Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep

Yeah, that's toasty alright. At 80 miles up the mean temp is around 1100F. But that fluctuates by about 400F between night and day. The reason it fluctuates so much is because the air, if you could call it that any longer, is so tenuous a little sun light goes a long way. And it not like you have only a little sun light. You got a whole pant load. UV & X-ray photons just rippin' through like there's no tomorrow. And for a water molecule there ain't. Goodness, you don't even get to keep your O₂'s & N₂'s of a piece, yet alone H₂O's. They just go flying all to bits. At that hight and those temperatures you end up with a gruel so thin Mr Limbkins would have given the thermosphere more would it have said please and sir.Sorry, off on a wee bit of a delusion. And guess who I saw there, Trev777?Edited by lyx2no, : Hight counts for something.

---

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.

I'm pretty sure he'll be back, I wouldn't hold my breath for any evidence though.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hi percy,I dont know how the water vapor remained aloft, but certainly it takes heat the keep water vaporised. The upper regions of the atmosphere (thermosphere) is at a high enough temperature to keep the water vaporised. Also we know that water vapor is lighter than air and other gases making up the atmosphere. So there is thus nothing physically impossible about thermal vapor blanket existing in the upper atmosphere.It actually would explain quite a lot in terms of the warm climate that the frozen arctic areas once enjoyed.The atmosphere on Mars has small traces of water vapor which are somehow suspended. Another reason not to doubt the validity of the claim that the earth may have had a water vapor at one time.

Except of course that Lyx2no already pointed out that the intense radiation there would rip the molecules to shreds. So no, it's not "physically possible".

---

I hunt for the truth

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

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. You cannot store significant amounts of water in the upper atmosphere. ...no, it's not. Not always. It depends on temperature. Fog is also water vapor, yet it rests on the ground. Clouds are water vapor, but they're hardly "lighter than air" - they're simply lighter than some of the air. Yes, there is, as has been shown. You simply don't understand the concepts you're talking about.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?ICANT likes to pretend that the Earth was completely flat before the Flood, and that the lowering of elevation for the oceans and raising of land mass after the Flood accounts for why there is insufficient water to cover the world today. Unfortunately, that violates everything we know about the geological history of the Earth, and all of plate tectonics (not to mention postulating that such a catastrophic geological change as that can actually happen within the span of human history and leave no evidence behind - the amount of tectonic activity required in such a short timespan would be far more effective in killing all life than a simple Flood). Curiously, plate tectonics does a far better job of this, without magical water that suspends itself in the upper atmosphere, rains down for the Flood, and then disappears. It even has -gasp!- evidence to support it. The "frozen arctic" regions were once attached to the rest of the super-continent that we call Pangaea. Tectonic plates driven by magma convection have since separated the super-continent into the continents we see today in a process that has taken millions upon millions of years and is continuing today. As Percy has noted, those traces of water on Mars are "somehow suspended" in the same way water vapor anywhere else is suspended. The air on Earth is full of water (nowhere near enough to cause a global Flood of course, but still quite wet).Your ignorance and religious bias are forcing you to grasp at any scrap of information that supports "Water in the sky," even when the evidence you're using quite plainly does not support anything approaching a "vapor canopy" in the upper atmosphere capable of accountign for a global Flood. You're participating in apologetics - and you're not going to get anywhere in terms of accurately representing reality that way.

Why don't you just say it was magic? God made water appear then disappear. Why do you always try to find some kind of scientific proof when it is doomed to fail? I thought you only needed faith with religion.

Would not water that was -poofed- in and out of existence for the Flood leave evidence behind? Perhaps a layer of sediment, not uniform in composition but stretching over the entire world, littered with the fossilized remains of an entire generation's worth of flash-flooded animals, sorted not in different geological strata by age but rather by buoyancy and swimming ability, dating to the same time period less than 10,000 years ago, interrupting previously ongoing annual sedimentary deposits like what we see in lakes and rivers, and generally looking like a Flood happened?Or did God -poof- away all of that, as well, at the same time he -poofed- all of teh marsupials to Australia, all of the indigenous American, Antarctic, and other animals to their distant locations, and -poofed- away all of the genetic bottlenecks that should appear in human beings and all other living things?If God -poofed- all of the water, and then -poofed- all of the evidence, how could we possibly tell the difference between the whether the Flood did or did not actually happen?If we have no objective manner of differentiating fantasy from reality in this way, why arbitrarily have faith in this particular magical fairy tale, but not any other magical fairy tale from other religions?Why don't we simply have faith in any and every fantasy we come up with, since corroboration with objective reality is apparently unimportant anyway?

Personnaly I'm atheist. I just got the impression that fundamentalist never needed proof or a scientific explanation for anything anyway. So I was wondering why they needed a scientific explanation for the flood if they didn't need it for their god. It just seems strange to me. My personnal answer would be to not believe in any of the fairy tales. I can't answer for one who believes in a deity though. While I can't claim to understand religious people, the fairy tale they believe in will depend on their education and they can't choose several at the same time since they are often contradictory. I suppose It's easier to just believe what you are taught than trying to think.Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : Typo

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

A lot of cages rattled, -if there was no vapour canopy , there was no world wide flood but an (evolutionary) localised flood. The pre-flood world was vastly different from today, our pathetic minds can't even start to imagine it.
There are only two shows in town , all blind chance or meaning and purpose.
Its late- God bless you all.

Would you mind telling me what the hell an "evolutinary flood" is? Yeah, you might have noticed when Admin said: That's what you're supposed to do here, not spout off things from the top of your head without even vindicating them. And you're wrong there too, since evolution isn't just blind chance. Natural selection isn't random in any way. You know, I even predicted you wouldn't provide any evidence, guess I'm a fortune teller. I think I'll go scam...I mean, help some people.

---

I hunt for the truth

That wouldn't rattle our cages. That's what archaeology and history suggest. The idea of a world wide flood is a myth. If you are referring the the mythical flood at the mythical date of ca. 4350 years ago, this pathetic mind deals with that time period all the time. No imagination needed. Just a career as an archaeologist.If there was a world wide flood, it would -- by definition -- be world wide. That is, everywhere one excavated there would be evidence of that flood! Its only 4,350 years back, and that's a pretty easy time period to explore.Guess what! No evidence of a flood in any of the hundreds of excavations I have been associated with!But we have lots of evidence of continuity across that time period. Continuity of human cultures, fauna and flora, mtDNA, soils, etc. We would have none of those if there had been a flood of the magnitude you seem to be pushing. Perhaps the "two shows" are evidence vs. superstition, eh?And you have provided no evidence, just statements of belief. Try again?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Hi Peg, Does the bible actually say this verbatim or is this just an assumption that people have made?Certainly there is water on other planets in the solar system, and in space, and I would not be surprised to find that the amount of water on the earth NOW is less than 1% of the water in the universe. Again, there is water on other planets in the solar system, and in space, and I would not be surprised to find that the amount of water on the earth NOW is less than 1% of the water in the universe.Strangely, I see no evidence of water being in a "canopy" around the earth, as there are plenty of places in the rest of the universe for the divided waters to exist without needing a single drop in any canopy. To say there is water in space is one thing, to say it was formed in a canopy needs a specific reference to that effect, otherwise it is just speculation, conjecture, fiction. Ummm, where was that again? Where the term "canopy" was actually used? Curiously, we are looking at global warming producing an earth with a "gorgeous warm climate" using only a little increase in cloud cover. Increasing the volume of water above that creates lethal conditions for many organisms, including humans (look at the increase in deaths during any heat wave in any country now). Interestingly, they also found that the shape of the continents at that time was significantly different, and that there location relative to the axis of rotation was significantly different -- enough so that the conditions on Ellesmere Island (where Tiktaalik was found) are readily explained with today's climate in similar places relative to the axis of rotation today. No need for any "gorgeous warming" to explain those conditions.The real question for creationists is why would a "vapor canopy" be necessary in order to produce a flood?To get enough water into the atmosphere to make a significant contribution to any flood that could raise the level of water world wide would create temperatures on earth like those that currently exist on Venus.To make such conditions livable takes a wave of the "god-did-it" magic wand, in which case you can invoke that instead of the water canopy and save everyone some time.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) • • •

Hi ICANT, Exactly. As I've noted before in these discussions, that it is silly to argue that a flood could not have occurred. The real question is whether there is evidence that this was the case -- evidence in particular that is compatible with the duration of the WW flood story.So I take it that you join in telling (other) creationists that the water vapor concept is unnecessary and a rather silly distraction from some real questions.Like how old the earth really is, and how life developed. Curiously, those are topics for another thread.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) • • •