How old is the Earth?!

quote:

---

quote:

---

"....if you head off to the thread on that topic you will find that the creationists ideas of how the great flood unfolded would have boiled the earth's surface."

---

​

Imo, nobody's proven this to be true.

---

In this case, your opinion is wrong. It has been mathematically proven. Now, if you have different parameters you want to evaluate, you should make them known here.

quote:

---

There's other theories to show that pre flood canopy would've created the perfect weather world wide.

---

But those are just theories, right? I'll bet they have not been proven. So why do you accept them?You might ask yourself just what it would take to 'prove' something that would convince you that the flood never happened. I'll bet further that there is nothing that would convince you.

Yes, Buz, they have. Perfectly good calculations backed by measurements of physical constants have been put forward. If you have a detailed set of calculations which shows this to be wrong I'd be interested in seeing them.If all you have are baseless assertions then you may carry on making them and casting all Christians in a bad light while doing so.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-27-2003]

Sorry, no, there aren't any such theories.Some people. e.g. Dr. Baugh, have asserted that a pre-flood canopy would've created the perfect weather world-wide. However, they all have "solved" the heat problem by ignoring it, and they have no evidence for their claims of "perfect weather". That's not a theory.As I said, Any proposal for the source of the water must include a calculation of the heat involved, and that calculation must be both performed and reviewed by experts, or the proposal is meaningless.See. for example, the ICR's SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES, in which they conclude that arbitrary and ad-hoc variation of many factors to maximize the water content of a vapor canopy just might, if you're a true believer, get enough water to cover the Earth to a depth of 2 meters (just over 6 feet) into a canopy without killing everything, and conclude that Dillow and Vardiman were flat-out wrong. Or Walter Brown's Scientific Arguments Opposing a Canopy.Glenn Morton has an interesting page on the history of the canopy idea at The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea.{edited to fix units conversion error}[This message has been edited by JonF, 11-28-2003]

Small technical correction.2 metres = just over 6 feet.

You're right.