A Deluge of Evidence for the Flood?

[LittlePig]

And I can't think of any reason you would make the comment you made if you weren't suggesting that the find favored your view of a worldwide flood.

Umm, because simply it's a better explanation? And the fact that it's more consistent with the Flood Model doesn't hurt either.

Except, of course, it isn't consistent with a 'Flood Model', since it isn't mixed in with any animals that we know are modern.

Before the rabbits multiply beyond control, I'll just leave my proposal as a rapid burial. Nothing more than that. For this thread, it can just be a giant mud slide.

Since it's still spring time, let's let the rabbits multiply.

Questions for Debate:

1) Does a Global Flood Model provide the best explanation for our current fossil record, geologic formations, and biodiversity?

2) What real science is used in Global Flood Models?

3) What predictions does a Global Flood Model make?

4) Have Global Flood Models ever been subjected to a formal peer review process?

[otseng]

I'll quickly address some of the issues you mentioned. But, I'm going to concentrate on the predictions I've presented so far.

Here are a few posts from your Global Flood Thread, from yourself:

As to the actual composition of the water canopy, I don't know. And nobody can really say for sure. But, my guess is what you described above. Perhaps it's a water vapor layer that produced that the greenhouse effect on the earth.

So you are completely pulling that out of no-where. Great science.

At least I've got a hypothesis. How can you explain that land animals and plants grew so large in the past and not now?

(just for the record, we have giant redwoods today, which are as big as anything back then)

Only in very limited regions in the world. Why do they not exist in more places?

The seasons exist because of the tilt of the earths axis. So you're saying a global flood managed to tilt the earth?

Of course not. I'm not suggesting the tilt was significantly affected by the flood. What I am saying is that a global water canopy could explain a uniform climate.

Since tree-rings do not exist in the past, are you saying that there was no tilt in the past? If not, then what explanation do you have of the evidence?

Not really. Water is kinda useless when it comes to radiation shielding.

False. One can see the water absorption spectrum here.

That's enough for now. We can address the rest of your comments after micatala and I have addressed my first prediction.

[Grumpy]

otseng

Since tree-rings do not exist in the past

"This piece of petrified wood from the Panoche Hills of central California dates from the latest Cretaceous (about 66 million years ago). The log it once belonged to floated into the sea, where small mollusks much like today's shipworms riddled it with holes until it sank to the muddy bottom. James Hutton described a similar specimen in 1785: "This specimen of wood contains in itself, even without the stratum of stone in which it is embedded, the most perfect record of its genealogy. It had been eaten or perforated by those sea-worms which destroy the bottoms of our ships. There is the clearest evidence of this truth. Therefore, this wood had grown upon land which stood above the level of the sea, while the present land was only forming at the bottom of the ocean." That is, this stone proves the existence of a substantial body of land and a neighboring sea—a whole world now almost vanished in deep time. "

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/ima ... ilwood.htm

You cannot be serious.

Grumpy

[r~]

At least I've got a hypothesis. How can you explain that land animals and plants grew so large in the past and not now?

Animals grow larger in times of energy abundance; not so much natural catastrophe or icy ages. Animals have gotten larger and smaller many times according to planet earth.
And then along came man.

ItS
Peace
r~

Words and Flesh are image of god and earth and heaven.
Let us reason together in the spirit of truth over even the most Holy of Words.

[r~]

Please forgive.

At least I've got a hypothesis. How can you explain that land animals and plants grew so large in the past and not now?

Animals grow larger in times of energy abundance; not so much natural catastrophe or icy ages.
Animals have thus gotten larger and smaller many times according to planet earth.
And then along came man.

Please tell again of your very best observation that contradicts the story of change and evolution written by the days and sediments of planet earth.

ItS
Peace
r~

Words and Flesh are image of god and earth and heaven.
Let us reason and serve together in the spirit of truth over even the most Holy of Words.

[Scotracer]

I'll quickly address some of the issues you mentioned. But, I'm going to concentrate on the predictions I've presented so far.

Here are a few posts from your Global Flood Thread, from yourself:

As to the actual composition of the water canopy, I don't know. And nobody can really say for sure. But, my guess is what you described above. Perhaps it's a water vapor layer that produced that the greenhouse effect on the earth.

So you are completely pulling that out of no-where. Great science.

At least I've got a hypothesis. How can you explain that land animals and plants grew so large in the past and not now?

(just for the record, we have giant redwoods today, which are as big as anything back then)

Only in very limited regions in the world. Why do they not exist in more places?

The seasons exist because of the tilt of the earths axis. So you're saying a global flood managed to tilt the earth?

Of course not. I'm not suggesting the tilt was significantly affected by the flood. What I am saying is that a global water canopy could explain a uniform climate.

Since tree-rings do not exist in the past, are you saying that there was no tilt in the past? If not, then what explanation do you have of the evidence?

Not really. Water is kinda useless when it comes to radiation shielding.

False. One can see the water absorption spectrum here.

That's enough for now. We can address the rest of your comments after micatala and I have addressed my first prediction.

But your hypothesis can be falsified, in part, with the reasons I outlined in this post:

Indeed. Fundamental physics destroys the concept of a water canopy.

Everything you said goat is correct.

a) If there was a "water canopy" on top of the atmosphere it would increase barometric pressure by such a level it would kill most terrestrial life we know today. Also, due to gravity how on earth did it actually stay up there? It defies this fundamental principle. Go try it at home: Fill a container full of water and try and get water to go above the air in the container. And the air can only support so much moisture.

You can work out how much water air can hold using psychometry (a part of Thermodynamics), but to save time and so you don't have to get an engineering degree here's a page where you can see the correlations:

http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/humiditycalc.shtml

As you can see, air really can't hold that much water - you'd need a HUGE volume of air to hold anywhere near enough water for a flood. You would need so much volume that no light would reach the surface of the earth. Photosynthesis wouldn't work and everything would die.

b) When this water fell to earth for "the flood" the rapid drop in atmospheric pressure would cause almost all life to explode (i.e. rapid decompression).

c) If you move this into space (where it would become an "ice canopy") the energy gained due to gravitation and kinetic effects would cause it to heat to incandescence within hours, falling to earth and vapourising all life. If this was in an orbit around earth it would have to have at least an orbital velocity of 29,800m/s. When this breaks up and falls to earth, with this much kinetic energy it would increase in temperature by the order of thousands of degrees centigrade (i.e. the vapourising I talked about).

d) If there was indeed an ice canopy above the earth's atmosphere, you have the next problem: melting. The sun gives us an equal amount of energy per unit area if you are on the surface at the equator or in orbit at the equator. The sun's radiation can melt roughly 0.5m ice (thick) per day. For it to even last the time between the creation of the earth and the flood (I'm using the biblical account found here) which is roughly 1700 years, it would have to be 310250m thick. And when we look at the amount of sunlight that can actually get through ice (which has roughly the same light impregnation as liquid water), we see that at such a thickness would stop all sunlight reaching the earth. This is because of a region, after a certain depth of water called the "Midnight Zone" where no sunlight can penetrate. So, that's no sunlight. And this is JUST for the biblical age. If we assume the known age of the earth (~4.5 billion years) we get an ice shield of 821250000000m thick. This is far bigger than the earth itself!

d) If you suppose the water canopy on top of the atmosphere was in fact ice, this would fracture due to barometric pressure changes across the surface of the earth. When it failed, the exact same thing as b) would occur.

The prospect of disproving a water canopy, of any sort, is easy. And I did.

Hypotheses are great but when they fall at the first hurdle, they are forgotten about and you go find a new one. You haven't done so. Why not?

PS: I've updated that post since I brought it forward. The pieces in red are updates.

[Grumpy]

[otseng]

http://geology.about.com/library/bl/ima ... ilwood.htm

The link and article that you cite has this as the first picture:



It would appear that the article is referring to the above image, not the images that you provided.

[otseng]

Animals grow larger in times of energy abundance; not so much natural catastrophe or icy ages.

What do you mean by "energy abundance"? How does this translate into larger land plants and animals?

[otseng]

As you can see, air really can't hold that much water - you'd need a HUGE volume of air to hold anywhere near enough water for a flood.

Where do I posit that the water canopy is the source of water for the flood?

[otseng]

And exactly how does this relate to this thread?