response

Posted by eman on October 21, 1998 at 12:16:06:

In Reply to: Not speechless, just busy. posted by John on October 20, 1998 at 18:48:22:

: : I guess my last response may have either rendered you speechless, or, perhaps you have found yourself suddenly agreeing with the truth.

: No your last response did not render me speechless. The computer I use to talk to you is at my place of employment and we suddenly got swamped with work so I haven't had a chance to respond to your heckling. You listed too many points in your last response for me to address them all so I'll just do a few at a time. First of all I realize that I misspoke when I said that I believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis. I meant a literal account of the creation not every single idiom and expression that exists in every language on the planet. The "four corners of the earth" is such an expression. Another one is the "feathered fowl that walks on all fours." The same word that is used for "walk" in that phrase is also the word for "flock". Why the translators decided to use that word is beyond me but just because such a creature doesn't exist today doesn't mean it never existed. What about these supposed transitional dinosaurs that have reptililian characteristics but are feathered? If those fossils are real then they are not the millions of years old that you would say they are. The last thing that I will address this time is the subject of the rainbow. This also ties in directly with the amount of water needed to flood the earth to the depth specified in the bible. I don't know if you are familiar with the canopy theory but this will explain most of the misconceptions that people have devloped over the years because they refused to believe what the bible said and had to find another way to explain it. I belive that things are not always as they appear. Why did people believe that the earth was flat? Because it looks that way when you're standing on it. Why did the think Columbus would sail off the edge of the earth? Because looking out over the ocean, it sure seemed like it would happen that way. It will take a while for me to get into the canopy theory so when you reply again let me know if you know about it. If you don't then I will explain it in my reply. There is a lot involved with the flood and the events surrounding it and it is all in the bible. If all you know is that the bible says there was a catastrophic flood and you think it's false then it's no wonder you feel the way you do. All you really have is deficient biblical knowledge and a book of alleged contradictions to catalyze your disbelief in a creator. When you think about it, what scientific proof did Darwin have? None. He speculated on something that he thought might be possible and people blindly embraced that and sought proof that doesn't exist, so they called what he said truth and showed us monkey skeletons to prove that that's where we came from. What kind of proof is that? When the first living thing came into existence, did it evolve the ability to reproduce itself at the same time it came to life? Maybe you could help me out on that point? It may take me a day or so to get back to you so please be patient. I look forward to our discussions.

Yes, I have heard of the so-called "canopy theory". In my search for additional information concerning this unscientific "theory", I have discovered the following article that reiterates my same concerns as to the validity of this "theory". But before I get to that, consider the following calculations. Just out of curiosity, I sat down and calculated just how fast rain would have to fall in order to correspond with Genesis. I believe that the bible states that all land was covered. Up to the top of Mt. Everest then? The volume of water would have been astronomical (whether or not it came from a "vapor canopy"). Using a bit of armchair maths, we can roughly calculate how much water would have been needed to cover the planet to the top of Mt. Everest: The radius of the Earth is approx. 6370km. The height of Everest above sea-level is approx 8.8 km. Therefore, the volume of the Earth is approx. 1,082,696,932,000km³, or 1,080 billion cubic kilometres. The volume of the earth to the height of Everest is
1,087,190,293,000km³. Subtracting the first volume from the second gives approx. 4,493,361,000, or four thousand, five hundred million cubic kilometres of water! Also, this rain is supposed to have fallen within about 40 days. That means that there would have been about 220m of rainfall every day over the entire planet (8800/40 = 220)! Breaking it down further indicates that rain would have to fall at a rate of over 9m per hour, or just under 30 feet per hour. That would equate to a constant, 40 day rain at a rate of almost 6 inches of rain per minute!!!

Now, on tho the "canopy theory" you spoke of:

"Several creationists have proposed concepts that assume a former "canopy" existed around the earth, which contained a great deal of water, that precipitated out as rain at the time of the flood. The idea that the canopy consisted of a "thermal vapor blanket" surrounding the pre-flood earth was advanced by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in their book "The Genesis Flood", and their suggestion has received a great deal of attention.

All the canopy theories, it seems, can be dismissed because of energy considerations; the potential energy of the water would be converted to kinetic energy or heat as it fell to the earth, heating up the atmosphere to such an extent that life could no longer exist. Gary L. Johnson wrote: One of the difficulties of Dillow's model, as with most of the other canopy models, is the heat load or heat energy content of the canopy. The canopy must be somehow cooled from approximately 100 degrees C to the condensation point, the latent heat of condensation must then be removed at the same temperature, and then the liquid must be cooled to the present atmospheric temperature of about 25 degrees C. The potential energy (mgh) of the canopy must also be removed. Dillow shows that if all this energy were released in a short period of time, the temperature of the atmosphere would rise to 2,100 degrees C, an obviously impossible value. Dillow's model also does not deal with winter darkness near the poles. Robert Whitelaw
pointed out another problem with canopy models popular among creationists. If the canopy consisted of water vapor supported by the atmosphere, "no known physical law exists by which one pure gas (water vapor) can maintain a boundary with another (air) without diffusing into it. In fact, at the altitude of 20,000 feet that some have suggested for the canopy boundary, the mean free path between molecules would permit some water vapor to reach the earth's surface within minutes." Any canopy proposal involves conditions which no longer exist. Proponents engage in theoretical discussions about completely hypothetical former atmospheric configurations, including complicated mathematical expressions and tables of calculations. None of the canopies which have been proposed is plausible. Johnson wrote: "It appears that a miracle is necessary for any canopy model, either to hold the water up, or to get it down without destroying the earth." The proponents of canopy models seem to ignore the question posed by the
placement of the sun and moon in the firmament. If any of their models of the "waters above the firmament" were feasible, the identification of the firmament with the earth's atmosphere would still be problematic, since the sun and moon are not located in the atmosphere, but in space! As Strickling pointed out: Since the two great lights were placed in the firmament, while the waters above the firmament were above it; if the waters above the firmament were a vapor canopy, the sun and moon would have been beneath the canopy. Hence, the waters above the firmament must have been something other than the earth-encompassing shroud of water vapor so often proposed.

I do not believe that others and myself just choose to disbelieve most of Genesis on just a whim. I choose to believe physical evidence, experiments, logic, reasoning, and the scientific method. When science discovers far more plausible "theories" that are FAR more substantiated with evidential and experimential data, then I will trust the science. If legitimate scientific research supports portions of the Bible, I'll trust that. If you ever get the chance to read Darwin's "Origin of the Species", you will see that he did have evidences to support his conclusions. Although I agree that my Biblical knowledge is lacking (I see no purpose for myself in its detailed study), your knowledge of Darwin, and evolutionary concepts are far from the mark also. More information concerning the scientific theories concerning the origins of life can be found at www.talkorigins.org. The information on that site is so lengthy that I don't feel that it is appropriate to repeat it all hear. If you know of a site that
shows the verifiable scientific research and evidence supporting Biblical Creation, would you list it in your response? All of my research into the available published scientific research on Biblical Creation has come up with nothing. If there is legitimate scientific research being conducted in that area, I would like to examine it.

Sorry for my impatiance with you in awaiting your response. I was just worried that you had grown weary of our discussion, of which I have found rather interesting and entertaining.