Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep

What *is* a vapor canopy?If it involves suspending gazillions of tons of water vapor in the upper atmosphere that just stay up there and never fall to earth as rain until it's time for the flood, then I think this operates against the reason the idea was proposed in the first place. The vapor canopy was proposed in order to have a scientifically compatible explanation for the origin of the water of the flood. All it really does is replace obvious violations of physical laws (the appearance of a world-flooding amount of water from nowhere) with less obvious violations of physical laws (vapor canopy to heavy to remain in place; if heat suspended the water it would have steamed all life to death; if orbital velocity kept the water in place then friction from the enormous velocity would have turned it to steam when it returned to earth to cause the flood, again steaming all life to death; life unable to survive the crushing atmospheric pressure (100 atmospheres) of so much water somehow suspended above).According to Wikipeda, CSC and Answers in Genesis do not support this idea anymore. It seems silly to discuss it. It was only Trey777 who raised the issue, and the early indications are that he's a loon.--Percy

I'd like to make a plea for participants to ignore irrational posts, especially those that are just attempts to stir things up.--Percy

The atmosphere thins with increasing height, becoming less dense. Heat causes gas to rise because of the associated decreased density. If this vapor canopy is hot enough to have a low enough density to be at the upper reaches of the atmosphere, then this low density means it would have to have an enormous volume in order to have enough water to flood the earth. It would not be a canopy but an atmospheric region perhaps thousands of miles thick.Also, if the water in the vapor canopy is as hot as the upper atmosphere (for example, the thermosphere about 50 miles up is 2700^oF), what do you think would happen to life on earth when this water falls as superheated steam? What could even make it fall? Cooling it would make it fall, but how would it become cool enough to fall as water at a normal temperature?But the main argument against the vapor canopy isn't that it's impossible. As with many things never seen before, how certain can we be that they're impossible. We've never seen fire-breathing dragons, either, but that doesn't mean they're impossible.The main argument against the vapor canopy is that there's no evidence for it. The sole reason it is introduced is to explain where the water for the flood came from, a flood for which there is no evidence. In other words, we have a solution with no evidence (the vapor canopy) proposed for a phenomenon with no evidence (the flood). Mars does not have a vapor canopy. The Martian atmosphere has water vapor in the same way that Earth's atmosphere has water vapor. It's called humidity.--Percy

I believe fog is water droplets that condense out of the air from water vapor. I believe clouds are water droplets, too.If when Peg mentioned water vapor on Mars she actually meant water droplets or clouds, then again, they are the same as water droplets or clouds on Earth. They are not a vapor canopy.If the vapor canopy were truly water vapor and not water droplets, then it would block much less sunlight. But it couldn't be water droplets under Peg's proposal, since water cannot exist in the liquid state at the temperature and pressure of the upper atmosphere. Since as water vapor the canopy would block much less solar radiation, it couldn't serve one of the primary purposes that are claimed for it.--Percy

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: 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

Gosh, Peg, it's like you're not even trying. It's like you didn't read my message (you certainly didn't understand it) and no longer recall the point you were trying to make.I think it would not be a good idea to give you yet another post to reply to. I'll just say that you need to somehow figure out how to do a better job here.If you don't have any ideas for how to accomplish this, then I guess I could make a few suggestions. You might try focusing on just one detail at a time and following it through to a resolution instead of responding to many little details. This would mean not responding to everyone. You might also try reading messages several times to see if you're really capturing what they're trying to say. Another thing that might help is to consider the implications of your ideas. Try to figure out if they really make sense before posting them.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

I think an exception to this would be if the vapor canopy were not actually resting upon the underlying layers. This would be the case if the vapor canopy were at orbital velocity (ridiculous, I know, but difficult to explain why to someone at Peg's level of understanding).I think the weight of a vapor canopy that was at very high altitude because of its temperature would still rest on the underlying layers and thus still produce a crushing weight on life at the earth's surface.--Percy

I have no objection, except to note that it's the wrong question. It might give Peg the impression that only things we can prove impossible must be excluded from consideration, and that if we can't prove a vapor canopy impossible that therefore it must be what happened. In reality science can only consider phenomena for which we have evidence.The advantage of answering questions like the water/hydrogen issue is that Peg will (hopefully) learn something about the availability of free hydrogen. Undoubtedly she has never heard of the speculations about a hydrogen economy where cars would be powered by hydrogen instead of petrol (or do they say gasoline in Australia?). Clearly if you can power a car with hydrogen then its combustion with oxygen must produce a great deal of energy, as people have been trying to make clear to Peg with examples like the Hindenberg (about which Peg again apparently knows nothing). Most doubts about the possibility of a hydrogen economy stem from the great amounts of energy needed just to create free hydrogen, and Peg doesn't understand this yet, and so doesn't understand that countries like Saudi Arabia cannot solve their water problems by simply making water from free hydrogen and oxygen.--Percy

Hi Peg,Sorry to reply twice to the same post, but I somehow missed this the first time around: First, you've probably misunderstood your husband. He probably didn't say it takes vast amounts of energy to create water. Either he said it takes vast amounts of energy to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, or that combining hydrogen and oxygen into water with a tiny spark produces vast amounts of energy.Second, when you say that your husband is one of "you evc science ppl", do you mean he's familiar with science, or is he actually a participating member here? If the latter, who is he, pray tell? Whatever on earth do you two find to talk about? I'm nominating him for sainthood for his ability to resist strangling you! --Percy

Peg, are you operating under the belief that when water evaporates into the atmosphere that it becomes hydrogen and oxygen?--Percy

You're confused again. A vapor canopy of gazillion of tons of water in its gaseous form, which is water vapor, would be too heavy to remain in the upper atmosphere. That's what both me and Lynx2no were saying. That has nothing to do with the ability of water vapor to exist in our atmosphere. There's water vapor in our upper atmosphere right now, right where you claim the vapor canopy would have been. There's just extremely little of it, because the upper atmosphere is very tenuous and can suspend very little water vapor.That you mentioned that water is made from hydrogen and oxygen is another thing making clear how very confused you are. Hydrogen and oxygen are irrelevant to water's properties, just like the properties of sodium and chlorine are irrelevant to the properties of salt (salt is made up of sodium and chlorine).And you asked why water couldn't exist in gas form like it does on other planets, why it isn't impossible. But water vapor exists throughout our atmosphere, it's called humidity. This has been said over and over in this thread. Why ever would you ask such a question if you weren't very confused and never understood any of those explanations?It's going to interfere with your ability to ask the right questions if you give yourself the additional task of hiding your errors. Just admit what you don't know, there's no shame in not knowing something. What you're doing is a form of subterfuge and obstruction, and it's making things more difficult for everyone in this thread.--Percy

Peg, your posts are becoming so confused it's becoming impossible to tell where your confusion even lies. Most people are telling you that you're not comprehending what is being said, but you're ignoring them and continuing on as if you were doing great. The properties of hydrogen and oxygen are completely distinct from those of water. None of your posts about them make any sense. You still don't understand the reason that creationists proposed the vapor canopy in the first place. They knew they couldn't get flood geology into the classroom if it required miracles from God, so they proposed the vapor canopy as the source of water. The vapor canopy was proposed solely to remove God from the equation. Once you reintroduce God, which is what you're doing, then there's no longer any reason for the vapor canopy. God can do anything. God can make rain fall from an empty sky. God doesn't need a vapor canopy.Is any of this sinking in?--Percy

Of course it's a creationist invention. The vapor canopy was invented at the same time as modern creationism. The passages you cited were never interpreted as indicating a vapor canopy prior to the 1950's when Henry Morris wrote The Genesis Flood and began the modern creationist movement. You won't find a reference to the vapor canopy prior to 1950. What for many evangelical Christians is a sincere religious belief with a solid Biblical foundation is actually an invention of the 1950s.Creationists couldn't claim creationism was just as scientific as other science if they had to invoke God to cause the flood, and so the vapor canopy was invented because they needed a non-miraculous source for the flood waters. By the way, the Bible says the flood waters came from both the sky and from beneath the earth, and that's not a modern creationist reinterpretation. Genesis has always been interpreted that way. And there's no evidence for either one.But I wish you'd stop ignoring the more important issue. Two moderators and most of the other participants have already gone on record in this thread as indicating their belief that when it comes to science you're clueless. You needn't have responded directly, you could have just made a greater effort so as to reduce your rate of scientific faux pas, but you haven't. If anything, the inanity of your discussion on science issues has only increased.What people generally do when someone appears to not hear them is to up the volume, and at discussion boards this takes the form of repetition that gradually becomes more pointed and insulting. We have guidelines against letting discussion become personal here at EvC Forum (see rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines), but the moderators recognize that ignoring what people say is a form of antagonistic behavior that can cause a thread to spin out of control. And of course, as rule 1 of the Forum Guidelines says, ignoring the moderators is a major no-no.What you have to do to contribute to the thread constructively is begin giving indications that you understand the information that is being provided to you. You don't have to agree with what's being said, but for example you have to give some indication that you're beginning to understand the claims that your comments about water being a compound of hydrogen and oxygen are irrelevant to the discussion. You can't go on for page after page giving no hint of comprehension. Here's an example of this lack of comprehension: You got your answer pages ago, but you're still talking about this. I assume you know a little about cooking. If someone asked you if you could substitute salt for sugar in a recipe and you answered "No" and explained why, for how long would you maintain your cool when they objected to your answer and a week later were still arguing with you about it. Your refusal to accept the answers about hydrogen and oxygen (and temperature and pressure) is about at the same level of idiocy.Adminnemooseus was the other moderator who cautioned you, and I'm going to request that he look at this thread again.--Percy