Re: Creationism is a falsified scientific theory


George Evans wrote:
in article 1156322375.658819.210510@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard
Forrest at richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/23/06 1:39 AM:

George Evans wrote:

in article 1156231246.218384.242120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Richard
Forrest at richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/22/06 12:20 AM:

George Evans wrote:

<snip>

BTW, the amount of water held in a gaseous state high in the atmosphere
could be very considerable, since water is significantly lighter than
nitrogen or oxygen and would tend to stay high.

And the evidence for this is.....?

The periodic chart of elements.

I was refering to the assertion that considerable amounts of water could be
held in a gaseous state high in the atmosphere. There is a limit to how much
water can be held in air as vapour. This limit varies with temperature and
pressure, but even at saturation cannot be more than a small proportion of
atmospheric gas.

You are talking about water in the troposphere which normally contains
particulate matter around which water can condense thus forming clouds.

This is a relatively small effect. The dew point of water is far more
significant. Look it up.

I am
talking about putting water high above the troposphere, basically floating
on the heavier gasses below.

You mean the very, very attentuated gasses of the upper atmosphere? How
dense do you think they are?

The region would have to be clean and
relatively unstirred.

In that region, an amount of water in gaseous form equal to an 80 foot
liquid layer covering the earth, could be supported by tripling the
atmospheric pressure. Oh yea, without breaking any physical laws.


Except for the usual ones of course.
What holds this very, very attenuated layer of water vapur *above* the
troposphere?
Willpower?

By the way, if there were enough water in the atmosphere to cover the earth
to a depth of even a hundred meters, it would make life very difficult as
the atmospheric pressure would be far higher than it is today. If there were
enough water to cover the tops of the highest mountains, the atmospheric
pressure would be the same as that eight thousand meters under water.

First, you are assuming topography fixed in a present day state.

So perhaps you can give me a reason for thinking that the geology of the
earth, which shows the eroded roots of ancient mountains amongst other
structures, could have been formed in the timescale required for a recent
flood?

I'll do that when you settle down and focus a little.

I'm perfectly well focussed.
Evasion noted.


As a mind expanding thought experiment for you, how much leveling of the
crust would it take--shaving of the highest points and using the material to
fill in the lowest--to cover all the land with water?

As the nature of continental crust is different from that of oceanic crust,
this is a meaningless excercise. If you planned off the top of all the
continental crust, isostatic rebound would push the continents up to more or
less their present level. Continental crust is much thicker and less dense
than oceanic crust.

You would be taking lighter stuff which will be replace by heavier stuff
under the continent.

The stuff under the continent is *not* heavier. It is lighter than the
oceanic plates, but much thicker. That's why continents float higher
than oceanic plates in the underlying magma.

It can't possibly rebound to the same level.

I said more or less the present level. The continental plates are about
40 km thick. Taking on average half a kilometer off the top would
reduce the thickness a little, but they would float higher in the magma
which would compensate for most of the reduction in thickness. Do the
maths: Archimedes could have done so two thousand years ago.

If I can't
break the laws of nature, you can't either.

I'm not.
But then it seems that I understand them, and you don't.


Put another way, you would be spreading the continental crust material over
the earth more and more evenly. That has to lower the continents. Think
about the limit of the process, where you have a completely uniform layer of
continental crust material everywhere. Everything would be under about a
mile of water.

Which ignores the fact that continental crust in far thicker than
oceanic crust, and in any case there is not the slightest scrap of
evidence that such a condition ever existed, and vast evidence that it
didn't.


More to the point, there is absolutely no evidence that this has ever occured,
nor evidence that at any time in the past the continetal plates were flat.

Relax. This is just a thought experiment to show you that there indeed is
enough water to cover everything under some circumstances.

You mean under circumstances which never existed and could not exist?
Not exactly a "thought experiment" is it?

You seemed to
think it wasn't even possible.

It isn't.


I would guess it's not much.

It's rather more than you think. Have you ever considered trying to learn
about geology? I can recommend some excellent books.

I am guessing that continents don't average a mile above sea level. I am
also guessing that the oceans average well over a mile in depth. So even of
dry land and ocean were *equal* in surface area you could cover everything
with water. But, of course, water has it by a ratio of 4:1 I think, so there
is way more than enough water. And therefore it would take much earth moving
to just sink everything.

Which ignores the fact that continental crust is much deeper than
oceanic crust.

Learn some basic geology.


Second, it would only take a layer of water 80 feet thick covering the
globe, changed into gas and put high in the atmosphere, to account for 2
foot per day rainfall for 40 days. That added water would only triple the
atmospheric pressure. That's equivalent to a 80 foot dive.

1) You can't get that much water into the atmosphere without suspending
the laws of physics

Asked and answered above.

Assertion is not an answer.

2) Are you seriously suggesting that the greatest elevation of the
earth's crust at the time was less than 80 feet?

Did you suddenly forget about all the REST of the water in the oceans of the
earth. What happens when you start sloshing all the oceans around? Answer:
tendency to level the surface through accelerated erosion. Ground lowering,
water rising........

Why not answer the question.
Are you seriously asserting that the greatest elevation of the earth's
crust was no more than 8o feet just before the beginning of recorded
history?


3) Why 80 feet, not 160 feet or five miles? You are making it up as you
go along.

That's why you call it a hypothesis.

I don't call it an hypothesis. Hypotheses are based on evidence, and
try to explain the evidence. This starts with unfounded assertion.

You make it up based on evidence.

You have no evidence.

And
80 was based on what I thought would be adequate to produce 40 days of
torrential rain.


There is no evidence for 40 days of torrential rain either.


RF
George Evans

.