https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothe...
Could these be related?
>The hypothesis is widely rejected by relevant experts.[2][1][3][4] It is influenced by creationism [...] It is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction in, or shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor due to a sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America. [...] Authors have not yet responded to requests for clarification and have never made their raw data available
Is there a reason why the widely accepted explanation isn't satisfactory?
One possibility discussed in the publication is that the sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz was caused by the Perkins Louisiana impact.
The YD impact hypothesis is motivated by creationist thinking (hyperbolically ”god threw a stone at us to relieve mankind of ice”) and the idea has been thoroughly refuted.
Clinging to beliefs when there is ample evidence to the contrary is the very opposite of the scientific method.
That it was later a cause taken up by creationists is annoying, but it has no bearing on the scientific question (which is as yet unsettled).
Alaska - https://dx.doi.org/10.1086/695703
South Carolina - www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51552-8 (plus Article: https://theconversation.com/new-evidence-that-an-extraterres... )
Chile - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-38089-y
South Africa - https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2014.06.017
Syria - https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-60867-w
California, Channel Islands - https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.09.006
There is scientific evidence that the Younger Dryas event occurred, however, no universally accepted scientific study that conclusively proves WHAT caused it.
I think everyone knows the debate is around the 'event', which caused a 'period' of geologic history which is referred to as "Younger Dryas". I guess once the 'event' is known, it can be named something, like "The Younger Dryas Event".
What I'd like to know, is why just one event. There is this paper, and also the crater found in Greenland a couple years ago. Maybe there was a more general bombardment, not just a one-off smoking gone.
The current accepted theory is (from the gps wiki article)
"is an alternative to the long-standing and widely accepted explanation that the Younger Dryas was caused by a significant reduction in, or shutdown of the North Atlantic Conveyor due to a sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America."
Yes a thing happened. But theres no need for a smoking space gun.
I don't know if it was asteroid or not, that is why there is controversy.
How is "sudden influx of freshwater from Lake Agassiz and deglaciation in North America" not an event?
As to the derision on asteroids, not sure why, considering we find evidence of them everywhere. Why not consider it as an option.
Sorry if my memory is like everyone else's. When the Greenland Crater was found, there were 100's of articles linking it to Younger Dryas. It was dated later and discounted as being too old, that did NOT get 100's of articles, so was not widely known. I didn't realize it till this exchange.
”Process” or ”period” would make more sense when things are happening at those time scales.
I understand the point.
Just have had enough conversations with engineers about "is a micro second fast enough", "nothing is really happening, a whole second is plenty".
Time scales can make a lot of things look long or instant.
So by the time you look in geologic record, it is 10-100 of years of 'evidence'. And finding a single point event is difficult.A similar layer is suspiciously missing for the purported YD impact.
The Younger Dryas theory supporters is controversial across multiple disciplines because it challenges the idea that human progress has always been linear (gets better over time).
Some believe that ~13,000 years ago, humans were highly advanced, but a massive flood (Younger Dryas) wiped out & reset civilization.
Supporters of this theory often point to two things: nearly all major religions reference a great flood, and there’s a current lack of understanding how ancient megalithic sites were built with tools thought to be available at the time (primitive bronze tools, etc).
---
Unfortunately, it seems like folks from both sides of the topic talk-past each other ... and at least I haven't seen a balanced debate on the subject. If someone has seen a balanced assessment, please share.
What kind of "highly advanced"? Iron-age equivalent, industrial revolution, sci-fi with antigravity, ...?
One has to be careful interpreting craters in areas with permafrost. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201130-climate-change-t...
There's no link to anything religion wise with the Younger Dryas AFAIK.
My only experience studying it has come from the geological / astrophysics sides though.
I do agree the religious link is weird. The mere presence of a 12800 year timeline contradicts YEC. Then again, that kind of logic doesn't always stop pseudoscience people, especially the more conspiracy-flavored ones.
There are other creationists working on the timescale issue, attacking dating methods etc.
TBH if someone provided evidence of a flood, they would probably just publish bs suggesting the timescale is wrong and push out a bunch of YEC textbooks stating it as evidence of the biblical flood.
Second, if you think of an impact at an angle, the crater and its ridges form an ellipse. If its coming very flat, the structures might look rather parabolic, but still bent inwards. In the article, the north ridge is bent outwards. How? Questions over questions.
readthenotes1•7mo ago
"Son claims Dad was right all along"