Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 76 of 144 (507623)
05-06-2009 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by bluescat48
05-05-2009 2:56 PM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Hi bluescat48
But nowhere in the article doe it say or even imply that this was ever the case.
It doesn't have to say it occurred for it to be possible. The possibility that it could do so is sufficient to make the concept of a water vapor canopy unnecessary and irrelevant, and that is the crux of this thread: for creationists to show that is some kind of rational reason for making this conjectural construct, especially when it creates more problems while solving none.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by bluescat48, posted 05-05-2009 2:56 PM bluescat48 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 77 of 144 (507629)
05-06-2009 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Trev777
05-05-2009 5:27 PM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Hi Trev777, and welcome to the fray.
The pre-flood vapour canopy was created on day 2 of Creation when God divided the waters from the waters. Evolutionists will rubbish it as it plays havoc with their dating methods. This high temperature region is about 80 miles above the earth's surface. Russian astronauts discovered this in the fifties, and noted that this region would have been capable of holding superheated steam. This aqueous canopy encircled the early earth, which was a paradise for man , beast and plant. This canopy protected the earth from harmful radiation and greatly enhanced health by reducing mutation rates. The atmospheric pressure on earth was higher (hyperbaric), this would lower metabolic rates like breathing and heartbeat. The oxygen content was also higher than today, which was very beneficial to health, -(pre-flood fossil finds show air bubbles trapped in amber with an oxygen content of 30%.) The canopy would have given a uniformly temperate climate around the earth, there were no atmospheric ciculations like today, ie -no wind or rain , which is consistent with Scripture. There were no frozen Polar regions -(fossil finds have shown tropical plantlife existed once in these regions). There was no volcanic activity till after the flood when the earths crust was broken up, originally it was all one land mass.
Just in finishing -God made no pronouncement about the second day, i.e. He didn't call it good, -I guess He knew what He had created would be used to destroy the earth in the Flood.
And leave absolutely no evidence that any such flood occurred, while at the same time leaving behind undisturbed evidence of a continuous stream of life millions of years old.
Please note that this is a thread in the SCIENCE forum, and that one of the conditions of this thread is that one provide evidence to support any assertions.
In my opinion all you have here is a compilation of ad hoc concepts with no evidence to back it up.
The oxygen content was also higher than today, which was very beneficial to health, -(pre-flood fossil finds show air bubbles trapped in amber with an oxygen content of 30%.
Yes, and the level of oxygen has varied quite a bit in the present as well:
Oxygen and Air Pollution
quote:
Analysis of air bubbles trapped in fossils, such as in fossil amber, show that our air in earliest times contained about 35% oxygen. Today, the average oxygen content of our air is approximately 20%. In some larger, more polluted cities, oxygen content in the air has been measured at 12 - 15%. Anything less than 7% is not able to support human life.
The proportion of free oxygen in the atmosphere is related to the proportion of all other gases in the atmosphere -- including CO2, which has been rising since the time when the amber samples were made.
There was also a time in the past when there was very little free oxygen in the atmosphere, and the oxygen we have is due to life forms producing free oxygen from compounds, and they actually changed the ecology of the planet.
Great Oxidation Event - Wikipedia
quote:
The Oxygen Catastrophe was a massive environmental change believed to have happened during the Siderian period at the beginning of the Paleoproterozoic era of the Precambrian, about 2.4 billion years ago. It is also called the Oxygen Crisis, Oxygen Revolution, or The Great Oxidation.
This explanation proposes a system with two steady states, one with lower (0.02%) atmospheric oxygen content, and the other with higher (21% or more) oxygen content. The Great Oxidation can then be understood as a switch between lower and upper stable steady states.[4]
SO how does your model explain the time when there was 0.02% atmospheric oxygen? What were the health effects then?
Note: Fluid inclusion - Wikipedia
quote:
Trapped bubbles of air and water within fossil amber can be analyzed to provide direct evidence of the climate conditions existing when the resin or tree sap formed. The analysis of these trapped bubbles of air provides a record of atmosphere composition going back 140 million years. The data indicate that the oxygen content of the atmosphere reached a high of nearly 35% during the Cretaceous Period and then plummeted to near present levels during the early Tertiary [1]. The abrupt decline corresponds to or closely follows the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and may be the result of a major meteorite impact that created the Chicxulub Crater.
Thus there is no need to invoke a vapor barrier to get up to 35% oxygen in the atmosphere. As a result, the existence of 35% oxygen in the atmosphere in the past is not evidence that there ever was a vapor canopy.
This high temperature region is about 80 miles above the earth's surface. Russian astronauts discovered this in the fifties, and noted that this region would have been capable of holding superheated steam.
You do realize, don't you, that at this elevation there are very few molecules in a cubic volume of space compared to on earth, and that superheated steam would also be very expanded in volume. The problem you have then is not only to accumulate non-lethal water from such a zone, but to gather enough to make a significant dent on the earth's surface. A couple of inches of boiling water don't make much of a flood.
... which was a paradise for man , beast and plant. This canopy protected the earth from harmful radiation and greatly enhanced health by reducing mutation rates. The atmospheric pressure on earth was higher (hyperbaric), this would lower metabolic rates like breathing and heartbeat. The oxygen content was also higher than today, which was very beneficial to health, ...
Curiously, we don't see people making health spas to simulate these conditions ... any idea why?
The canopy would have given a uniformly temperate climate around the earth, there were no atmospheric ciculations like today, ie -no wind ...
How do you prevent this from happening? Do you realize that the expansion and contraction of the atmosphere from night to day and back to night would cause wind to blow constantly as the earth rotated? Do you realize that one of the major predictions of global warming is more frequent and more ferocious storms? Do you know what the surface wind is like on Venus?
Making up stuff does not make a concept valid. Making up more stuff to support a made up comment just gets silly. Perhaps this thread will make you think about your concepts a little more.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formating questions when in the reply window.
For other formating tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formated with the "peek" button next to it.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Trev777, posted 05-05-2009 5:27 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 144 (507630)
05-06-2009 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Theodoric
05-05-2009 6:04 PM


it burns .... oh how it burns
I would think at 30% atmospheric oxygen everything would be burning. Then again in your fantasy world there were no lightning bolts or volcanoes. Oh why did we have to have the fall, everything was so perfect back then.
see Alvarez hypothesis - Wikipedia
and Fluid inclusion - Wikipedia
It looks like 35% is possible. I don't think this is a point worth arguing, as there has been a clear trend from low oxygen content to high content, higher than today, before reducing to today's levels.
The problem for Trev777 is to explain the low levels along with the high levels in order to have an explanation consistent with ALL the evidence. Otherwise we're just dealing with confirmation bias and evidence cherry-picking.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : .

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Theodoric, posted 05-05-2009 6:04 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 79 of 144 (507631)
05-06-2009 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rahvin
05-05-2009 6:21 PM


canopy not a can o' peas
Hi Rahvin,
Well, gee golly, if we completely ignore everything we know about plate tectonics and geology, then there's enough water! Wowee!!
I note that this is not about the vapor canopy, nor the fountains of the deep.
I note, for the record, that it is possible for the amount of water on earth to cover the planet, and that arguing about the shape of the planet at the time, with people who claim the flood transformed the shape of the earth, is essentially a pointless head-banging exercise.
Additionally, I note that this god in theory involves a supernatural entity that makes the water part so Moses et al can cross the red sea, so making the water flow up and over the current surface of the earth would also be within his capabilities.
The problem is not the possibility of the water covering the earth, but the (lack of) evidence that it occurred.
The problem for Trev777 is that such a possibility renders the concept of the vapor canopy pointless.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rahvin, posted 05-05-2009 6:21 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 80 of 144 (507632)
05-06-2009 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Trev777
05-06-2009 5:12 PM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Hi Trev,
Huntard is correct. Here in the science threads we keep the discussion focused on evidence. You have already stated your position is that there was a vapor canopy and a global flood. Once you've stated your position, subsequent posts should begin offering supporting evidence, or rebutting the proffered counter-evidence.
Also, religious arguments that invoke God or the Bible are off-limits in the science threads.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Trev777, posted 05-06-2009 5:12 PM Trev777 has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 81 of 144 (507655)
05-07-2009 6:33 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Rahvin
05-06-2009 1:48 PM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Rahvin writes:
Unfortunately, as has been mentioned, the upper atmosphere is too sparse to actually contain much water - and the water molecules at that height are subjected to high-energy particles that "crack" H2O into bare Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.
is it possible that the water vapor existed in the form of Hydrogen and Oxygen gas?
Rahvin writes:
But more importantly, we've already established that there is insufficient water on the Earth to account for a global Flood. If there were such a canopy, and there were such a Flood - where did the water go?
There is more earth below sea level then there is above it. So couldnt the water still be here on earth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Rahvin, posted 05-06-2009 1:48 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 05-07-2009 8:35 AM Peg has replied
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 05-07-2009 9:17 AM Peg has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 82 of 144 (507662)
05-07-2009 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:33 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Peg writes:
There is more earth below sea level then there is above it. So couldn't the water still be here on earth?
What you're really asking is, "Is it impossible that there is water for which we have no evidence still here on Earth that is the water of the flood for which we also have no evidence?"
You may as well ask, "Is it impossible that there is a fire-breathing dragon for which we have no evidence that was responsible for the conflagration at Sodom and Gomorrah for which we also have no evidence?"
Or, "Is it impossible that there is a Middle Earth for which we have no evidence in which lived the hobbits for which we also have no evidence?"
In other words, you're asking us if we can prove something impossible. In most cases what's impossible is proving something impossible. As soon as the probability is non-zero, it's possible.
When you're doing science, this is the wrong way to ask questions. Science investigates phenomena for which we have evidence. So when you ask:
is it possible that the water vapor existed in the form of Hydrogen and Oxygen gas?
Then the short answer has to be, "It's possible."
But the long answer is, "The flood for which you have no evidence could have been caused by a massive influx of water for which you have no evidence that came from a vapor canopy for which you have no evidence that was actually in the form of hydrogen and oxygen for which you have no evidence."
How deeply do you want to construct a chain of events for which you have no evidence, Peg?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:33 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:30 AM Percy has replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 83 of 144 (507667)
05-07-2009 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:33 AM


Up, Up, and Away
is it possible that the water vapor existed in the form of Hydrogen and Oxygen gas?
No. The gasses of the thermosphere are so tenuous and any separated hydrogen is so kinetically energetic there is nearly nothing to stop it from being lost to space; hence, there is nearly none available for recombination. This goes without mentioning, again, that the thermosphere is so tenuous that if the entire 900 mile thickness were compressed to STP it would fill a layer an inch* deep.
If you wish to imagine these gasses were lower down in the atmosphere you may want to consider that recombination itself often proves to be problematic.
God making water
*Hyperbole used to make the point: not a true statement of fact.
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:33 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:41 AM lyx2no has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 84 of 144 (507772)
05-08-2009 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
05-07-2009 8:35 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Percy writes:
In other words, you're asking us if we can prove something impossible.
its not impossible to know how much land is beneath the seas.
quote:
The features of continental landscapes are mirrored by similar features on the ocean basins. Plateaus, plains, valleys, rolling hills, and volcanic cones and mountains are found beneath the waters of the oceans, just as they are on dry land. Yet the largest underwater mountains are higher than those on the continents, and underwater plains are flatter and more extensive than their dry counterparts. These "oceanscapes," at one time unseen and unknown, may resemble familiar landscapes, but on a much grander scale.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.scienceclarified.com/landforms/Ocean-Basins-to-Volcanoes/Ocean-Basin.html
Science has revealed that there IS much more land beneath the seas then there is above it.
The water must have come from somewhere. Oxygen and Hydrogen dont just mix together to become water...it takes vasts amounts of energy to create water...so much energy that scientists cannot produce enough energy to create water from the two gasses according to my husband who happens to be one of you evc science ppl.
So if science is going to assume that it just exists, then its no different to be accepting that God created it and put it there.
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 05-07-2009 8:35 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by anglagard, posted 05-08-2009 1:20 AM Peg has replied
 Message 89 by PaulK, posted 05-08-2009 1:31 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 97 by Percy, posted 05-08-2009 8:37 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 05-08-2009 4:48 PM Peg has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 85 of 144 (507774)
05-08-2009 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by lyx2no
05-07-2009 9:17 AM


Re: Up, Up, and Away
lyx2no writes:
The gasses of the thermosphere are so tenuous and any separated hydrogen is so kinetically energetic there is nearly nothing to stop it from being lost to space
Jupiter and Saturn both have a thick atmosphere composed of mostly hydrogen and helium....why dont these gasses get lost in space?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by lyx2no, posted 05-07-2009 9:17 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by anglagard, posted 05-08-2009 1:13 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 88 by lyx2no, posted 05-08-2009 1:28 AM Peg has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 86 of 144 (507776)
05-08-2009 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Peg
05-08-2009 12:41 AM


Re: Up, Up, and Away
Peg writes:
Jupiter and Saturn both have a thick atmosphere composed of mostly hydrogen and helium....why dont these gasses get lost in space?
Oh for Christ's sake! It is because they have much greater mass and therefore much greater gravitational pull.
Please check out a book on physics at the nearest public library and read it. I suggest starting with the 'Easy' section meant for grade schoolers.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:41 AM Peg has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 87 of 144 (507777)
05-08-2009 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peg
05-08-2009 12:30 AM


Troll Alert?
Peg writes:
Oxygen and Hydrogen dont just mix together to become water...it takes vasts amounts of energy to create water...so much energy that scientists cannot produce enough energy to create water from the two gasses according to my husband who happens to be one of you evc science ppl.
Put hydrogen and oxygen together in an airtight bottle, use the tremendous energy required to light a match, uncork bottle.
This reaction does not require a lot of energy, but I'll bet you would see it sure does produce a lot of energy, provided you survived the explosion of course. {ABE} Didn't you see that Hindenburg film in grade school like everyone else? Or at least in Lyx2no's post?
Are you a troll or something? This is getting ridiculous.
Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
Edited by anglagard, : appropriate title

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:30 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 2:05 AM anglagard has not replied

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 88 of 144 (507778)
05-08-2009 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Peg
05-08-2009 12:41 AM


Re: Up, Up, and Away
Jupiter and Saturn both have a thick atmosphere composed of mostly hydrogen and helium....why dont these gasses get lost in space?
  1. They do get lost to space.
  2. They have more of it to lose.
  3. They are much farther from the Sun and consequent solar wind reducing the loss.
  4. They both have much deeper gravitational wells slowing the loss.
It is the Earth you must contend with, Peg. Is there any reasonable atmospheric source for the requisite 6108 cubic miles of water needed for a flood to cover all the world? For a minuscule fraction of it? No, Peg, there isn't.
The only source for the water would be a miracle. And miracles are not subject to cause and effect, and need leave no evidence of their happening. That may be the reason that God had to tell us about it instead of there being plentiful evidence that we might see for ourselves.
The π sky
Edited by lyx2no, : Edit Pie in the sky.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:41 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 2:15 AM lyx2no has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 89 of 144 (507779)
05-08-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Peg
05-08-2009 12:30 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
quote:
The water must have come from somewhere. Oxygen and Hydrogen dont just mix together to become water...it takes vasts amounts of energy to create water...so much energy that scientists cannot produce enough energy to create water from the two gasses according to my husband who happens to be one of you evc science ppl.
If your husband really said that he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. Hydrogen is highly inflammable. And burning IS turning hydrogen and oxygen into water. It takes a little energy to get it started - and releases a whole lot more.
quote:
So if science is going to assume that it just exists, then its no different to be accepting that God created it and put it there.
Science doesn't assume that it just exists. And even if it did it would be different from assuming that there is more than actually exists !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 12:30 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 90 of 144 (507782)
05-08-2009 2:05 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by anglagard
05-08-2009 1:20 AM


Re: Troll Alert?
anglagard writes:
This reaction does not require a lot of energy, but I'll bet you would see it sure does produce a lot of energy, provided you survived the explosion of course.
you're right
this is getting ridiculous! Such water shortages on earth and scientists can readily make water
why arent they doing that??? Did someone not say the magic word?
Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by anglagard, posted 05-08-2009 1:20 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-08-2009 2:57 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 94 by Son, posted 05-08-2009 3:38 AM Peg has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024