Punctuated Equilibrium

[BananaSlug]

There were many dinosaurs that were adapted to living in colder climates. We've found dinosaur fossils in Alaska, Antarctica and other places that still would have been quite cold even in the Mesozoic. Don't forget that many dinosaurs were warm-blooded as well!

 

[Naraoia]

That is correct --- but the new climate would not support the non-avian dinosaurs, and they eventually became extinct.

The non-avian dinosaurs were evidently adept at living under uni-tropical conditions --- which, of course, changed after the Flood.

And, of course, some dinosaurs never did live under. If I remember my Walking with Dinosaurs correctly, that is But joke aside, I'm pretty sure I've read in more authoritative sources than WWD that much of the Mesozoic world was temperate. Here's an inferred world climate map for the Late Cretaceous, one of the warmer periods in earth history (and here's more, with a basic explanation of how they are made).

Also... are you really saying that the whole world has to be tropical for tropical animals to survive? So are howler monkeys not tropical or not alive?

 

[AV1611VET]

And, of course, some dinosaurs never did live under. If I remember my Walking with Dinosaurs correctly, that is But joke aside, I'm pretty sure I've read in more authoritative sources than WWD that much of the Mesozoic world was temperate. Here's an inferred world climate map for the Late Cretaceous, one of the warmer periods in earth history (and here's more, with a basic explanation of how they are made).

Also... are you really saying that the whole world has to be tropical for tropical animals to survive? So are howler monkeys not tropical or not alive?

According to the Water Canopy Theory, in earth's distant past, prior to Genesis 6, the earth was one tropical climate --- I'd say around 75 degrees year-round.

When the water canopy was broken up and came raining down to the earth, the sun's rays now struck the earth straight-on, changing the climate from uni-tropical to polar.

 

[BananaSlug]

Here is the actual picture for those who don't want to click links for evidence against their beliefs.

 

[Hespera]

I dont know how much was different world climate and how much is land masses moving about, but i have a hard time believing that much of anything found the climate at the south pole to be tolerable.

The climate where i am in the midwest i guess was once tropical, warm ocean and big sea turtles nesting in Wyoming.

 

[AV1611VET]

Here is the actual picture for those who don't want to click links for evidence against their beliefs.

And here's the real picture for those who do:

 

[BananaSlug]

Did you mean to put a red x or what is the picture supposed to be?

 

[AV1611VET]

Did you mean to put a red x or what is the picture supposed to be?

Pangaea --- (a.k.a. Eden).

 

[BananaSlug]

You do realize that Pangaea was comprised of vast deserts on the interior of the continent and was prone to wild fluctuations of temperature between day and night?

 

[AV1611VET]

You do realize that Pangaea was comprised of vast deserts on the interior of the continent and was prone to wild fluctuations of temperature between day and night?

Nope --- I sure wasn't.

 

[NailsII]

Nails, see what I'm talking about? And it didn't really matter when I told him that an extinction event that's clearly not the K/T is recorded all over the globe.

Absolutely.
Maybe he has to wait a few days to consult with his pastor or whatever.
It is a common trick among creationists to ignore or distort data beyond all comprehension however.
Including tax return forms, allegedly.

That is correct --- but the new climate would not support the non-avian dinosaurs, and they eventually became extinct.

The non-avian dinosaurs were evidently adept at living under uni-tropical conditions --- which, of course, changed after the Flood.

Only life that could adapt to the new climate would continue.

So why do we not see any reptile-avian transitions after what you think is the flood layer?
Why do modern mammals not appear until relatively recent in the fossil record?
Specifically, why are there no apes (including humans) in the fossil record before/during or after the flood, until the last 10 million years or so?

According to the Water Canopy Theory, in earth's distant past, prior to Genesis 6, the earth was one tropical climate --- I'd say around 75 degrees year-round.

When the water canopy was broken up and came raining down to the earth, the sun's rays now struck the earth straight-on, changing the climate from uni-tropical to polar.

It's not a theory, its a guess.
You might be able to stretch the language to hypothesis if you need credibilty - but it is not a theory.
What you are attempting to do is to put an idea on a par with the theory of gravity, germ theory of disease, atomic theory......

Just wondering though - if the earth was circled by a great big canopy of water 1cm thick stretching out past the moon, would this not allow less sunlight and therefore heat energy to hit the earth?
And now all this water is here (because it never rained before the flood, right?) wouldn't the surface temperature have gone up?

 

[AV1611VET]

It's not a theory, its a guess.

It's a theory --- CANOPY THEORY --- and an excellent one, if you ask me.

Just wondering though - if the earth was circled by a great big canopy of water 1cm thick stretching out past the moon, would this not allow less sunlight and therefore heat energy to hit the earth?

I don't know.

And now all this water is here (because it never rained before the flood, right?) wouldn't the surface temperature have gone up?

No ---

These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

 

[ragarth]

Absolutely.
Just wondering though - if the earth was circled by a great big canopy of water 1cm thick stretching out past the moon, would this not allow less sunlight and therefore heat energy to hit the earth?
And now all this water is here (because it never rained before the flood, right?) wouldn't the surface temperature have gone up?

It's pointless to argue, it's riddled with logical problems:

The water would act as a shield, reducing the radiant absorption of the planet and reducing the global temp

Rainforests exist to either side of the equator for a reason. Moisture is cycled from the equatorial region north and south where it becomes rain, ie, rain forests. Conversely, deserts are common at the equator for this exact same reason, and this same effect creates the equatorial doldrums which strand sailing vessels. This water and ecological cycle is impossible to create across an entire planet

How did the water stay up there?

How did the water not evaporate, since it's beyond the radiation belts and therefore exposed to solar wind? (remember, this is the theory as to why mars is so desolate, the liquid water was whisked away without a stronger magnetic field)

What happened to the water after the flood? If the planet was covered in 5 miles of water, then it didn't all glaciate, calculations of how much water is trapped in the icecaps and in glaciers haven't even shown enough water to cover the USA, just absorb coastland.

If the water was saltwater, why didn't the freshwater fish die, if the water was fresh water, why didn't the saltwater fish die?

I could go on, but seriously, this 'theory' is cracked.

 

[Hespera]

It is a strange theory / fantasy, but no stranger than the fantasy that one can use logic to defeat magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

I could go on, but seriously, this 'theory' is cracked.

QV please.

 

[NailsII]

It's a theory --- CANOPY THEORY --- and an excellent one, if you ask me.

To be a theory, it needs supporting evidence and be backed by other researchers who find similar results using almost identical methodology.
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is also good.

Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In science, the word theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[4]. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence. However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Let's look at your link then:

From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science


The canopy theory is a now largely discredited model originally developed as an explanation for the source of the flood water that covered the Earth during the Biblical flood of Noah

Or maybe you would rather read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canopy_theory#Vapor_canopy

I don't know.

So it's an excellent theory but you don't know very much about it, it just superficially meets your needs.

It's a nice idea AV, but it just doesn't work.
So theory is not really appropriate, sorry to be so blunt old chap.

 

[NailsII]

QV please.

AV, you got spanked so badly in that thread that you had to end it.
Even the catholics turned on you, man that really is low.

 

[AV1611VET]

To be a theory, it needs supporting evidence and be backed by other researchers who find similar results using almost identical methodology.
Publication in a peer-reviewed journal is also good.

Now ain't that a pity?

Looks like scientists think they have a monopoly on theories, doesn't it?

For shame, for shame --- someone needs to learn to share?

Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia can take a hike.

So it's an excellent theory but you don't know very much about it, it just superficially meets your needs.

Oh, my --- someone needs a wake-up call.

Scripture, to a Christian, is not "superficial" --- and to a KJVO / Sola Scriptura --- well --- let's just say --- "sacred."

Have you ever wondered why It's called the HOLY BIBLE?

Anyway, to expose your error in thinking ---

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.

Whatever happened to those "waters which were above," Nails?

I'm sorry --- what did you say?

"I don't know?" --- good deal ---

 

[AV1611VET]

AV, you got spanked so badly in that thread that you had to end it.

Either that, or because of blasphemy, I told Dantose he could go ahead and close it if he want to.

Even the catholics turned on you, man that really is low.

No comment.

 

[BananaSlug]

I always thought ancient people thought the blue sky was made of water. They had know clue that the blue color is because of the diffusion of blue spectrum light because of our atmospheric gas content.