The water canopy.

[philadiddle]

If the big bang and evolution are not religious, then why dismiss other possibilties? I'd like to open this by quoting en.wikipedia.org. The first is in reference to the beginning of the big bang.

As there are no models for the regimes on this scale, in particular, the lack of a theory of quantum gravity, this period of the universe's history remains an unsolved problem in physics.

Accelerating universe is a term for the idea that our universe is undergoing divergent rapid expansion. In the late 1990s, observations of supernovae (type Ia) produced the unexpected result that the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating. These observations appear more firm as new data have appeared. This means that not only does the speed with which a distant galaxy recedes from us increase over time, but it increases faster than the linear relationship predicted by the Hubble Law.

This means that there are no current models that could demonstrate the big bang. Also, new observations are made and the theory is changed from time to time. This is science seeking the truth. But this doesn't happen with any other theories. I wonder why. (I expect a certain type of response to that statement.)

I have no working model of a water canopy to present to you but it is a fascinating idea. Increased air pressure means large dinosaurs could breath easier in the pre flood world. Plants would get larger (I don't have a reference off my head but this has been tested, maybe someone could give a reference so my words don't seem empty). People would live longer, to the ages mentioned in the bible in the pre flood world. Why do you think pressure chambers are used to heal athletes? Better air and more oxygen means people could physically stand running from town to town to deliver messages, this was done before the flood but not after.

The study of this possibility would bring new light to how people are healed, plants are grown, etc. As the theory is studied new observations will be made and more details will come out about the theory, and some changes will also be made to it. But some of you just shrug it off, aren't u interested in the advancement of science, or are your religious beliefs (the big bang and evolution) too important to you?

Please note: I'm not going to talk about UV light because there is another post addressing that issue.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

You can't really compare the two.
We KNOW something like the big bang happened. The proof is, as they say, in the plumb pudding. (CBR)
Sure, we don't have all the answers for it yet, but its an amazingly difficult thing to research.

I have no working model of a water canopy to present to you but it is a fascinating idea.

And sadly, no one else has one either.

The thing is, none of the theorys about the water canopy stand up to close scrutinity. There is ALWAYS some kind of fudging of results, misunderstanding of science, or outright deciet going on.

 

[michabo]

If the big bang and evolution are not religious, then why dismiss other possibilties?

Other possibilities are not dismissed. They have been considered and either falsified or have been shelved until more support arises (e.g.: M-Theory).

This means that there are no current models that could demonstrate the big bang.

Not quite. It means that none of our current theories have enough to support to let us understand the very early moments of the BB. The BB itself is relatively well established. Compare it to Newton and Einstein - there are flaws in Newton's theory, but in the large it is accurate.

This is science seeking the truth. But this doesn't happen with any other theories. I wonder why. (I expect a certain type of response to that statement.)

Because this does happen with other theories? I wonder why you didn't know that?

I have no working model of a water canopy to present to you but it is a fascinating idea. Increased air pressure means large dinosaurs could breath easier in the pre flood world.

There was no flood.
There was no water canopy.

But some of you just shrug it off, aren't u interested in the advancement of science, or are your religious beliefs (the big bang and evolution) too important to you?

No, it is because we are interested in the advancement of science and we don't forsake it for silly religious ideas.

 

[Force_of_Will]

So are you saying that if someone lived their entire life in a pressure chamber and subject to the same conditions to that would be present in your canopy nonsense that they could live to 900 years old. This is ridiculous. That water canopy never existed outside of creationists heads and even if it did, how would that make someone live many many times longer than people do today. Please explain why it would because I don't see how.

 

[P4g4nite]

I see your objection to the BB theory -though, how it is comparable to a religion I don't know- but on what grounds are you calling evolution a religion?

 

[jwu]

There is no mechanism known which would have been able to keep all the water up there until it suddenly fell down.
Additionally, surface life (i.e. Noah and family, all those animals) would not have survived the decompression, and they would not have been suitable to live in the pre-flood conditions in first instance either. Slightly higher atmospheric pressure is one thing, pressure like at the bottom of an ocean an entirely different one.

A water canopy simply does not work unless you invoke God's direct intervention somewhere - but that defeats the very purpose of looking for a naturalistic explaination of the origin of water of the flood. If one says "God saved Noah's head from popping during the decompression", then one can say "God zapped all the water in place and made it disappear again" too.

jwu

 

[gluadys]

I have no working model of a water canopy to present to you but it is a fascinating idea. Increased air pressure means large dinosaurs could breath easier in the pre flood world. Plants would get larger (I don't have a reference off my head but this has been tested, maybe someone could give a reference so my words don't seem empty). People would live longer, to the ages mentioned in the bible in the pre flood world. Why do you think pressure chambers are used to heal athletes? Better air and more oxygen means people could physically stand running from town to town to deliver messages, this was done before the flood but not after.

The basic problem is that the beneficial effects of higher pressure require a very slight increase in pressure. A water canopy which would provide that beneficial effect would be extremely thin and could have provided only a few millimeters, if that, to a global flood.

And even that amount would have to be released gradually to prevent harmful decompression in terrestrial life. (Think of how deep-sea divers have to ascend gradually to avoid the bends. The same would apply to the reduction of atmospheric pressure as a result of the descent of a water canopy.)

Finally, every measurement of the pressure effects of a water canopy massive enough to provide significant quantities of water to a global flood result in earth-surface temperatures too high to sustain any life at all prior to the alleged flood.

In addition, there is no scriptural support for a water canopy.

So it is a non-starter both scientifically and religiously.

 

[Lynx2174]

that brings up some more interesting things. wouldn't normal air be toxic to everything before the flood, so everything would need to breath a helium oxygen mix because they would be under the pressure of the deepest part of the ocean, due to the oceans being magically suspended over their heads? and then even if they could survive breathing normal air, when the floods came, would'nt everything immediately die from the bends in an extremely painful way?

I find the "literal" YEC flood story to be one of the silliest things ever proposed. I mean, Seriously, that kind of thing makes some of the atheists and people of other religions feel REAL secure in their beliefs, given that they think YEC is reflective of christianity as a whole.

 

[duordi]

You can't really compare the two.
We KNOW something like the big bang happened. The proof is, as they say, in the plumb pudding. (CBR)
Sure, we don't have all the answers for it yet, but its an amazingly difficult thing to research.


And sadly, no one else has one either.

The thing is, none of the theorys about the water canopy stand up to close scrutinity. There is ALWAYS some kind of fudging of results, misunderstanding of science, or outright deciet going on.

I can give a working model.

Basic thermodynamics.

Water does not have to make a transition from a liquid to a gas instantaneously but it depends where you are with respect to the triple point on the pressure temperature diagram. If you do not know what the triple point is you may have to do some reading. But to make a complicated story short water under certain pressures and temperature changes, can gradually progress from a gas to a liquid. In this process the heat of evaporation is given off as light. If a water canopy existed with the correct pressures and temperatures. Water could not exist as a liquid if it attempted to enter the atmosphere because the vapor partial pressure in a mixed gas atmosphere would cause any water attempting to make the transition to turn to a vapor. How you would maintain this precarious balance would be another question. Any variations in the pressure temperature relation ships would cause an enormous amount of energy adsorption or light release. Depending on how the pressure and temperatures were dispersed this may cause the system to be stable or unstable. The complications of a system of this type would take considerable thought to work out the details if it could be achieved at all.

Duane

 

[Green Man]

Wake up people,the creation story never happened.The flood never happened.Noah never was swallowed by a whale.Samson didn't lose his strength after receiving a haircut.These are all stories with no factual basis.

 

[tryptophan]

Wake up people,the creation story never happened.The flood never happened.Noah never was swallowed by a whale.Samson didn't lose his strength after receiving a haircut.These are all stories with no factual basis.

Indeed, Noah wasn't swallowed by a whale.

 

[Bushido216]

I can give a working model.

Basic thermodynamics.

Water does not have to make a transition from a liquid to a gas instantaneously but it depends where you are with respect to the triple point on the pressure temperature diagram. If you do not know what the triple point is you may have to do some reading. But to make a complicated story short water under certain pressures and temperature changes, can gradually progress from a gas to a liquid. In this process the heat of evaporation is given off as light. If a water canopy existed with the correct pressures and temperatures. Water could not exist as a liquid if it attempted to enter the atmosphere because the vapor partial pressure in a mixed gas atmosphere would cause any water attempting to make the transition to turn to a vapor. How you would maintain this precarious balance would be another question. Any variations in the pressure temperature relation ships would cause an enormous amount of energy adsorption or light release. Depending on how the pressure and temperatures were dispersed this may cause the system to be stable or unstable. The complications of a system of this type would take considerable thought to work out the details if it could be achieved at all.

Duane

Fine. We have a vapour canopy instead of a water canopy, but you still haven't addressed why the added pressure wouldn't crush everything to the ground and why the sudden lack of this pressure wouldn't cause everyone to explode.

Not to mention that the tremendous heat (ever hear of a pressure cooker?) would melt everything.

 

[duordi]

Wake up people,the creation story never happened.The flood never happened.Noah never was swallowed by a whale.Samson didn't lose his strength after receiving a haircut.These are all stories with no factual basis.

What are your assumptions which brought you to this conclusion?

Duane

 

[tocis]

What are your assumptions which brought you to this conclusion?

Umm, ever stopped to think about just how awfully much water you'd need to cover all the mountains (like the bible describes)? There simply isn't enough additional water in this world to do that.
Some will now claim that god simply created an initally (more or less) flat earth - pun intended - so the flood would have needed much less water. However, you'd then have to explain all that mountain- and continent-rising. You can either say "goddidit" (which immediately disqualifies the whole idea as a scientific theory) or you have to find a way out for all the energy that would have to be released for moving all that mass. Where did it come from? Where did it go after the movements were completed? Remember that conservation of energy demands that all the power has to become something. Waste energy normally becomes heat. Imagine what all that energy would have done to this planet.

In other words, either you have to invoke miracles (why then go through all that trouble to make the creation myth appear scientifically possible?) or... you have to hope no one notices the silliness of the whole idea.

 

[HRE]

Wake up people,the creation story never happened.The flood never happened.Noah never was swallowed by a whale.Samson didn't lose his strength after receiving a haircut.These are all stories with no factual basis.

See, atheists have people that make them look bad by association, too -- just like Hovind makes Christians look bad by association.

 

[gluadys]

I can give a working model.

Basic thermodynamics.

Water does not have to make a transition from a liquid to a gas instantaneously but it depends where you are with respect to the triple point on the pressure temperature diagram. If you do not know what the triple point is you may have to do some reading. But to make a complicated story short water under certain pressures and temperature changes, can gradually progress from a gas to a liquid. In this process the heat of evaporation is given off as light. If a water canopy existed with the correct pressures and temperatures. Water could not exist as a liquid if it attempted to enter the atmosphere because the vapor partial pressure in a mixed gas atmosphere would cause any water attempting to make the transition to turn to a vapor. How you would maintain this precarious balance would be another question. Any variations in the pressure temperature relation ships would cause an enormous amount of energy adsorption or light release. Depending on how the pressure and temperatures were dispersed this may cause the system to be stable or unstable. The complications of a system of this type would take considerable thought to work out the details if it could be achieved at all.

Duane

This is another basic problem with the flood story. Most attempts to describe the pre-flood world end up describing a very unstable situation. The consequence of this instability is that the flood would be inevitable, even if humanity had never fallen.

There are some theological problems with that scenario. Particularly as the flood story begins with God repenting of having made humanity. This strongly suggests that the flood was not part of God's original plan for history. So why would he create a pre-flood world so unstable that a flood would be inevitable even if humanity remained sinless?

 

[warispeace]

Lotta newbies in this thread. Welcome, newbies!

 

[duordi]

Umm, ever stopped to think about just how awfully much water you'd need to cover all the mountains (like the bible describes)? There simply isn't enough additional water in this world to do that.
Some will now claim that god simply created an initally (more or less) flat earth - pun intended - so the flood would have needed much less water. However, you'd then have to explain all that mountain- and continent-rising. You can either say "goddidit" (which immediately disqualifies the whole idea as a scientific theory) or you have to find a way out for all the energy that would have to be released for moving all that mass. Where did it come from? Where did it go after the movements were completed? Remember that conservation of energy demands that all the power has to become something. Waste energy normally becomes heat. Imagine what all that energy would have done to this planet.

In other words, either you have to invoke miracles (why then go through all that trouble to make the creation myth appear scientifically possible?) or... you have to hope no one notices the silliness of the whole idea.

If the Earth was somewhat flatter - and I do not know why that should not be the case - and a flood the size of the one described happened should I not expect geological action to take place?

Why would we not expect the Earths surface to become less smooth?

I have nothing against miracles but why bother if something is a logical understandable outcome?

Duane

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

If the Earth was somewhat flatter - and I do not know why that should not be the case - and a flood the size of the one described happened should I not expect geological action to take place?

Why would we not expect the Earths surface to become less smooth?

I have nothing against miracles but why bother if something is a logical understandable outcome?

Duane

Think about how much energy would be required to raise mountains, over the course of a year?
Where did it come from? Where did it go?

 

[duordi]

Fine. We have a vapour canopy instead of a water canopy, but you still haven't addressed why the added pressure wouldn't crush everything to the ground and why the sudden lack of this pressure wouldn't cause everyone to explode.

Not to mention that the tremendous heat (ever hear of a pressure cooker?) would melt everything.

I did not say the water could not be water (liquid) at some point just that the transition would be incremental.

Added pressure is not a problem if it is constant but a lot of pressure is not necessarily needed.

There is no indication how much of the water came from the caverns below. Gen 1:7 and how much came from the canopy above.

There was 40 days and 40 nights of rain which means 40 days and 40 nights of decompression.

The amount of heat generated is a thermodynamic problem which would include the potential energy of the water due to its height, momentum due to its change in velocity, the heat of fusion which would be dependent on how much of vapor turned to gas or gas turned to vapor, the temperature and pressure change of the canopy H2O and the energy loss due to the expansion of the atmosphere which was depressurized.

So what assumptions did you use to determine a temperature rise of that magnitude?

Duane