Noah's Flood Came Down. It's Goin Back Up!!

Your canopy idea hasn't been refuted? What? Could you show us what is wrong with what you've been told and the calculations done?

quote:

---

All your side of the discussion has demonstrated is how little science you know, and how resistant you are to learning any.

---

Is it that, Percy, or is it demonstrating that the degree you receive after having been run through the established assembly lines of the institutions of the masses you haven't yet, all the answers?

quote:

---

Because of this you're unable to directly address what people have told you, and you're reduced to repeating already rebutted arguments, as you do here:

---

I must repeat some, because some of you ignore statements I make, providing links which support my statements.

quote:

---

As has been told to you over and over and over again, global warming and global drought are not synonyms. Some places will get wetter and some places will get drier. Providing citations about places where things are getting drier does nothing to rebut the citations about places that are getting wetter, including your residence in New York.

---

And as I have stated correctly with supportive links, global warming does contribute to hotter weather and hotter weather restricts condensation and contributes to the incidence of drought.

quote:

---

Unless you're planning for this water vapor to rise thousands of miles, the height is irrelevant to gravitational attraction. Gravity ten miles up is only very slightly less than on the ground. This has been explained to you before.

---

Hey, there's lots of space out there for the atmosphere to rise into, given the right conditions. This's clearly, as I have shown at the onset of this thread unprecedented in recorded history and so to speak, "the sky's the limit."

quote:

---

This simply says that you're going to ignore the explanations and believe what you want. The math has been presented to you and the process has been described. An effective rebuttal would show where the math or the process were wrong. You do neither.

---

I've been quite diligent to address the explanations given. Your problem seems to be that I'm not buying some of them because they are not factoring in some of the things I've noted adequately.

quote:

---

There was never any "messianic millenium" when the seasons disappeared. Amos predicts that Israel will be reborn when the "the reaper will be overtaken by the plowman" and when "New wine will drip from the mountains and flow from all the hills." Since these last two events never happened, the "prophecy" is wrong.

---

Say what?? This prophecy and the messianic millenium is yet in the future. These events are not supposed to have happened yet.

quote:

---

you're going to have to do much better than falsely drawing a single phrase out of a longer prophecy, as you do here with Amos.

---

This thread is not on Amos's prophecy perse. As I said before, in order to put this prophecy in total context one must be apprised on the writings of other prophets on this subject and when you put them all together, you get the full painting of the picture.I don't know what you're talking about that some of
Amos's prophecy's come true. Didn't I make it clear that it's all in the future??[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-09-2003]

quote:

---

Your canopy idea hasn't been refuted? What? Could you show us what is wrong with what you've been told and the calculations done?

---

My friend, I'm afraid you'll have to reread 14+ pages of this thread for the answer to your question.

quote:

---

So we agree! That's exactly what I told you, and calculated for you, several pages ago: you can hold up 1% of the water now in the oceans by heating the atmosphere to 262 degrees F. Poached Noah, anyone?

---

But the link cited has this going on at present temps until it hits cold air and condenses. I'm sain that you adjust the temps higher overall and make it global, it's gona happen at limit hot, but survivable temps.

You're sain. You're sain? and that is a refutation of what you've been given? LOL, what you are 'sain' is wrong!The physics has been laid out in front of you. Survivable temps can not hold enough water (in fact not even a tiny bit of enough water) up. As you, correctly for a change, say it condenses back out unless it is hot enough. And hot enough is not survivable.

OK, buz. We'll only evaporate 0.1% of the oceans for your future event, and for Noah as well - even if that makes for a piss-poor pitiful little flood - maybe not even "worldwide". That'll only require a minimum temperature of 150 degrees F, at 100% humidity. That's even hotter than downtown Houston in August, and I don't think I would call it "survivable." Houston sure isn't.

Having read it once I do remember that you have never supplied a single number much less a calculation. You are now up against calculations using known physics that says you are wrong.If you say "weather conditions were different" that doesn't make a tiny bit of difference to the physics.If you say the physics was different then you have invoked a miracle. And could you stop ignoring the explicit questions asking you why you are continuing to go on about the science when you've admitted you think there were miracles involved?Do you or do you not want to argue this on a basis of the science? Do you want to instead use miracles? Fairly straight forward questions. You've avoided answering them for several posts now.

Buz,Not that I'm ruling out the possibility that Global Warming is a reality, but since that's a basis for your premise, I thought you might find the following information of interest, pulled from NASA's website:Global temperatures have been monitored by satellite since 1979 with the Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) flying on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) TIROS-N series of polar-orbiting weather satellites. Data from nine separate satellites have been combined to provide a global record of temperature fluctuations in the lower troposphere (the lowest 5 miles of the atmosphere) and the lower stratosphere (covering an altitude range of about 9-12 miles). The global image above shows monthly-averaged temperature anomalies (departure from seasonal normals), while the graph shows point or area-averaged anomalies for the entire period of record (since January 1979).The lower tropospheric data are often cited as evidence against global warming, because they have as yet failed to show any warming trend when averaged over the entire Earth. The lower stratospheric data show a significant cooling trend, which is consistent with ozone depletion. In addition to the recent cooling, large temporary warming perturbations may be seen in the data due to two major volcanic eruptions: El Chichon in March 1982, and Mt. Pinatubo in June 1991.So, I'm not sure you can cite global warming as a definitely observed phenomenon at this point.

That's perfectly fine, Buz.Just didn't want it to be overlooked.

quote:

---

But they're found pretty much all over the globe where the rocks are of the right nature to preserve them.

---

What about the evidence found right along with those rocks indicating great uplift due to tectonic activity?That was my point and you have not addressed it.My point is that those high mountains with seashells on top of them used to be ocean floor, but then tectonic plates pushed against one another and pushed the mountains up. That tectonic plates cause uplift is measurable. We observe it happening now.However, let's assume for a minute that there was a big flood and that's why the seashells ended up on the tops of mountains. Why don't we find certain other things up there? Wouldn't a lot of them float, and therefore be deposited way up on the tops of mountains as the waters receded? Why don't we find other things besides seashells all mixed up with them, because things sort by density in water. Why don't we find elephant fossils along with dinosaurs of the same size and density, and pterosaurs along with birds, and flowering plants in the same layers along with non-flowering plants?Also, how do you explain the fact that we can dig down to the geologic layers underneath the one with the seashells in it on the mountain and, lo and behold, find layers which correspond in fossil content and age to layers found in much lower elevations?

quote:

---

You all interpret these as coming from glaciers n stuff eons ago. We creationists interpret these as coming from the Naoic flood.

---

Except that Christian Creationist Geologists rejected the notion of a worldwide Noachic flood 180 years ago, as I explained to you, and that you have ignored.The reason they rejected it was because the evidence they observed did not indicate such an event.If you want to simply believe that such a flood happened, that is your choice, of course. But unless you start to get really spicific and really convincing with providing high-quality, solid evidence for your position, there's no reason for anyone to believe you.

quote:

---

So we all grant our views the status of facthood on the basis of how we interpret what we observe.

---

No. We grant facthood on specific observations which have survived rational scrutiny, tests, and experiment. Creationist "facts" have not withstood such testing or scrutiny, and in fact have failed all of them with regards to the Flood claim.Scientists interpret observations from nature and formulate hypotheses and theories based upon these observations.Creationists, by contrast, form theories of what nature is "supposed" to be like from what they read in the Bible without having observed anything. They then pick and choose from the observations of real scientists, accepting those which they decide agrees with their religious bias and twisting or ignoring those which disagree with their religious bias.See the difference? Scientists do not assume that they can know what nature is like before they actually go out and observe it. By contrast, Creationists assume that nature must adhere to their interpretation of certain parts of a particulat religious text, so to them, rational observation is irrelevant.The Bible trumps all observation if these obsevations contradict it.Now, I ask you, how can this be called science if you can throw away and twist evidence whenever you feel like it?

quote:

---

That doesn't make any of us any less intelligent. It just reflects our individual ideologies.

---

People unwilling to accept that their claims have no basis in reality are either crazy or willfully ignorant.The individual ideology of the scientist is irrelevant to if his or her findings hold up to rational scrutiny and repeated testing. It is the evidence that determines the survival of the scientific theory.

quote:

---

And of course as to knowledge, you all show as much ignorance about my science as you think I show about yours. I guess that's why we're now on page 13.

---

If we show ignorance of your science, Buzsaw, it's because "your science" seems to live inside your head and nowhere else.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

Can you document modifications which are significant enough to factualize the theory of evolution to the degree that the earth's revolution around the sun is factual?

---

Well, that's a very slippery question. Perhaps you would like to tell me what YOU would accept as "significant enough" evidence?In the mean time try reading these links, and then get back to me. There is a LOT of evidence in support of the ToE, so be careful what you wish for:An introduction to Evolutionary Biology:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.htmlThe five major misconceptions about Evolution:Five Major Misconceptions about EvolutionEvidence for transitionals:Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQEvidence for hominid evolution:Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution29 evidences and potential falsifications for macroevolution:29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1Two links listing observed speciation events:Observed Instances of Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlAs for books, you could head to your local used book store and see if they have a reasonably recent edition of an introductory Biology textbook.

quote:

---

Welllllll then, on that basis I declare the Bible the status of supernaturalhood on the basis of it's fulfilled prophecies, as the evidence in it's favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and ubiased person could deny it's reality. And the book being supernatural, I declare the facthood of Biblical creation as the evidence in it's favor became so strong that no knowledgeable person could deny it's reality.

---

You are missing the main thing, which is that evolution wasn't "declared" a fact just out of the blue. Evolution is considered fact because of the millions and millions of pieces of evidence from diverse fields of science which support the theory.For the hundredth time, it's the evidence that's important.The EVIDENCE.

quote:

---

This's a copout on truth. Observe for yourself to make a rational judgement, if you want to be rational and objective.

---

Now, you haven't actually said that your goal is to be rational and objective, but tell me, Buz, how much Stephen Jay Gould have you read, or any other professional or mainstream Biology or Geology publications do you have in your library?

We've been over this before, Buzz. Science is tentative. We don't believe we have all the answers. All we know is that current theories are the best explanation of the available evidence at this time. In order for your views to prevail all you have to do is present evidence showing how what people have explained to you is wrong.Just saying, "You could be wrong," is not rebuttal. We know we could be wrong. So could you. But so far the only scientifically based arguments entered into the debate speak against a vapor canopy. We're all waiting for you to enter you're own scientific evidence and show us how we're wrong. Restating your initial premise again won't accomplish that. No, Buzz, you repeat your arguments because you don't understand the rebuttals, and so your original arguments still make sense to you. I suggest you try actually explaining why what we're telling you is wrong.For example, it has been explained to you that in order to increase the amount of water in the atmosphere the temperature must increase. Even tiny amounts of water like .1% of the amount required for Noah's flood would require a temperature of 150 degrees. Placing the vapor further out in space doesn't help you, because the amount of pressure to hold up a given amount of vapor doesn't change with the vapor's density. This has also been explained to you. Any substantive rebuttal has to explain how these statements are wrong. Merely repeating your original statements isn't rebuttal. Here you're even telling us that you're just repeating your earlier statements. You have yet to address the rebuttals to this. People have explained to you that a warmer planet means increased water in the atmosphere, but it definitely does not mean less rain. More water in the atmosphere means more rain, not less. As has been told to you, global warming means some parts of the planet will get drier, some wetter. The planet was once much warmer millions of years ago, and much of the planet was tropical then, not desert. The Amos prophecy predicts the rebirth of Israel, Buzz. It's already happened. Since the other parts of the prophecy about one growing season passing immediately into the next have not happened, the prophecy is wrong.--Percy

I don't think this line has been explictly shot full of holes. The sky is not the limit Buz. Escape velocity is. If you move your water vapour out far enough that the gravitation force really does drop off enough you may find yourself with the water molecules moving faster than the escape velociy. Then it really isn't ever going to come down.I don't think you can get it up there without putting a lot of pressure (read HOT HOT) from below but it won't help you if you did.If you think any of this is wrong you're welcome to do the calculations yourself. It is your turn.Just to clearify where we are it would help if you restated just what you think went on with this water canopy, what refutations you think we have supplied and what you think is wrong with them.Myself I don't think there is anything left of the idea. It got pressure cooked.

Buz,Just had some questions about this point from your original post:

quote:

---

2. The atmosphere was thick and high before the flood and provided a perfect climate for then relatively smooth planet earth which had small oceans and likely about 70% of the planet's surface continent.

---

a. Can you show me your source for asserting that the atmosphere was thick and high before the flood?
b. Could you tell me approximately how high? or how thick?
c. Can you tell me what the relative smoothness was of the planet earth in that time?
d. Can you show me the basis for claiming that the earth had small oceans and likely about 70% of the planet's surface as continent?
e. Can you also tell me what time, like how many years ago, this was?Thanks,
Geno