The predictions of Walt Brown

quote:

---

Define modest, how thick is it? how high is it in the atmosphere? What is its total volume? How is it suspended in the atmosphere in violation of all the laws of physics?

---

I don't know. Sonds like it has more hope than the ring idea, though. Since Walt has (and I know he doesn't buy a canopy either) way to explain flood water, I just wanted a little canopy that might have no rainbows, and could at least give me enough falling ice type stuff to cover the mammoths etc. And if it can be real gigantic, maybe a bunch can fall mars way, and a few other places. If possible I'll take one with loads of C02 or something similar, this is even more important than water. Perhaps some hydrogen and stuff, so we can totally alter our pre flood atmosphere. Hec, what can you give me, doc?
You know, we've seen so little of inside the earth, and depend a lot on seismic readings, lately they are kinda weird. Some thing they speckulate is iron of some kind, 1500 miles long in the center of the earth, moving many times faster than the plates, and making north south readings of waves travel faster than east west ones, because they think of the way this thing reflects them. Seems like there's some room here to question the theories that be! Hey, New Jerusalem is 1500 miles long, you don't think...ha.
No, if that baby is hiding nearby, I'd look for it in a hollow moon, it's just about the perfect size!
I'm gonna have to go way back, and see what it was about walt's theories I actually was trying to talk about here!
Oh yes, I think it was how could we cool the earth down so we could get those blasted continents to slide pretty quick. Guess my best bet is that the whole earth theories sre wrong, and there really wasn't all that heat to account for!?

well it has exactly as much hope as the ring idea, that is of course: none. You can't suspend that much liquid water in the atmosphere.

Even if it's way up there? How high is too high? Besides, what do you mean by "that much"? Maybe I don't think there is near 'that much'! And how about the 'other mysterious elements in there', even if there ain't much water, approach? Gimme some small hope here doc.
By the way a funny thought about my last post. I noticed the earth core 'crystal' was 1500 miles long. Upon reflection, I bet dollars to doughnuts, it isn't 1500 miles wide, as heaven, or 'new jerusalem' would be, I'll bet it's bigger, as hell would likely be! Now Heaven would actually fit as a pyramid shaped object inside the moon, within a small degree of error! Even those evo christian scientists types would probably believe at least, in those two items?

Well how much water do you think was in this canopy? How high in the atmosphere do you think it was? It's your theory, you should get a little specific if you want to support it.edited to add: just to add something that you may not know. Liquid water is dense, its more dense than air. Stuff that's more dense than air does not float on it. Throw some water into the air, notice how it falls, then think how this would apply to your canopy theory.This message has been edited by DrJones*, 01-21-2005 04:06 AM

---

*not an actual doctor

Actually it isn't my theory. Still, all replies seem to focus on water. What about the sperconducting, carbon rich, stuff?

What superconducting, carbon rich stuff? What is the chemical composition of this stuff? how much of it is in your fictional canopy? Like I said before please supply some support for your arguements.

---

*not an actual doctor

How about big enough to contain say, about 70% of the carbon needed to come up with all that we have on earth? (As you can see this sideline of ring/canopy is basically a fact finding mission.) Just tell me how high we need this baby. I can put'er there for you.

quote:

---

limestone is one of the best places to find marine fossils

---

Looks like I went out too far on a limb on this thread. But, since I'm here, would it not have some merit to look at a possible reason for this, as being that, as so much of the stuff was deposited, and being around flood time, it would naturally have a lot of fossilization opportunities. ?

Just out of interest - how long ago do you think the flood was?

You should have read the reference I supplied: The Demise and Fall of the Water Vapor Canopy: A Fallen Creationist Idea.Any added material in the atmosphere increases the temperature and pressure at the surface, and any significant amount of added material increases the temperature and pressure to the pont where ... you guessed it ... all life is killed off (except perhaps for a few heat-resistant bacteria). For example, the Institute for Creation Research found that if everything were optimized so as to maximize the amount of water added to the atmosphere (in any form), you just might possibly be able to add enough water to cover the surface of the Earth one meter (39.4 inches) thick without raising the temperature too terribly much. See SENSITIVITY STUDIES ON VAPOR CANOPY TEMPERATURE PROFILES.Any significant amount of stuff outside the atmosphere kills everything by being brought to the Earth's surface. Any significant amount of stuff added to the atmosphere kills everything by the temperature and pressure required to hold it in the atmosphere. Not much as long as you keep coming up with ideas that are contradicted by simple and fundamental physics.{Fixed URL}This message has been edited by JonF, 01-21-2005 08:08 AM

quote:

---

But I hear you, I see Kent, Ron, & Walt as men of integrity bucking against the grain of acceptable thought. I can respect that you don't see their bucking against acceptable theory acceptable.

---

Hovind is a "man of integrity"?Where did Hovind "aquire" his PhD from, Tom?What University?Where is that "University" located and is it an accredited university?Where did he publish his Doctoral thesis?

As I pointed out and you ignored, that's a meaningless question. The question is what have the two men accomplished?. Basing your evaluation solely on degrees obtained is an Appeal to Misleading Authority fallacy.You have also ignored that fact the the British educational system was structured differently in Darwin's day. There essentialy was no such thing as a degree in sciences!Of course, we can draw some conclusions about Hovind's abilities and morals from the fact that he chose an unaccredited diploma mill for his PhD and trumpets it as if he actually earned it.

First, you need to support your assertion that the turtles use only magnetics.However, assuming that they do, the answer is easy; east and west are perpendicular to north and south, east being perpendicular cclockwise from north and similarly for west. How do you know which direction is east from a compass whose needle only points north?Finally, knowing that the Earth's magnetic field has reversed does not depend on knowing how turtles navigate. The two issues are barely realated but do not depend on each other.

And we're still talking radiation ... slow, slow radiation.

It must also be considered that Darwin's contribution was ECONOMICso that it is not as easy as any policy to simply compare with indifferent relations to pedagogy, for in that case it would be considered that my brother who works as a consultant for BLACKBOARD, a good salary, a non IVY league education, and a mortage to have done well, better than me, and is contributing "more" but I had taken on a problem in science NOT simply one of rasing a check balance, but in this case the comparison IS economic as to survival BASED on what is under discussion, so= I still have no means to make the comparison. If one granted marxism or such it might be possible but all of the politics would need to not gerrymandered in as well.wHAT IS not different is that Darwin's day and the economics of today DO have a ceiling environment which in science might not exist provided we ARE the future. We arenot.