Evolution and the Biblical Flood

When people look at the canopy theory why do they always try to place the canopy in the troposphere? That only goes a few miles up and would indeed bake the earth to a crisp. But we have, above the stratosphere, the thermosphere, which goes hundreds of miles up. There are still water droplets there, as photographed by returning spacecraft! The thermosphere could have held a very significant portion of the world's water early on without affecting the heat on the earth but shielding it rather effectively from UV radiation.

We still would have seen the stars and sun and moon. Everything would seem the same, but there would have been a basically invisible very effective protective 'coating' around the earth.

Think higher, people...

 

Note: as far as DNA and life starting, keeping in mind that life is not a 'thing' like DNA, but a process. However, without the protection of the cell, DNA quickly disassembles and is good for nothing. You need the entire cell, not just the DNA.

And then, even if you have all the right stuff, how does the process of life get involved? It is not just a series of chemical reactions. If it were, you could stick the proverbial frog in a blender, have all the right materials fresh at hand in the right concentrations and then produce some kind of electrical charge and get life.

Doesn't happen. Can't. That's because life is God's doing. His territory. Abiogenesis is a crock of lies.

 

"When people look at the canopy theory why do they always try to place the canopy in the troposphere? That only goes a few miles up and would indeed bake the earth to a crisp. But we have, above the stratosphere, the thermosphere, which goes hundreds of miles up."

Because any significant amount of water in the atmosphere at any elevation would require a massive change in the distribution of the gas concentrations at the surface to have a viable biosphere because of the crushing pressures involved.

Because water vapor at any elevation is still opaque to IR radiation and would still cause the same greenhouse effect.

 

"However, without the protection of the cell, DNA quickly disassembles and is good for nothing. You need the entire cell, not just the DNA."

And I have provided references before of common materials that can stabilize such compounds. In addition, I think most origin of life theories start with something simpler than DNA replicating. That came later.

"If it were, you could stick the proverbial frog in a blender, have all the right materials fresh at hand in the right concentrations and then produce some kind of electrical charge and get life."

Nope.

You would then have all the right parts to make a frog, but not necessarily the right ones to make a more simple form of life. Frogs are not made by mixing some recipe in a blender so you won't get a frog either.

 

Hey, you should be able to get SOMETHING out of frog juice! The DNA is there -- the proteins are there -- it is all there....

And you are very wrong about water in the troposphere vs. water in the thermosphere.

The troposphere goes ten miles up.
Above it, the stratosphere goes another 20 miles up.
Above that, the mesosphere goes another 20 miles up.

You are now fifty miles above the surface of the earth, at the boundary known as the airglow region. This is where the thermosphere starts. It is approximately 250 MILES thick.

The volume of the thermosphere is so vastly more than the volume of the troposphere that anything which could not fit in the tropospher without damage would just about disappear in the thermosphere without being noticed and, with two other layers and forty miles between it and the troposphere, would not alter gas concentrations at all.

At 180 miles up, the sun boosts atmospheric temperatures to about 3600 degrees F. Yet just below the airglow region, where we get the noctilucent clouds (ice crystals), the temperature can go as low as -225 degrees F.

We are quite protected from what goes on in the thermosphere and there may well have been a time when it was more of a protection to us.

 

"Hey, you should be able to get SOMETHING out of frog juice! The DNA is there -- the proteins are there -- it is all there...."

The DNA is there for making a frog. Thre is not necessarily anything there along the lines of the kinds of relatively simple, self-replicating molecules that are hypothesized as being the starting point for life. That's too generous. It is extremely unlikely that in a complex system like a frog that you would have a small, replicative molecule that could sustain itself outside of a frog.

"And you are very wrong about water in the troposphere vs. water in the thermosphere."

Where am I wrong?

If you put additional mass into the atmosphere, that mass will cause additional pressure at the surface.

If you cause additional pressure at the surface without altering the chemical composition at the surface, then the change in partial pressure of oxygen and nitrogen will have harmful effects.

Water vapor at any height will not pass IR radiation and therefore the surface will not be able to as effectively radiate heat to deep space.

 

Without a "SPIRIT", there is "NO LIFE".

Check out the "Cemeteries" for "evidence".

 

Do you have scripture to offer from which you derive your definite opinions? Can you refute the six points listed in my post that you replied to? If not from scripture, then you must have evidence from man that will refute each point. If you present mans own interpretation (meaning), do you believe it will hold water?

 

I suppose you will agree, we probably will never know down here.

I really don’t know how to answer this. If I understand your scenario, those in the Ark are placed in the water (under), and or between the waters. Man on earth was not in the water on the earth, and was not in the water above the earth, until the deluge. You can apply if you wish your application above to the souls that perished in the flood, but you cannot apply it to those in the Ark.

Also, see Helen’s post as to placement of the water “above”. How do we know she is right? She read what the Word tells us. Genesis 1:6-7, ”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.” The water was above the atmosphere of the earth. If man is able to escape our gravity and have matter hover above our atmosphere, do we believe it was impossible for God to do this?

When God decided to bring the waters above to again mingle with the waters on the earth, He had it all figured out. The “pressures” of the water from above is what we now see – the valleys, the high mountains, and the depths of the oceans and all the water then found their place . Equalization between the two bodies of water was established when God broke up the fountains of the deep at the same time He opened the windows of heaven. The water below equaled the water above, but the water above did not all drop at once. Over the 40 days that the rain fell oxidization was minimized I would imagine with just the right amount of ventilation, at the rate of decent appropriate for the mass going through each gravitational increase.

As the measured rain fell, the Ark stayed above the waters, not being subject to the pressures, or weight applied to the earth. When the rain began to fall, gravity it would seem to me, increased, compressing molecules. So with less gravity in effect as the rain began to fall could have been as perhaps “snow flakes” floating to the ground and by the last day, the fortieth day, the rain would fall with the velocity that it today falls. At this rate of decent at the beginning, it could fit your formula, “burning everything up”.

Is the way it happened? I have no idea, but it couldn’t be your way for we wouldn’t be here.

 

I do not think you followed.

If there was a vapor canopy, then the atmosphere would have weighed more by however much water was in the canopy. If the atmosphere weighed more, then the surface atmospheric pressure would be higher.

If the surface pressure is higher with the same composition at the surface, then the partial pressure of oxygen and nitrogen would have made life as we know it quite difficult it it was at all possible. The would have not been a preflood biosphere. And it is the extra oxygen pressure prior ro the flood which would be such a fire hazerd.

The mass of water also would not be enough to change the surface gravity of the earth an easily measureable amount.

You did bring up something new which I had neglected. The potential energy that would be released as a large amount of water fell from a great height would have to go somewhere. What happened to all that heat?

"Is the way it happened? I have no idea, but it couldn’t be your way for we wouldn’t be here."

Correct. Which is why most flood theories that say anything other than God willed the water into existance at the time of the flood and willed it out of existance immediately after have problems which cannot be overcome.

 

that's ridiculous, UTE. The waters came from under the crust, driven out of the rocks by radio decay heating. The great amount of olivine in the earth's crust testifies to this, for olivine is nothing more than serpentine with the water driven out by heat. Meteorites show that early materials were very high in serpentine.

When the great underwater reservoirs were finally at the critical point of heat and pressure, they burse forth -- Gen. 7:11. The areas where they burst ended up forming our ocean basins today, into which the waters running off the land drained.

Disasters are not miracles. The timing may be, and for sure the salvation through them is, but the disasters themselves, even to Moses' ten plagues, are natural events.

 

I was specifically addressing the vapor canopy idea that was proposed. If something is "ridiculous," it is the idea of a vapor canaopy. I thought that you, too, were opposed to the vapor canopy. But if someone wants to assert one, then they have the atmospheric pressure, potential energy and greenhouse effect problems with which to contend.

How water driven out of the crust cooks all life is covered here.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/3/3147/2.html#000016

 

Then I suppose some might say God does derisory things.

But does what is proposed apply above the atmosphere? This is my contention. The water was not of gravity of the earth.

If you contend otherwise, there would not have been anyone to build the Ark. Perhaps it could have all ended by what you proposed, and we know it would have happened as the Bible presents. All flesh was destroyed. But the Ark was built, and we are living proof of that fact.

Can you believe the sheer terror of those on the earth when rain from heaven began to fall. Some climbed the highest tree, others sought out a building, still others the highest hill. Before the rain began to fall, God had in place thermodynamics with its properties of temperature, pressure and density. The dew point with the atmospheric pressure was set only to “simmer”, to allow a mist to cover the earth. He never allowed the water above to “boil over”, and a pleasant, probably with little variation temperature was maintained.

As the rain from above the atmosphere was allowed to enter, the slight pull of gravity of the earth in the beginning, forced gravity to increase, putting immense pressure on the earth, causing the reformation of the earth. The temperature, pressure and density were all changed causing uneven temperatures, creating the two poles. Seasons of seedtime and harvest, and the four seasons were set in motion, and day and night for this earth will not cease – Genesis 8:22.

That glorious world was lost, but another so much superior awaits us.

 

Let's try this one more time.

You have atmospheric pressure because the mass of the atmosphere is attracted by the gravity of the earth and therefore exerts a pressure due to the force of that attraction.

If you put another layer of vapor above the existing atmosphere, then it will also have a mass which is attracted by the gravity of the earth. The force of this attraction will manifest itself as a higher atmospheric pressure.

About the only way around that is if you assert some sort of rigid, self supported container for the water.

There is also the problem of potential energy. When you lift something to a higher elevation, you are storng potential energy in that object. When the elevation is above the current atmosphere, you are storing enormous potential energy. When this water falls to earth, there must be some way to shed all of the heat that will be generated as the potential energy is converted.

Finally, the surface of the earth cools by radiating heat into deep space. Water vapor will not pass the wavelengths of light that carry this energy away. A thick layer of water vapor arround the earth would therefore prevent the normal cooling mechanism from being possible and would lead to a runaway greenhouse.

 

QUOTE]Originally posted by UTEOTW:
Let's try this one more time.

You have atmospheric pressure because the mass of the atmosphere is attracted by the gravity of the earth and therefore exerts a pressure due to the force of that attraction.

If you put another layer of vapor above the existing atmosphere, then it will also have a mass which is attracted by the gravity of the earth. The force of this attraction will manifest itself as a higher atmospheric pressure.

About the only way around that is if you assert some sort of rigid, self supported container for the water.

There is also the problem of potential energy. When you lift something to a higher elevation, you are storng potential energy in that object. When the elevation is above the current atmosphere, you are storing enormous potential energy. When this water falls to earth, there must be some way to shed all of the heat that will be generated as the potential energy is converted.

Maybe we can get it right this time.

Energy is energy. There can be no potential energy for energy can’t be made or destroyed, only degraded. We don’t know how high the canopy was that covered the earth. From what I know, it is not hot or cold in space that is empty. Could it have been solid to begin with, then heated, frozen, and then defrosted? We don’t know.

Finally, the surface of the earth cools by radiating heat into deep space. Water vapor will not pass the wavelengths of light that carry this energy away. A thick layer of water vapor arround the earth would therefore prevent the normal cooling mechanism from being possible and would lead to a runaway greenhouse.

You don’t find it strange that this did not happen? You probably have insulation in your home. I would imagine the canopy was used to bring about the same effect, as far as heating and cooling, just as insulation allows. It keeps out, and also holds in. We today can maintain a constant temperature in our homes by this method, with just a small amount of moving air for distribution. If we can figure this out, why couldn’t God do it on a much grander scale?

God had the thermostat set to around 76 or so degrees. There was no high wind movement, and no rain, and no storm systems could be generated for the whole earth was equally heated, or cooled in that world that was.

 

I don't see the point in arguing the science with ituttut because he has obviously decided that his interpretation of this verse must be right and is accepting it as a matter of faith.

Clearly God could miraculously (and yes, it would have to be a miracle and could not be done by natural means) suspend water high in the atmosphere and beyond and cause it to rain down on Noah, miraculously protecting him from being steamed alive with all of his animals. The question is whether God would do this. My conclusion is no, and that the water canopy is a misinterpretation. My basis for this is the inconsistency and arbitrariness of God creating everything else to work by natural means in the creation account, and then creating something that could only be sustained by a miracle (and which could only avoid frying the world by a miracle).

 

Finally, the surface of the earth cools by radiating heat into deep space. Water vapor will not pass the wavelengths of light that carry this energy away. A thick layer of water vapor arround the earth would therefore prevent the normal cooling mechanism from being possible and would lead to a runaway greenhouse.

What would be a 'thick' layer in the troposphere would be spread out and very diffuse in the thermosphere, which is what I tried to point out. The wavelengths carrying heat away from earth would have no trouble dealing with that, especially since they would not have to pass the thermosphere, which easily deals with the heat from the earth now with its incredible layers of heat and cold alternating.

 

I don't think so.

The absorption of light as it travels though a given material is described by Beer's Law.

A = e*l*c

e is the molar absorptivity of the medium, which is constant. l is the path length. c is the concentration of the absorbing material.

If we take an imaginary material with e = 0.5, at an arbitrary concentration of 1, with a path length of 1, the absorption is 0.5.

A = (0.5)(1)(1)
A = 0.5

Now suppose we increase the length to 2 while keeping the same amount of material, which cuts c to 0.5.

A = (0.5)(2)(0.5)
A = 0.5

As you can see, the net absorption remains the same.

This is true for a rectangular cell. It may vary a bit if we extrapolate to gases in the atmosphere because the atmosphere ranges out as a sphere and not a rectangle, so the concentration will not drop off in the same fashion. If I brushed up on my calculus I could give a more accurate estimate.

Actually it appears that Wikipedia has once again provided me with some nifty info: the equation for light passing through the atmosphere is ln=(lo/R^2) * exp(-(ka+kg+kno2+kw+ko3+kr) m), explained here.

We can't just say without doing some calculations that putting the water higher up in the atmosphere would make its absorbency negligible. What you probably would end up with is the amount of light that would be absorbed in 1 cm with concentrated water vapor at low altitude would instead be absorbed in 10 m with diffuse water vapor--but it is absorbed and the heat retained nevertheless.

Additionally, to return to the claim that putting water vapor higher in the atmosphere would have no effect on atmospheric pressure at ground level--if I get a 1 kg brick and stand it on top of your head, it applies the same downward force to your body as it would if I had it reshaped into a long 1 kg rod.

It's easy to say this or that is negligible, but it would be more believable if we could see some math.

 

Everybody simplied ignored the post from JWI on page three. God is supernatural. We don't need to determine the science about how the water got there if God said it was there. Maybe He created it out of nothing and made it all disapear just the same. Maybe there is a scientific explanation. Who cares. Why are you guys not debating how scientifically Jesus walked on water, or turned water into wine, or made five loaves of bread into enough to feed five thousand (must have been some serious pressure and a water canopy involved!) Where in the Bible does it claim the flood was not one of God's direct workings which include both natural and SUPERNATURAL alike.