Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 154 (8104 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-31-2014 9:30 AM
212 online now:
Capt Stormfield, Coyote, Diomedes, edge, Epee, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (8 members, 204 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Epee
Post Volume:
Total: 733,604 Year: 19,445/28,606 Month: 2,716/2,305 Week: 358/563 Day: 14/108 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Author Topic:   Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep
Peg
Member (Idle past 1311 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 121 of 144 (507963)
05-09-2009 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Son
05-09-2009 7:12 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
yes i do understand...huntard gave a very apt description when he said that the force of energy it would create would destroy the whole earth

I understand that. But I dont think it would be impossible for God to control such a reaction in such a way that the earth would not be harmed. *please note that I was speculating on the hydrogen and oxygen post, it isnt my set belief*


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Son, posted 05-09-2009 7:12 AM Son has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 05-09-2009 9:55 AM Peg has responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 122 of 144 (507965)
05-09-2009 9:28 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Peg
05-09-2009 6:05 AM


Re: Up, Up, and Away
Peg writes:

Ah right I see what you mean now. Although im not convinced that God does not have the power to control such forces and release such energy safely.


Of course god could do that, he can do anything. That's not a scientific explanation, however. This doesn't matter, but if you want that, you can't invoke god.

So then we are back to the original question of how the water vapor may have existed in the atmosphere...what other possibilities are there?

There are no possibiblities when looking at the big picture, there's simply no way that such a vapour canopy could have existed without killing everything and anything on earth, either by the extreme pressure it produces, or by all the extreme energies that are released when it falls to earth.


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 6:05 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member
Posts: 3344
Joined: 02-26-2006
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 123 of 144 (507968)
05-09-2009 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Peg
05-09-2009 6:51 AM


Re: fishing for facts
Besides, the global warming is not being caused by water, its being caused by carbon dioxide and other harmful substances. We cant compare apples with oranges.

Sorry, wrong again. Among several different greenhouse gases, and water vapor makes the most significant contribution, responsible for up to 2/3 of the greenhouse effect. Thus, if the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increased to the extent required by the water canopy fantasy, temperatures would rise by 100s of degrees, nothing at all like the "warm, humid" climate you imagine.


For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 6:51 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 78 days)
Posts: 2854
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 124 of 144 (507970)
05-09-2009 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Peg
05-09-2009 6:51 AM


Re: fishing for facts
Peg writes:

However there is evidence of a time when the oceans were smaller and the continents were larger than they are now, eg river channels extending far out under the oceans. This must surely tell us that there was less water on earth at one time.

So where did all this additional water come from?


The water was here all along. Does the term "ice-age" ring a bell? In case it doesn't, what do you think those massive glaciers consisted of?


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 6:51 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:24 AM Huntard has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 13056
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 125 of 144 (507971)
05-09-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Peg
05-09-2009 8:47 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
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.

Peg writes:

*please note that I was speculating on the hydrogen and oxygen post, it isnt my set belief*

The properties of hydrogen and oxygen are completely distinct from those of water. None of your posts about them make any sense.

But I dont think it would be impossible for God to control such a reaction in such a way that the earth would not be harmed.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 8:47 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:32 AM Percy has responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1098 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 126 of 144 (507975)
05-09-2009 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Peg
05-09-2009 5:05 AM


An Experiment
have scientists ever tried to create such an experiment to see what the effects would be?
Yes. And you can preform just such an experiment at home (or, for the advanced reader, in your head) showing you the same thing.

The Thing:

A one inch square column of water sitting on the ground weighs about one metric ton per mile (with apologies to the purist who flinched at my mixing systems). Most plants and animals are not equipped to deal with multiple Mg/in2 pressures. For very short periods of time a person can withstand about a third of a tonne/in2, while other animals find foraging a more interesting pursuit and have yet to venture into competition deep diving.

However, is it possible that our column of water could be held in suspension in the atmosphere as a gas and not exert the same pressure on surface of the Earth?

The Experiment:

It is well known by any child playing in a pool that it is possible to lift a much greater weigh while it is below the surface than when it is above the surface with a transition that seem nearly magical. Most children are disillusioned in the seventh grade when they are told about buoyancy in an Earth Sciences class. When a toaster is immersed in a bathtub full of water, if one is not occupied by certain other effects, two things will be evident: the afore mentioned weight reduction and the rise in the level of the water. This rise in the water level is important. The amount of rise times the integral surface area through the rise interval equals the volume of the toaster. Eureka, if we weight that volume of water it will be gleaned that that volume of water weights exactly that of the loss measured in the toaster. We have located the repository of the missing weight of the toaster in the rise in the water.

I hope it is easily understood that the weight of the bathtub plus the weight of the toaster is equal to the weight of the bathtub and toaster. Similarly, the weight of our x miles high, inch square, column of air plus the weight of our y miles high, inch square, column of water equals the weight of our the weight of our combined x+18ky miles high, inch square, column of air and water vapor.

If this is not clear to you, Peg, I suggest you take a toaster with you next time you take a bath and see it for yourself. I'm sure you'll find the experiment enlightening.

AbE: Sorry folks. In my head my statement read "pre mile" and even after reading it a few times I still read it saying just that. I thought the ever-so-popular, super-adorable, mega-spootie, awesome NosyNed was referring to my not mentioning the total hight of the water of the flood. It has since been corrected. (And thanks for "buoyancy" too. I must have missed the "y" and my spell checker replaced it with bouncy. I too rarely question my SC's suggestions.)

This also removes the problem as pointed out by petrophysics1's post, but proof reading rather then dimensional analysis was the cause of the error; nevertheless, I did screw-up.

To one and all: I welcome any and all corrections/suggestions to/for my posts. Though most of my errors are due to impatience, I remain without a mentor and am attempting to guide my own education through these matters. It is a trail fraught with dead ends.

Edited by Admin, : Fix spelling, "bouncy" => "buoyancy"

Edited by lyx2no, : Per mile.

Edited by lyx2no, : Point out the point more clearly.


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 108 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 5:05 AM Peg has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2009 10:54 AM lyx2no has responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8574
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 127 of 144 (507978)
05-09-2009 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by lyx2no
05-09-2009 10:24 AM


A confusing experiment
You don't give the height of the column of water so the weight of it is meaningless. In fact, it has to be pretty darned high by my quick in-the-head calculations (100's of feet).

Since the flud needs a lot more than that you number is too low, no?

The toaster 'joke' maybe cute but it obfuscates your point and I'm not sure that Archimedes is needed here anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by lyx2no, posted 05-09-2009 10:24 AM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by lyx2no, posted 05-09-2009 12:20 PM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1098 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 128 of 144 (507981)
05-09-2009 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by NosyNed
05-09-2009 10:54 AM


Re: A confusing experiment
You don't give the height of the column of water so the weight of it is meaningless.
The Bible establishes the hight of the column.

The toaster 'joke' maybe cute but it obfuscates your point
The facts obfuscate the point for some.

I'm not sure that Archimedes is needed here anyway.
Archimedes was worth five bonus points.

Edited by lyx2no, : The gentler gamester is the soonest winner Henry V.


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 127 by NosyNed, posted 05-09-2009 10:54 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by petrophysics1, posted 05-09-2009 2:15 PM lyx2no has responded

  
petrophysics1
Member
Posts: 270
From: Boulder, Wy
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 129 of 144 (507989)
05-09-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by lyx2no
05-09-2009 12:20 PM


Re: A confusing experiment
Your example doesn't make much sense because you have confused weight with hydrostatic pressure. Think about it, one is measured in pounds, the other in pounds per square in. They are not the same thing.

The pressure gradient for fresh water is .433 psi per foot. A 100 ft by 100 ft by 100 ft cube of water weights a lot more than a 1 foot by 1 foot by 100 ft column of water. The hydrostatic pressure is the same at the bottom, 100 ft of height X .433 psi/ft= 43.3 psi.

When doing physics problems always put in the units and then cancel them as you would do in basic algebra. If the resulting units don't match what your answer should be in, you did something wrong.

For example if you are looking for a velocity the answer must be in feet /sec, mph or something like that. If your answer is in feet, or seconds or hours or feet /sec/.sec.....you screwed up.

Weight is measured in pounds.....pressure in psi.

Got it?

Edited by petrophysics1, : typo

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by lyx2no, posted 05-09-2009 12:20 PM lyx2no has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by lyx2no, posted 05-09-2009 3:11 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 1098 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 130 of 144 (507993)
05-09-2009 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by petrophysics1
05-09-2009 2:15 PM


A Confusing Omission
Thank you NosyNed and petrophysics1. I have edited the original post to include "per mile"


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 129 by petrophysics1, posted 05-09-2009 2:15 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
JonF
Member
Posts: 2789
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 131 of 144 (507999)
05-09-2009 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Peg
05-09-2009 5:05 AM


Re: Up, Up, and Away
have scientists ever tried to create such an experiment to see what the effects would be?

No experiment is necessary. We understand water and water vapor (steam) and their properties under various conditions very well. The entire industrial world used to depend on that understanding, and much of it does still.

Geting any significant amount of water into the atmosphere requires temperatures and pressures that would wipe out all life except for a few thermophilic (heat loving) bacteria. Period. End of story. The fat lady has sung. Even those few creationists that have a rudimentary knowledge of thermodynamics realize that. From the Institute for Creation Research we find SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES in which they tried to vary several of parameters to maximize the water in the atmosphere:

quote:
However, none of the effects was so dramatic that the concern over limitations on water content in the canopy by hot surface temperatures was eliminated. If all five parameters were introduced into the model simultaneously such that the surface temperature was minimized, it is estimated that the water content of the canopy could possibly be raised to as much as 1.0 meter. This is less than 10% of the water content suggested by Dillow (1982). Unfortunately, this amount of water in a canopy would not contribute significantly to the waters of the Genesis Flood or produce significant pressure and density effects. However, it would produce large differences in temperature, atmospheric stability, cloud formation, and precipitation from that experienced today.

In other words, a negligible amount of water could be in the atmosphere.

The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea is also worth reading.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 5:05 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2013
From: Big Spring, TX, USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 132 of 144 (508025)
05-10-2009 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Peg
05-09-2009 5:02 AM


Peg Wins (but what is the prize?)
Peg writes:

So i asked why Jupiter and Saturn have such a gaseous atmosphere to which Anglegard spewed forth a diatribe of 'Oh for christs sake...bla bla bla troll bla bla bla"

Good one. Its good to see maturity on evc.

One major difference. I am mature enough to admit when I am wrong as opposed to pretending infallibility.

As I said in one of my immature rants, such ignorance is curable, however it requires an honest attempt to actually learn.

I certainly do understand that we cannot produce water. My reply to Anglegard in msg 90 was sarcasm.

Of course you can produce water from hydrogen and oxygen, hasn't everyone here said that very thing.

At any rate, I am no longer interested in trying to embarrass you into some form of enlightenment as a person who already knows everything can't learn anything. I will leave the evidently hopeless job of trying to educate you or to get you to admit it when you are wrong to those more patient and kind than I am in this matter.

Edited by anglagard, : subtitle


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 107 by Peg, posted 05-09-2009 5:02 AM Peg has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:42 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 1311 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 133 of 144 (508031)
05-10-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by Huntard
05-09-2009 9:54 AM


Re: fishing for facts
Huntard writes:

The water was here all along. Does the term "ice-age" ring a bell? In case it doesn't, what do you think those massive glaciers consisted of?

but thats the problem, the areas of earth that are currently under ice were at one time warm and not covered in ice.

So where did all that water that is there now, come from?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Huntard, posted 05-09-2009 9:54 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2009 2:44 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 138 by Huntard, posted 05-10-2009 4:15 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 1311 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 134 of 144 (508032)
05-10-2009 2:32 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Percy
05-09-2009 9:55 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Percy writes:

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.

but hang on a second.

the question was asked back on page 3 'What is the water vapor' and does the bible actually mention such a water vapor.

I replied with the scriptures that mention the water vapor to show that it actually is in the bible and not a creationist invention.

This is why I speculated as to how it may have existed in the atmosphere because the bible gives no other information about it except to say that it was 'water that was above the expanse of the area where birds fly'

I asked the question...'What 'form' may the water vapor have been'? Could it have been in the form of hydrogen and oxygen (which is what water is made from) I wasnt making any claim that it was...i was asking the question.

Edited by Peg, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Percy, posted 05-09-2009 9:55 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-10-2009 2:45 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 139 by Percy, posted 05-10-2009 6:10 AM Peg has not yet responded
 Message 143 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2009 12:05 AM Peg has not yet responded

    
Peg
Member (Idle past 1311 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 135 of 144 (508034)
05-10-2009 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by anglagard
05-10-2009 1:31 AM


Re: Peg Wins (but what is the prize?)
anglagard writes:

I will leave the evidently hopeless job of trying to educate you or to get you to admit it when you are wrong to those more patient and kind than I am in this matter.

good idea.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by anglagard, posted 05-10-2009 1:31 AM anglagard has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
5678
9
10Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014