|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep | |||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2316 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
Peg writes:
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.
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?
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 189 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4737 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
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:
A pound of feathers weighs 453.6 grams.
A pound of gold weighs 373.2 grams.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4211 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3312 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hahahaha. Cheater!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024