Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 136 of 144 (508035)
05-10-2009 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Peg
05-10-2009 2:24 AM


Re: fishing for facts
but thats the problem, the areas of earth that are currently under ice were at one time warm and not covered in ice.
And, more to the point, the areas of earth that are currently not under ice were at one time cold and covered in ice.
And during those times, the oceans were smaller and the areas above sea level were bigger.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:24 AM Peg has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 137 of 144 (508036)
05-10-2009 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Peg
05-10-2009 2:32 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
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)
No, because that would not have been water vapor.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:32 AM Peg has not replied

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 2295 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 138 of 144 (508039)
05-10-2009 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Peg
05-10-2009 2:24 AM


Re: fishing for facts
Peg writes:
but thats the problem, the areas of earth that are currently under ice were at one time warm and not covered in ice.
Yes, and that phenomenon is called plate tectonics. More importantly, as Dr. Adequate has noted, there were vast amounts of ice on land that is now ice free.
So where did all that water that is there now, come from?
That also has always been there. Even if it wasn't frozen all the time that STILL isn't enough to flood the planet.

I hunt for the truth

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:24 AM Peg has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 139 of 144 (508045)
05-10-2009 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Peg
05-10-2009 2:32 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
Peg writes:
I replied with the scriptures that mention the water vapor to show that it actually is in the bible and not a creationist invention.
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:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:32 AM Peg has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 140 of 144 (508140)
05-10-2009 9:13 PM


One thing nobody's mentioned ...
If the water is H2O in the atmosphere or if it's "stored" as hydrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, it weighs the same.
The pressure at Earth's surface would have to be many times what it us now to "hold up" all that weight.
And the temperature at the Earth's surface would have to be many times what it is now to maintain liquid water at the and oxygen content at that pressure.
it would kill pretty much everything, including all humanity.
Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Taz, posted 05-10-2009 11:44 PM JonF has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 141 of 144 (508152)
05-10-2009 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by JonF
05-10-2009 9:13 PM


Myself and several others have pointed this out many times now. Unfortunately, we keep getting ignored by people like Peg. Which weighs more: a ton of feather or a ton of brick?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by JonF, posted 05-10-2009 9:13 PM JonF has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by lyx2no, posted 05-10-2009 11:53 PM Taz has replied

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


Message 142 of 144 (508154)
05-10-2009 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Taz
05-10-2009 11:44 PM


Which weighs more: a ton of feather or a ton of brick?
Which weighs more: a pound of feather or a pound of gold?
Peek:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Taz, posted 05-10-2009 11:44 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Taz, posted 05-11-2009 1:43 AM lyx2no has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 143 of 144 (508155)
05-11-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Peg
05-10-2009 2:32 AM


Re: bump for creationist contribution
I replied with the scriptures that mention the water vapor to show that it actually is in the bible and not a creationist invention.
Water vapor and a water canopy are not the same thing. Water vapor exists today it what relative humidity is. The idea of a vapor canopy is a creationist invention as Percy stated
Percy writes:
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.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Peg, posted 05-10-2009 2:32 AM Peg has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 144 of 144 (508160)
05-11-2009 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by lyx2no
05-10-2009 11:53 PM


Hahahaha. Cheater!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by lyx2no, posted 05-10-2009 11:53 PM lyx2no 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