water vapor canopy nonsense

A

Amorphous

Guest
One pet theory held among young earth creationists is that the original earth possessed a canopy consisting of vapor (most common interpretation) or ice that engulfed the earth through the tropopause (~ 11 km). The canopy is posited as the source of all the water required to explain a global flood of Genesis. Isaac Vail (1840 –1912) first proposed the canopy theory in 1874.1 He believed a canopy formed millions of years ago as the earth evolved from a molten state. It has remained a source of embarrassment for creationists since this time.

Doing a back of the envelope calculation, one can take a look at the fallacy first hand.

For the sake of argument, suppose that the Antediluvian flood covered the surface of the earth up to a height of 1000 meters. [Scriptures allege that the actual waters covered the earth to height that covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). If so, Mt. Everest towers to over 8 km. However, a common retort is that the earth was much flatter before the flood and the flood waters themselves carved out the geologic features we observe today. A more modest value of 1000 meters is then used]

If the atmosphere were to hold 1000 meters of water in vapor or ice form, there would need to be a corresponding increase in surface pressure:

∆P=ρ*g*∆z

If

∆z= 100 m
g=9.8 m/s^2
ρ=1000 kg/m^3 (assuming moderate temperatures)

then

∆P≈9.8E06 Pascals or ~980 atmospheres (ignoring the 1 atmosphere of pressure that we already experience). For comparison's sake, the surface pressure on Venus has been measured at ~80 atmospheres. Needles to say, only organisms that thrive in the deep oceans can survive pressures such as these on the Earth's surface. Certainly, Noah and his clan would be instantly crushed by the weight of Earth's atmosphere prior to the flood.

The difficulties do not end here. Assuming a water vapor only canopy, the water equivalent mass of the vapor canopy in question would amount to ~2.8E27 gm. Knowing each gram of water vapor (steam) that condenses to a liquid releases about 539 calories of heat, (Lc) and that the specific heat at constant pressure for air and water are .242 cal/gm C (Cpa) and 1.0 cal/gm C (Cpa), respectively, then atmospheric temperatures be on the order of:

T=Lc*2.8E27 gm/(5.1E21 gm*Cpa+2.8E27 gm*Cpw) ≈ 536 C ≈ 997 F.

where the weight of the dry atmosphere is ~5.1E21 gm.

Needless to say, this is hot enough to melt lead. Noah and company would not only be flattened by the extreme surface barometric pressures but crispy fried by heat.

Thankfully, most but not all creationists have abandoned the water canopy theory for these and several other reasons. I suppose that they look foolish enough already without further manipulating some basic hydrostatic principles and simple thermodynamics.
 

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Well, I guess if this is bait, I'll bite LOL.
When I first started coming to this forum I had presented this theory and got a hardy welcome(yeah right). I said that the "hydrogen" canopy was a metallic like state or crystalline. Everyone said that this was impossible. Made fun of me and Mr. Baugh. But then I found where science has already made hydrogen do this. Here are some links.

http://www-phys.llnl.gov/H_Div/GG/metalhydrofact.html

http://www.hwi.buffalo.edu/ACA/ACA98/abstracts/text/E0196.html

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1996/split/pnu263-1.htm
Even other countries are looking into this:
http://www.tech-db.ru/istc/db/projects.nsf/prjn/0207

And where did the water for Noah's flood come from?

http://www.ldolphin.org/deepwaters.html

Some say that the waters comming from this mineral would have boiled the earth. But do we really know how hot it is down there? It may be cooler than you think. There has been no probes sent that far into the earth's crust to really know. So unless someone has "facts" on this, it's just a guess about the boiling.

So how did the canopy get there? During the birth(or creation) of a planet, there is a lot of hydrogen gas present, right? One of the factors of crystalline hydrogen is temptature. In Genesis 1:1-2 it says: 1. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Here we see the earth being created before light. No light, no warmth. So it was absolute zero. A condition needed for the hydrogen canopy.
Genesis 1:3-8 says: 3. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6. And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

Notice how the word firmament is used. There's a firmament in the midst of the waters. Then it also devides the waters. What does firmament mean: from the Vulgate firmamentum, which is used as the translation of the Hebrew raki a. This word means simply "expansion." It denotes the space or expanse like an arch appearing immediately above us. They who rendered raki a by firmamentum regarded it as a solid body. It is plain that it was used to denote solidity as well as expansion. It formed a division between the waters above and the waters below (Gen. 1:7). The raki a supported the upper reservoir (Ps. 148:4). It was the support also of the heavenly bodies (Gen. 1:14), and is spoken of as having "windows" and "doors" (Gen. 7:11; Isa. 24:18; Mal. 3: 10) through which the rain and snow might descend. It also means to compress into thin sheets. Which hydrogen takes a high pressure also to make into crystalline form. Hence the word compress(high pressure).

During the making of hydrogen into a metallic crystalline form it was noticed that it changes color as it phases into a semi to crystalline form. It goes from white-yellow-orange-red. Carl Baugh said that the sky with this canopy over us was pink in color. To produce pink, the canopy would have to be 2 colors at once. Since one side faced earth and had the heat of radiation being put to it. That side would probably be white. Because white was the first color of the phase. The other side of the canopy had to be red. That side faced space and was very cold which was the last part of the color phase. Red and white make pink!

When the fountains of the deep were broken up and all that water came up. The atmosphere had to expand as the earth flooded. When the expansion got close enough to the canopy, it was heated up and fell because it was no longer crystalline. This is why it's no longer there.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Not to get into this again, :) just a few comments.

1) For metalic hydrogen to form, it requires a Very Huge amount of pressure.

2) He said the sky was a color, but what evidence does he have? (im curious about this one as I dont remember us talking about it before)

3) What would boil the water isnt the heat from under the ground, its the heat that would be required to melt the mineral to get the water out of it. To get the water out of the mineral, it would need to be turned molten. Since there was mineral than water, for every bit of water there would be a large amount of molten rock.
 
Upvote 0

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Arikay said:
Not to get into this again, :) just a few comments.

1) For metalic hydrogen to form, it requires a Very Huge amount of pressure.

2) He said the sky was a color, but what evidence does he have? (im curious about this one as I dont remember us talking about it before)

3) What would boil the water isnt the heat from under the ground, its the heat that would be required to melt the mineral to get the water out of it. To get the water out of the mineral, it would need to be turned molten. Since there was mineral than water, for every bit of water there would be a large amount of molten rock.

1. In the birth or creation of a planet. I imagine a lot of pressure is involved. The word firmament means also to "compress". This may be a hint God has left in his word saying that pressure was applied.

2. He took a vacuum tube and added both O2 and H. He then applied an electrical current that was almost the same sine wave as the sun produces. the gas inside the tube glowed pink. Now I have no links for this. For this was on his video. The ends of the tube glowed blue which is where the oxygen had seperated from the hydrogen which glowed pink.

3. Why would the mineral need to be melted? It may not be solid with all that water in it. It may be water with the mineral in granule form with water being the bigger percentage over it. No one knows. we can only guess here. Unless you know something they do not.
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
2) Oh yeah, I remember reading about this. He made the oxygen and Hydrogen Fluoresce and then pretended thats what it was like before the flood.
Im very curious where he got the idea that the entire sky was flourensent before the flood.

3) So no one has ever handled this mineral before? How do they know it has water in it then? From what I remember reading about it, the mineral contained the water locked up inside, it would require a melting of the mineral to unlock the water.
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
78
Visit site
✟23,431.00
Faith
Unitarian
While the vapor canopy is nonsense the solid hydrogen canopy goes far beyond nonsense to total absurdity.

The mantle is hot, ever notice that lava from volcanoes is a lmore that a ittle warm. Further there is no way to get this water out and back in. This is another bit of nonsense that may look good to someone who no knowledge of the science involved but it is nonsense.

We have been over both of these absurd claims in considerable detail before.

The Frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Arikay said:
2) Oh yeah, I remember reading about this. He made the oxygen and Hydrogen Fluoresce and then pretended thats what it was like before the flood.
Im very curious where he got the idea that the entire sky was flourensent before the flood.
How do you do what your talking about? And how would Baugh have the equipment to do this if it could be done? Did anyone see him do this? Or is this just something read where someone claimed this? Like the claim that Baugh carved the foot prints in the park in the middle of the night?
3) So no one has ever handled this mineral before? How do they know it has water in it then? From what I remember reading about it, the mineral contained the water locked up inside, it would require a melting of the mineral to unlock the water.
Did they observe this? I don't remember reading this. It's only a guess or theory. They do not know for sure.
Yes, this mineral has been handled before. It's usually found in meteorites.
 
Upvote 0

ikester7579

Well-Known Member
Jan 10, 2003
1,452
23
Florida
✟1,800.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Frumious Bandersnatch said:
While the vapor canopy is nonsense the solid hydrogen canopy goes far beyond nonsense to total absurdity.

The mantle is hot, ever notice that lava from volcanoes is a lmore that a ittle warm. Further there is no way to get this water out and back in. This is another bit of nonsense that may look good to someone who no knowledge of the science involved but it is nonsense.

We have been over both of these absurd claims in considerable detail before.

The Frumious Bandersnatch
How did all that water get back in? Hmm. I guess rain stays on the ground. Never to be soaked in. Then we have fault lines. I wonder if they opened up and allowed water to go in?

As far as valcanoes go, and how the earth's crust is and the layers below. How does science know what is there all the way to the middle of the earth? Did they guess? Or did someone go down there? And if they guessed, then they guessed on how hot it gets as you go down also. This molten rock may be further down than what they say it is. Therefore it may not be as hot where this mineral is.

Even the mineral thing is a guess. They can't see it now can they? It may not even be there. It may be just compressed water. Do you have facts or theories?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
To reiterate a question I've asked before:

Is there actually any physical evidence that the Earth was at one time surrounded by some sort of vapor canopy (or whatever)? I don't care whether or not it is plausible. Just whether or not there is any evidence that suggests it existed at one time.
 
Upvote 0

ReUsAbLePhEoNiX

Liberated from SinComplex
Jun 24, 2003
2,524
80
51
Earth, MilkyWay Galaxy
Visit site
✟10,562.00
Faith
Taoist
I always thought hell was suppose to be inside the earth. then how could the water be inside to? wouldnt the water cool the temp of hell, turning the lake of fire into a solid layer of brimstone? Maybe hell is protected from the water by a " crude oil conopy" that shields hell from the undesirable effects of the underground water. I think thats where volcanoes and lava come from, is hell and people pumping crude oil out of the ground is causeing more volcanoes and molten brimstone to leak unto the surface. And also probably allows demons to escape.
 
Upvote 0

Melange_Thief

ROMANI ITE DOMUM
Mar 13, 2003
100
1
35
Right Behind You
Visit site
✟7,725.00
Faith
Atheist
ikester7579 said:
How did all that water get back in? Hmm. I guess rain stays on the ground. Never to be soaked in. Then we have fault lines. I wonder if they opened up and allowed water to go in?

AD HOC FALLACY--
"Will God heal me if I pray to Him?
"Of course!"
--2 weeks later--
"God didn't heal me..."
"Umm... God works in mysterious ways."
This would have been useful earlier. Remember that next time. I will let someone else answer this, as I do not know about geology as much as, say, biology or astronomy.

As far as valcanoes go, and how the earth's crust is and the layers below. How does science know what is there all the way to the middle of the earth? Did they guess? Or did someone go down there? And if they guessed, then they guessed on how hot it gets as you go down also. This molten rock may be further down than what they say it is. Therefore it may not be as hot where this mineral is.

Science knows the layers of the Earth because earthquake vibrations moving through the Earth have been measured. The shock waves move through the layers at different rates (or some not at all). They did not guess.

Even the mineral thing is a guess. They can't see it now can they? It may not even be there. It may be just compressed water.

I do not understand what you are trying to say. Therefore I offer you these pointless Latin sentences: Marcus e silva currit quod sub arboribus sedere non amat. Marcus Romanos timet. Marcus "Romani ite domum!" in raeda et in via et in villa et in urbe et in horto et in agris scribet. Cornelius, amicus Marci, puellam parvam terret.*

Do you have facts or theories?

THE WORD YOU MEAN IS HYPOTHESIS! *@#%(#$^&#$*^%#$(^#$*^*#!!! I DO NOT LIKE HAVING TO CORRECT PEOPLE! [/rant mode] A theory is well-supported by evidence to the point that is considered provisionally true. A hypothesis is the correct way to say what you are trying to. It is generally the one with less supporting evidence to the point where it is okay to doubt.

[size=1/2]*Translation- Marcus runs out of the woods because he does not want to sit under trees. Marcus fears Romans. Marcus writes "Go home, Romans!" on the carriage and on the road and on the house and in the city and in the garden and in the fields. Cornelius, a friend of Marcus, scares small girls. [/size]
 
Upvote 0

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
1) I always find the "how do you know, where you there?" argument funny, especially when coming from the creationist perspective.

However, we all have the equipment to do it, matter of fact, you do it every time you turn on one of those new fangled energy saver lights.

What he did was put Hydrogen in a tube, then applied electrical current to it, and it excited the Hydrogen enough to emit light particles. Depending on the energy, the light emited will be of a known color. We can use the same technology to figure out what an unknown element is, because each element has its own set of colors that it will emit.

Why Bough thinks that in the early days the sun was emitting enough radiation and other fun stuff to energize the sky enough to make it glow in this manor I dont know. I mean "how does he know, was he there?" :)

2) Yes I believe they did observe the fact that the water is lock up inside the mineral.

ikester7579 said:
How do you do what your talking about? And how would Baugh have the equipment to do this if it could be done? Did anyone see him do this? Or is this just something read where someone claimed this? Like the claim that Baugh carved the foot prints in the park in the middle of the night?

Did they observe this? I don't remember reading this. It's only a guess or theory. They do not know for sure.
Yes, this mineral has been handled before. It's usually found in meteorites.
 
Upvote 0

ElElohe

A humble Resistentialist
Jun 27, 2003
1,012
28
46
Siloam Springs, AR
Visit site
✟8,822.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Arikay said:
Not to get into this again, :) just a few comments.

1) For metalic hydrogen to form, it requires a Very Huge amount of pressure.

2) He said the sky was a color, but what evidence does he have? (im curious about this one as I dont remember us talking about it before)

3) What would boil the water isnt the heat from under the ground, its the heat that would be required to melt the mineral to get the water out of it. To get the water out of the mineral, it would need to be turned molten. Since there was mineral than water, for every bit of water there would be a large amount of molten rock.

What evidence is there that there wasn't something like this.

Again, here we go in circles . . .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Arikay

HI
Jan 23, 2003
12,674
207
40
Visit site
✟21,317.00
Faith
Taoist
Only in circles for those that dont listen.

Lets see.

1) Metalic Hydrogen Canopy.

A) it takes a lot of pressure to keep Hydrogen Metalic (becoming liquid), and much more to turn it to a solid. We are talking, Middle of Jupiter pressure.

B) To turn it into a "canopy" there would need to be equal pressures on each side. How can this happen? And if you invoke god, its not science anymore.

2) Glowing Sky.

A) I find it interesting that Bough makes a claim that thats the way the sky was, but how does he know that? What evidence (even biblical) did he find that says the sky must have been pink.

B) He makes the Hydrogen glow and pretends that what would happen then, but you would need some radiation or other fun particles to make it do that.

C) I believe from what I remember of reading the work, that he claims the reason why the sky is blue today is because it has more oxygen in it than before and the oxygen glows blue. this is completly ignoring the real reason why the sky is blue.

3) wadslylite (not sure if thats the correct spelling).

A) There is more mineral than water in the wads, and the water is locked up in its structure. The mineral would need to be melted to let the water escape. This would make more molten rock than water. Boiling the earth in molten rock instead of flooding it.

B) The bringing up of this rock and its melting would have left lots of evidence, yet we find none of it.

C) How did the water get back into the rock, and then the rock get stuck back into the ground?

ElElohe said:
What evidence is there that there wasn't something like this.

Again, here we go in circles . . .
 
Upvote 0

Frumious Bandersnatch

Contributor
Mar 4, 2003
6,390
334
78
Visit site
✟23,431.00
Faith
Unitarian
ElElohe said:
What evidence is there that there wasn't something like this.

Again, here we go in circles . . .

What evidence do you have that my back yard is not full of invisible leprechauns that pull on the grass causing it to grow? It makes more sense than the solid hydrogen canopy.

The Frumious Bandersnatch
 
Upvote 0

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
ElElohe said:
What evidence is there that there wasn't something like this.

You can't prove a negative. Which is why such demands are generally worthless. The onus is on the person making the positive claim to provide evidence for that positive claim.

Frumious's challenge nicely illustrates this flaw.
 
Upvote 0

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
ikester7579 said:
How did all that water get back in? Hmm. I guess rain stays on the ground. Never to be soaked in. Then we have fault lines. I wonder if they opened up and allowed water to go in?

Since when do continental faults extend deep into the mantle while being wide enough to drain the water? They don't and they aren't.

As far as valcanoes go, and how the earth's crust is and the layers below. How does science know what is there all the way to the middle of the earth?

We can observe the passage of seismic waves through the earth. Certain boundaries indicate the layers of the earth as the seismic waves reflect or refract. Secondary seismic waves do not travel through liquids, so from that we can also infer the liquid outer core by realizing that we don't observe those secondary waves at stations on the other side of the planet.

We also know that the earth cannot have a uniform composition and is layered by its moment of inertia. The earth's denisty must increase toward its center and the moment of inertia is less than for a uniform sphere because there is more mass per unit volume (higher density) closer to the earth's axis. We can model the earth according to seismic studies and use multivariable calculus in spherical coordinates to closely approximate the earth's shape and its concentric spherical layers to show that the moment of inertia of the model is closer to the moment of inertia observed for the planet. So we know that density increases inward according to concentric spheres at depths given by seismic wave studies. Curiously enough, the volumes of the shells determined by seismic studies work very well for the calculations.

We know how materials behave under certain pressures and temperatures in the lab and can construct a phase diagram for a variety of minerals. Knowing depths and the pressure which is a function of the depth, density at depth, and gravity at depth, we can determine what the pressure and corresponding temperatures would be at certain depths. We can then use our laboratory findings to show which minerals could exist as particular forms such that their density is consistent with our model of the earth. It's not mere guesswork.

Did they guess? Or did someone go down there? And if they guessed, then they guessed on how hot it gets as you go down also. This molten rock may be further down than what they say it is. Therefore it may not be as hot where this mineral is.

And you are just making an ad hoc rationalization for your model without any evidence. Geologists have evidence.

Even the mineral thing is a guess. They can't see it now can they? It may not even be there. It may be just compressed water. Do you have facts or theories?

If it was compressed water at a high temperature and high pressure, why would it even be solid? Secondary seismic waves cannot pass through a liquid, so evidently that water is not there because secondary waves can be picked up by seismographs all over the planet depending on where the initial wave started. It CANNOT be compressed water.

Furthermore, wadsleyite does not always necessarily occur in a hydrous form, and if it does, the water occurs as hydroxyl groups (OH) bonded to the structure. That means you have to depressurize the mineral, let the heat escape to melt the mineral to extract those OH groups for a great deal of wadleyite that probably doesn't even exist in the first place (amount-wise). That would release a great deal of heat along with your bogus hydrogen canopy that would have to break up and react with oxygen to form water (hint: that reaction releases heat, and you want to start with more starting materials than is physically possible). Your model would cook the earth an its inhabitants to death long before a global flooding event would occur so that your god could murder people. Face it YOUR GLOBAL FLOODING EVENT DID NOT HAPPEN. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR IT AND THERE IS EVIDENCE THAT FALSIFIES IT.

http://www.christianforums.com/t41209

You accuse others of guesswork and having no facts, but you provide ZERO facts and ONLY guesses. Geologists have loads of factual evidence you have not even considered, and your guesses are purely ridiculous and inconsistent with the evidence.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Mechanical Bliss

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.
Nov 3, 2002
4,897
241
43
A^2
Visit site
✟21,365.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
US-Democrat
ElElohe said:
What evidence is there that there wasn't something like this.

Again, here we go in circles . . .

Well considering the amount of heat released (didn't someone here do this calculation previously and come up with something like 10^28 Joules?), the earth's surface would have undergone some sort of melting or metamorphic event in recent history. That means that radiometric dating shouldn't work so well as it does. That means there should be little or no sedimentary rock at all. That means there should be little or no life on earth at all.

Radiometric dating works extremely well. The sedimentary rock record is hundreds of meters thick. There is an abundance of life on earth. There's your evidence that there wasn't something like this. The implications of such a preposterous model simply don't fit what actually exists.

It's simply impossible in the first place so it's pointless to discuss. It's a completely ridiculous model.
 
Upvote 0