Old Earth Flood Geology

Can you spot the contridiction? (they are in bold)At any rate there are three modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation.In space or "above the atmosphere", radiation is the mode of heat transfer. Radiation is rate proportional to the 4th power of the temperature difference between two bodies. The effective temperature of space looking away from the sun is only a few degrees above absolute zero. Therefore if you have a water canopy at terrestrial temperatures you have hundreds of degrees differential - and a very large heat transfer rate.

I agree that the effective temperature of space looking away from the sun is only a few degrees above absolute zero.Given ultra-violet radiation passes thru water vapor on the sunny side of the earth this super cooled water vapor is not reheated on the sunny side of the earth.The space stations have heat exchangers which is able to absorb the ultraviolet rays, not so in respect to the water vapor in space.

When you look at the fossil sizes in the fossil record you find some excessive size insects, in fact all the fossils were once much bigger than today Why? One answer creationists give is water vapor existed above the atmosphere pressing down on the atmosphere allowing insects to grow much larger.The size of insects is based on exoskeleton pore sizes(how its able to breathe). With more Co2 in the atmosphere you had more oxygen generation from the plants. Plants too in the fossil record grew much larger is believed by some creationists due to their ability to absorb more Co2 from the atmosphere. The creationists water canopy is a viable scientific agreeable way to pressurize the atmosphere to explain how come insects, plants were able to reach such large sizes not possible with present atmospheric pressures.With more Co2 you have more oxygen being produced producing more ozone to help shield the earth from excessive radiation.With alternative energies you simply are not giving anything back to the environment. The plants need Co2 to generate Oxygen Co2 has nothing to due in respect to global warming. Well .28 of a percent of the total global warming gases is from all man made contributions is so near nothing that the global warming senerio is nothing but a scam to tax Co2 emissions to generate a new tax, it has nothing to do with science. It makes more sense that the trenches were sucked down as the mid-ocean ridges rose. The mid-ocean ridges are made of basalt it will not get more dense over time.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

are we getting anywhere? I'm thinking not.The water canopy is not responsible for larger insects. You are right that insects in the past have been larger. The largest one on record is a scorpion that lived in water--don't remember name or time, just that it was in the earliest days of large multicellular organisms.Insects get bigger with more oxygen. During the carboniferous period, the oxygen content of the atmoshpere was at around 40%, not todays 25ish%. the only way this statement can be true is if you had more photosynthesis occurring. Fortunately, this period is warm--tropical in many places (more so than today), allowing for greater plant growth. However, the organism most responsible for photosynthesis is not a land plant, rather, it is algea. Most oxygen comes from algae.
Size is not dependent upon pressure. if it did affect size, we would see a decrease in size. Why? At sea level, every living thing today experiences 14.7 lbs. per square inch of pressure. What happens when you apply pressure to a sleeping bag? You force it into a smaller volume. Not a larger volume. Ironically, the biome with the largest known single animal--the ocean and the blue whale (which can weigh in at over 200 tons)--has the highest pressure. This whale, by definition, lives in a place with greater pressure than you will find anywhere on earth today. umm, actually, lightning is one of the natural processes for making ozone, which is O3. the amount of CO2 really has nothing to do with the amount of oxygen or ozone. Why? Think about it--the atmoshpere today contains less than 1% CO2, and over 20% oxygen. If you have more CO2, it will not greatly affect the amount of O2. Also, you never explained how a water canopy creates more CO2.Also, leave out global warming in this thread--it's not the topic. Or at least, your conspiracy theories about global warming. both statements here are false. First off, a density lessen with rocks. As rocks cool, they get more dense. why? they contract. A hot rock takes up more space than a cool rock. If object A has the same mass as object B, but has less volume, it will be more dense than B. This is what is happening with oceanic crust. Basalt is quite dense, but when heated to the extremes it is when it comes out in the oceanic ridges, it is much less dense than cooled basalt, becuase it has greater volume. The oceanic ridges also rise for the same reason that volcanic islands appear--each release of magma increases the height of the ridge. If not for the fact that ridges are pulled apart, they would appear above sea level.As to the trenches, perhaps a picture is best to explain. They are not the result of the boundary between two plates being sucked in. Rather, they are the result of the boundary being pushed down. take a look at the pictures in the left column.
http://www.extremescience.com/PlateTectonicsmap.htm
you are only right in the sense that trenches are the logical conlcusion of spreading zones. The earth ain't getting any bigger, so if there's new crust being made, what's happening? Old crust is being pushed into the earth. I might add that this would happen regardless of the existence of water or the amount of water.one last note--there is no suction force in the mantle.

The fossils are decreasing in size over time! Has anyone called the natural history museums? I think you mean that creatures in the past were larger than today.Has anyone informed those Blue Whales Kuresu brought up?Actually, even if confined to just dinosaurs, there were many small examples, they just don't sell movies as well as the larger ones.Do you have evidence that the one-celled creatures that make up the majority of life then and now were larger in the past?Edited by anglagard, : clarityEdited by anglagard, : spelin

You mean kankaroos can survive on these floating mats of vegetation for a year?

---

AKA G.A.S.B.Y.George Absolutely Stupid Bush the Younger

Of course the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum, all that energy from the sun other than ultraviolet, had no effect on this purported vapor canopy.Physics 101 anyone?It not only covers light, it also covers gravity. You should give it some unbiased attention someday.

How about this? If a canopy were originally created over the universe at the time of creation, would it not have been arranged in an unknown manner?According to the Genesis record the light came before the sun via the working of the Holy Spirit, God's creative agent. The record also states that after light, the waters separated to create the atmosphere. Likely sufficient heat accompanied the pre-sun light to cause massive evaporation so as to effect this division of the earth waters from the waters above.We know that heat causes elements to rise. Perhaps sufficient heat was exerted so as to raise the atmosphere to a far greater height than we observe, dispersing the water molecules, creating a very large but thin atmosphere the higher the mass rose.If the desired global heat retaining terrarium atmosphere which would be the perfect temperature globally uniform, the over all agregate global temperature would be much warmer than we observe today, the poles being the same temp as the equator. This heat would work to hold the atmosphere to greater heights than we observe, having an overal imensly wider circumference at the outer edge and being far less dense than what would exist post flood.Do you follow what I'm suggesting as a possible remedy for the heat factor?Perhaps also the earth/sun distance was adjusted to effect the condensing of a canopy resulting in global flood.Abe: I forgot to add that the higher the atmosphere the less the gravity (abe: effect), thus the less dense atmosphere effecting less atmospheric pressure and heat extending to earth. Edited by Buzsaw, : Add statement.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : spell error

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

first problem: to get down to earth, this water now has to travel from the furthest reaches of the universe--and their is a lot of shit inbetween the outermost edge and the earth for the water to get stuck in. Never mind that the earth doesn't have a great enough gravitational attraction to get this water back from the edge of the universe.second problem: then why didn't the earth rise? try this--gaseous mass rises when heated. I can heat my desk all I want, but it ain't gonna rise until its so hot that the elements making it up take on the properties of gas.third problem: gases mix evenly. Also, at the height you would need, the water molecules would be freezing--and thus, sink. why do you think rain happens? water molecules freeze in the atmosphere at a specific height, due to lower temp of air. remember, most of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. when it finds a piece of dust, it coalesces with others and is to heavy to remain in the air. you'd have a very similar effect. As this canopy is rising, it will get cold. it will begin to sink to begin with, and assuming their is dust in the air (it never says when wind is created, but obvioulsy there was) it will eventually rain. this is also assuming that this canopy is actually over the earth and not the whole universe. you're going to get rain, but a hell of a lot earlier than when the flood supposedly took place.fourth problem: I'm assuming that we have the sun or shortly will. If so, the amount of sunlight each region recieves will determine warmth. the Poles will still be colder than the equatorial regions. period. no ifs, ands, or buts. regardless of any greenhouse gases in the atmoshpere.fifth problem: we wouldn't observe a higher atmosphere. Why? Because it is the temp of the individual gases (each atom that is in gaseous state) that determines whether it rises or sinks. The warmth of the earth is the warmth of the atmoshpere. If you raise it above the earth, you're going to get quite cold underneath--soil ain't exactly the greatest at retaining warmth, especially when you have stuff growing on it. Another thing, you're now conflating the canopy with the atmoshpere. you want the canopy to be higher, not the atmoshpere. Otherwise, how else will we get oxygen, so critical to our life? Finally, even at, say, 212 degrees F you won't cause any gas in the atmosphere to rise much higher than the current limits of the atmosphere.(one last thing--the earth has been quite a lot warmer before, such as when the ocean was at 40 degrees celcius (i want to say mesezoic, but . . .). I'm confident in saying that the atmosphere still touched the ground, because there were a bunch of microscopic and micro macroscopic organisms that still lived. Also, for those animals depending on gills or blowholes, you have to have the atmosphere touching the water. why? there's this law, forgot the name, that states that the amount of dissolved gas is proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in the atmosphere. You remove the atmosphere, you remove partial pressure, you remove dissolved gases. gills no longer function. As to the blowholes, they don't have a way of getting to the oxygen at its higher level effectively to survive for long.)sixth problem: wow. just wow. okay. first off you will still have an atmosphere touching the earth. you'll still experience the same pressure at seal level. while at Virginia Beach, I'll experience 14.7 lbs per sq. inch. In Denver, its slightly less. reason? The pressure is the cumulative effect of all the gas atoms in that square inch from where I'm standing to the outermost reaches of the atmosphere. so there won't be less pressure (unless you remove the total amount of atmosphere, which I don't think you are aiming for, here).
second off, the amount of gas present has little to do with initial warmth on earth. We get our heat from radiation transfer of heat--that light from the sun is transferring heat by radiation (not the same type of radiation as from nuclear powerplants, though similar). The heat is reflected of the surface, and trapped by greenhouse gases, for the most part. so pressure doesn't affect heat, at least, in a direct manner. The heat trapped by these gases is transferred by the other methods of heat transfer--convection and conduction. You move that atmosphere from the surface, you end up making the surface quite cold.biggest two problems: universe canopy, when you want an earth canopy, and conflating the canopy with atmosphere.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

More Co2 taken in the more oxygen is produced in agreement with the higher oxygen content in the carboniferous period. If the atmosphere was pressurized by a water vapor canopy above the atmosphere then less Co2 would be needed to produce the 40 % oxygen in the carboniferous period.Water vapor above the atmosphere is not a liquid so the creationists belief in a water vapor canopy is not unscientific. More pressure more oxygen taken in, the bigger the insect is able to grow. I'll agree basalt is after it cooled is more dense, but the spreading of the plate can be explained that the tecktonic plates are floating not pressing under the continents. Its more likely that the plates crushed under the continents than slid under the continents causing the uprising of the mountains on the continents.Then when the mid-ocean ridges rose you had pressures pressing under the ocean tecktonic plates. The basalt mid-ocean ridges released the pressures inward so the trenches explained by some creationists explain were sucked inward as the basalt 45,000 miles of mid-ocean ridges balloned outwards.If the creationists are right then the continents crushed the tecktonic plates so the tecktonic plates are actually floating pressing toward the trenches slowly away from the mid-ocean ridges and toward the trenches(centimeters per year).It simply doesn't make too much sense that the plates are subducting under the continental masses its more believable that they crushed under the continental masses.Atmospheric pressures would have helped drive this subduction from the trenches to the mid-ocean ridges if the plates crushed not slipped under the continent masses. The pressures by the rising mid- ocean ridges would develop an internal pressure the atmosphere would help the trenches press inward because of internal pressures, etc... If the mantle is being sucked inward then its not only the old crust being pushed into the earth. Edited by Charley, : No reason given.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

I'll deal with this shortly. First, dinner. then its time for the slaughter house. I never claimed this. Nor does anyone who has taken an intro to geology or has a passing interest. here's a pic of the tectonic plates on earth.
http://www.uwsp.edu/...ulty/ozsvath/images/plates%20copy.jpg
you can clearly see the continents in this picture. Where you have continents, you have continental crust. where you have ocean, you have oceanic crust. Both types make up tectonic plates. spreading of the plates can only be explained when you have a mechanism, and the evidence for this mechanism, for the spreading of a plate. We know that Europe and the US are getting further apart. This spreading is explained by the mid-atlantic ridge, which is continuously adding to the crust.Question? If you spread the plates on a sphere, won't some collide?
Answer? Yes. Reason? the Earth isn't increasing in diameter. It stays the same. That means, while the Atlantic Ocean is growing, somewhere else must be shrinking. How does the shrink happen? the Collision between two plates. If the leading edge of the colliding plates are made of continental crust, you can make some pretty impressive mountains, ala Everest. Everest is growing in size everyear, because india is shrinking. If you look at the picture
(PHSchool.com Retirement—Prentice Hall—Savvas Learning Company)
, you'll notice that the India plate is running into the Eurasian plate. Granted, Everest ain't getting much taller due to erosion.Where you have an oceanic crust meating with continental crust, such as with the Nazca plate (oceanic crust on leading edge) and the South American plate (continental crust on leading edge), the oceanic crust is pushed down.Why? Density. What floats higher, less or more dense objects? Naturally, less dense objects. Continental crust has a cumulative density lower than that of oceanic crust. This means its sitting higher to begin with. When the two meet, which will slide on top of the other? Continental. This process creates mountains and volcanoes on the side of plate floating above the sunken plate. Hence, you have the impressive Andes mountains and many volcanoes.These collisions are called convergent boundaries, because they are "coming together". The topogrpahical feature of such a boundary is a trench. Some very steep, like the Marianas, and some shallow (in terms of angle), like the one of the west coast of South America.It is important to note that convergent boundaries are responsible for spreading, often causing the oceanic ridges. this is pure baloney. not to be confused with the sandwich meat, which itself is a fake meat, if you ask me. where are the herds of bologne? now to the serious stuff.how can the ballooning of something release pressure inward? that statement there destroys your argument. the formation of trenches has been explained above--caused by convergent boundaries. The oceanic ridges really didn't balloon outward. They rest higher naturally than cooled oceanic crust, thanks to a lower density. However, the ridge itself is basically a volcanoe chain. It builds up just like volcanoes. The only difference, is that it does this not as a single mountain, but as a chain. That is why it actually they are as high as they are.
here's a good diagram:
http://maps.unomaha.edu/Maher/geo117/part3/ridge.jpeg
notice that they don't really sit that much higher. definitely not enough to cause any suction force. nevermind that your idea as to the formation of trenches is actually the opposite of what happens. this is at least the third argument from incredulity you've used. Just because you can't believe this is what actually happens is no reason for it being wrong or false. um . . .yeah. You do realize that we experience 14.7 lbs per sq. inch at sea level, as far as atmoshperic pressure is concerned. I don't see it squashing people. second, you've misused subduction. It is used when describing plate boundaries where the oceanic crust is being subducted under the continental crust. It's not a plate-wide description. Water pressure would be your key, not air pressure, and even water pressure has no effect on this process. Like I said in an earlier message (to you or buzsaw, not sure), these processes would occure regardless of water.you're vaguely right with your last comment. some water (a very tiny amount, mind you) is pulled in, and actually helps with the creation of volcanoes by subduction zones. naturally, this water is eventually expelled in volcanic eruptions.like i said earlier, get an intro to geology textbook, and learn something instead of espousing this psuedo-science.
and again, I ask you for physical evidence of a canopy. we have physical evidence of massive glaciation in Australia, even though they are not there. have you none fo the canopy?Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

Repeat this mantra until it sinks in:Light things float and heavy things sink.It's called simple physics. the upper reaches of the atmosphere contain very little water vapor because:Light things float and heavy things sink.The water vapor can't be "above space." Atmospheric pressure does not move solid rock around like billard balls or push it down into denser rock. Why?Because light things float and heavy things sink. And what is under the mantle being "sucked in?" heavier mantle. So the crust and especially mantle cant be sucked in under heavier (denser) mantle by gravity to any overall significant degree without being reguritated back up. Why?Because light things float and heavy things sink.Every volcano is testimony to what happens due to subduction. It says:Light things float and heavy things sink.Keep repeating.Edited by anglagard, : clarity

Vacuum pressure sucks inward, with the mid-ocean ridges rising you develop internal pressure inward. With the rocks crushed over the trenches it subducted inward by the pressures within the earth. Sure water as a liquid can not but water as a vapor is the only way water can exist above the atmosphere. Its because without pressure water can only exists as a vapor.Edited by Charley, : No reason given.

Copied for archival purposes.

A lot of advances have been made in science since the days of Ptolemy.How could a "vapor canopy" be above the universe? What is above or below the universe anyway, some flat Earth? Please elaborate.My impression is the way you speak of the universe indicates a primitive understanding not seen since the Dark Ages. Please visit a library so you can see how much larger the real universe is than your apparent concept.