|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 19, 2009 15:20:41 GMT -5
I'm sure you've heard this argument before. There used to be a large "canopy" of water &/or ice surrounding the Earth. This supplied the water for Noah's flood, as well as seemingly explains everything else about the Genesis account, somehow.
So, why exactly is it that we, the skeptics, do not like this idea? What leads us to believe the explanation is false?
You may have guessed that I'm once again arguing stupid shit over the internet & am once again far too lazy to do some research.
But I don't believe we've ever had a topi like this, so it works out, regardless.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 19, 2009 15:27:59 GMT -5
I know, I know, it would boil everything on the planet! (source) Water is a greenhouse gas, it is a very potent greenhouse gas. The heat energy that the canopy would trap would be enormous. Which is why it would boil us.
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Dec 19, 2009 15:37:01 GMT -5
Greenhouse gasses are a myth created by evolutionists.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Dec 19, 2009 17:34:45 GMT -5
Additionally, the complete lack of evidence and the sheer ridiculousness of a layer of water just sitting there suspended in the air.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 19, 2009 18:40:36 GMT -5
Additionally, the complete lack of evidence and the sheer ridiculousness of a layer of water just sitting there suspended in the air. As an aside, the original claim was that there was "so much evidence." I keep commenting that the idea is totally ludicrous, & I get asked for evidence that it's ludicrous or--my personal favorite--that there is no evidence for it. My response is basically, "You first."
|
|
|
Post by Armand Tanzarian on Dec 19, 2009 21:29:54 GMT -5
I thought this idea came from Hovind, nevermind the illogicality of the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Mantorok on Dec 19, 2009 21:49:28 GMT -5
Additionally, the complete lack of evidence and the sheer ridiculousness of a layer of water just sitting there suspended in the air. THIS. I can't remember the exact explanation, but clouds float because the water droplets are tiny but numerous, and air can keep them afloat. A single large body of water won't work the same way.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Dec 19, 2009 22:53:05 GMT -5
Well, I was going to link you to TalkOrigins, but Vene beat me to it. So I'll just add to what was already said that enough water for the flood would have increased atmospheric pressure to levels comparable to several km under the sea. That is to say, not exactly conducive to most forms of life. And there's also the point about the heat energy released by the huge mass of water dropping from such heights.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 20, 2009 16:18:40 GMT -5
I'm sure this doesn't change the "boil the earth" argument significantly, but the weight thing is usually dodged by "it was water VAPOR, then God made it condense and the Flood happened."
Never mind that water vapor is only lighter because it's spread over a larger area, and that the sheer amount of water vapor we're talking about here would probably gather together and condense anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 20, 2009 17:15:31 GMT -5
There's no way it can exist without some sort of magical force holding it up. Water vapor isn't dense enough. Liquid water will fall. It doesn't work to have it in orbit around the earth because there's no way a spherical mass can do that. Ice is the only other option, but that's not structurally strong enough to hold its shape as a sphere. Also, the tiniest bump, say from an asteroid or something, would bump it off center enough that the opposite side would crash into Earth. Finally, whether it's ice or water, the thickness fundies are talking about (>1000ft) would allow no light to reach Earth's surface.
Fundies always claim that this "canopy" gave people all sorts of protections and 900+ year lifespans, but I've never seen one willing to live in a bubble under 1000ft of water. You know, because not wanting to die is more important than their "beliefs".
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 20, 2009 17:42:23 GMT -5
I "know" it wouldn't hold its shape as a hollow sphere, but I'm not sure why. It's one of those things you know doesn't happen, but I have no clue why.
Also, apparently the ice is completely transparent, which allows it to distribute light over a large area rather than focus it, or some such shit.
I've heard the same thing you have, but I fail to see how an ice wall would do that. Furthermore, the only way this can be justified is with magic, but that sort of contradicts the earlier claim of evidence.
Technically, that claim was for the genesis account & the history of the Bible & yadayada, but I'd say the fact that people have to make up bullshit to justify the bullshit they make up to justify the flood which is, of course, made-up bullshit sort of proves that there isn't any evidence for it.
|
|
|
Post by m52nickerson on Dec 20, 2009 17:51:19 GMT -5
Of course it was magic.......God magic!
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Dec 20, 2009 17:57:36 GMT -5
I "know" it wouldn't hold its shape as a hollow sphere, but I'm not sure why. It's one of those things you know doesn't happen, but I have no clue why. Because gravity. This is not why it would increase global temperatures. It would increase temperatures for the same reason other greenhouse gases do (it doesn't matter that it's not a gas in this case), which is due to the electrons. Light energy excites them, giving them more energy, but they don't retain the energy, so they go back to a lower energy level. Due to the first law of thermodynamics, the energy has to go somewhere. In this case, the energy is converted to heat. Nothing at all to do with how the light is focused. Which, of course, doesn't stop them. Also wait for them to claim it was miraculous, as if that was different from magical. Yes, if there was evidence for it, there would be no need to bullshit your way through it. and a global flood is the sort of thing that would leave a LOT of unambiguous evidence across different disciplines. It could be verified through geology (duh), archaeology, biology, and history, just to name a few fields. So far, nothing suggests it happened and everything suggests it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Dec 20, 2009 18:42:36 GMT -5
I'm going to play devil's advocate and suggest that the "water canopy" indicates heavy cloud cover. This would technically be a "canopy" of "water".
*bows*
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Dec 20, 2009 21:26:27 GMT -5
It also would not provide nearly enough water for a flood. But a valiant attempt all the same.
Of course they don't come out & say "magic." But that's what a miracle is.
Eh, I typically say that a water canopy would focus sunlight. So, I guess I lost on that part.
Why would gravity not allow it to be spherical?
|
|