've had it explained to me many many years ago by a geologist and a oceanographer, actually over the years more than 3 or 4 of them as a matter of fact. The mail deal is that no evidence of meteor impact at the sites and the fact that many of them point in odd directions and that an actual impact is highly unlikely to leave a oval crater much less many of them, some in odd directions, all in the same place. The deal with the currents didn't stick all that well in my memory but I have dived in the ones that are full of water and they all (the ones I've dived in anyway) have springs issuing from the bottom and there is no fractured rock strata associated with them...

Mediocre videos? Surely you jest....

John, I live among the Carolina Bays, I also know scientists who study them (not personally but I have met some) very few if any real geologists think the Carolina Bays were formed by meteorite impacts, most think the bays were formed underwater by currents in a shallow sea, there is no evidence of impact forming those bays....

Any new species would probably be microscopic, such a "river" would actually be flowing through sand gravel and porous rocks, it would not be a cave like channel beneath the surface river. There are other such "rivers" that flow underground that have little or no association with surface rivers. This does not mean there are no under ground channels or areas where water flows through the ground but for the most part these water flows go slowly through porous materials not an open cave like channel...

Dekan, I truly hope you are just trolling, I've waited to respond to this due to the emotional response it invoked in me. I've had dogs most of my life and several cats as well. Several times I've seen dogs exhibit behavior that indicated a high degree of intelligence by doing things they had never been taught in situations that were completely new and by making the correct decision in that situation. One dog went to get help for me when as a kid I was caught in a sink hole. The little dog, who everyone thought was dumb as a stump, actually traveled a distance of a mile or so and actually herded a stranger to the place I was at so she could help me. Now you can call that a belly with four legs if you want but I see it as actual intelligence. Another dog came and got me when the hot water heater had malfunctioned and was spewing natural gas and steam into the house. If he hadn't come and got me and literally dragged me to the problem the entire house might have exploded. This last dog was... a basset hound, the dogs most people think of as totally stupid. On top of coming and getting me he had to resist the urge to flee from a very loud and strange situation that even most humans would have simply run from, the hot water heater spewing steam and and natural gas must have been terrifying to him but he came and got me and did his best to drag me away from the danger. ( I know it sounds like an episode of Lassie ) Dogs, and cats as well, have tremendous amounts of real intelligence even when measured by our own prejudiced standards..... I still have the the dog who went against all his natural instincts to brave the noise, steam, and natural gas to come and get me, he is very smart, if a bit self centered in most things but he is not a belly on four legs..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgjyhKN_35g

So you were simply proselytizing? You failed to offer any evidence for the existence of any gods much less any specific god then you assume we were are looking for god?

The idea that the big bang came from nothing is really a straw man often constructed to show how science is no better than religion at "knowing" where everything came from but in reality science doesn't say the universe came into being ex nihilo, science just says what happened after the expansion of space and time, we do not really know what happened before, it's possible we will never know for sure, still doesn't mean god did it....I'd like to add i have nothing against someone believing, in what ever god or philosophy he wants as long as it doesn't require he interfere with other people rights, sadly as we know religion isn't exactly the main champion of humans rights. I believe that even moderate religions bear some of the blame for the extremists, on some level the moderates lack of any self policing leads to extremism, there are always going to be people who need belief in their lives but what you believe to be true should never be asserted as actually being demonstrably true. belief does not equal knowledge... But yeah i understand about the absolutes....

Ummm No.... Why is god the simplest answer? Yes, "there are no gods" is both eloquent, the simplest, the most honest answer, it is also the default position, any other position on the existence of god requires observable evidence and for the positive assertion of the idea of any god much less any specific god there is none... How so? There is no evidence for any spiritual existence and science explains the existence of morals with out god quite well....

Nothing can not exist....

My mistake then, i apologize for the miscommunication. I saw someplace the idea of liquid neon being a solvent for extreme life. I've been going through books like crazy to find it again, I thought it was in "Rare Earth" but evidently not.

Again, somehow, we are not connecting, water will dissolve silica, quartz, silicon dioxide, this material's melting point is far higher than water's melting point , even higher by a considerable margin, than the temperature difference between ice and liquid neon. You may have a point about the chemical inertness of neon but I don't see how the the temperature difference in the liquid neon and liquid water is relevant.

Animals other than humans change their environment to suit them instead of the other way around. Beavers, ants, and termites come to mind.... oh yeah, elephants...

I think the second part of your argument is invalid, first of all I did not say "melt water ice" secondly water, especially super critical water, but really any water, will dissolve silica, and the "melting point of silica is far higher than the temps of liquid water but still it dissolves...