The Case of the Missing Fulgurites (young earth)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 8-25-16 | Brian Thomas

[fishtank]

The Case of the Missing Fulgurites

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

Evidence for Creation

Fulgurites are fossilized lightning strikes. The intense energy from a lightning strike essentially melts the ground. Lightning strikes can fuse rock, clay, or sand into fulgurites shaped like irregular hollow glass tubes. Physicist Don DeYoung wrote in 2013 in the Creation Research Society Quarterly that after 4.6 billion years, at the current lightning strike rate, every square meter of land should contain far more fossilized lightning strikes than it can even hold.1 New fulgurite research updates the numbers to bring this fulgurite problem into sharper focus.

Two Florida geoscientists collected and measured over 250 recent and ancient fulgurites from Polk County, Florida.2 In the online journal Scientific Reports, they published a way to estimate a lightning strike's energy by the dimensions of the fulgurite it produces.3

[Vaquero]

Sounds like one of my old rants about this kind of HS.

I usually let it go. But my sciatica is acting up and felt like putting it all out there.😎👍

[Chasaway]

"...Aukum's Razor says erosion and poor math skills.."

You might take it easy criticizing someone's theory with "Aukum's Razor" unless you've maybe read up on Aukum and the Razor and understand it. I'd suggest you haven't or you wouldn't spell it that way.

Unless there is actually an "Aukum's Razor". In which case, you have my apologies.

[Tao Yin]

You got me. Poor spelling skills on a drive-by comment, but the article is a joke.

after 4.6 billion years, at the current lightning strike rate, every square meter of land should contain far more fossilized lightning strikes than it can even hold.

Hmm. This is pretty easy to criticize. If the model shows something that's impossible, then the model is wrong. Either poor math skills, or they didn't take erosion into account. I guess I was using the layman's formulation "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one".

[Chasaway]

"...This is pretty easy to criticize. If the model shows something that's impossible, then the model is wrong..."

Okay. So, I think they're agreeing that it's wrong. But, differing from you, I think they're saying maybe the 4.6 billion years is wrong.

I believe you're dismissive of their interpretation, but holding onto yours.

So a quick question: If you read the article, where are all of the fulgurites?

Erosion isn't a fabulous explanation either, you know. Many fulgurites form as deep as 30 to 50 feet below the surface. And if fulgurite creation happens as often as mentioned in the article, where'd all the glass/quartz go?

If you agree that one part of the equation is wrong, do you concede that it could be either part of the equation...or just the part you don't ascribe to?