PDA

View Full Version : Ice canopy? seriously?


Withered
May 5, 2007, 12:53 AM
I was surfing about earlier when i stumbled upon this thread:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=206010

Post #5 made a reference to a solid ice canopy that covered the earth and was the actual source of the rain that fell during the genesis flood.

Much to my surprise, i learned that the poster was apparently serious.

When i asked about, i got this follow up post:

Job 38:30 "30 The very waters keep themselves hidden as by stone,
And the surface of the watery deep makes itself compact."

When the Earth was being prepared there was waters in cloud form over seas. These waters were separated so that one layer of water was high above the waters below. This reference in Job mentioning the surface of the waters was "compact" and hidden as by "stone" suggests hardness such as in the case of ice, which might appear invisible, much like a glass casing around the earth.

The sun and other lights could shine through it and since it was transparent wouldn't likely absorb much heat. But this is just a guess.

If the waters collected above the earth were compacted and then hardened then it wouldn't affect atmospheric pressure below it but would create a greenhouse effect over the entire planet, which is attested to by tropical plant life found underneath the ice in Antartica. When this ice canophy was removed then the sunlight would be more direct, of course. This might have effected some changes, including fungi which could cause the aphrodesiac effects experienced by Noah and witnessed by Ham.

Of note, after Noah entered the art it took seven days before it began to rain. The presumption is that this ice canopy was superheated and vaporized into obviously quite thick clouds that certainly cause the earth to be completed dark by the time it began to rain, as we experience with some severe storms where sometimes it gets very dark. Likewise, a period of "darkness" will likely occur from the time it is too late to be saved and the actual destruction begins during our day.

LG47

My reason for posting this here, is because it is so ludicrous that i wanted to know the science behind it, or not behind it as the case may be.

For example, if we know how much water it would take to completely flood the earth in the way that genesis describes, could we then determine the thickness of the ice canopy described in the post by LG47?

Once we know the thickness, we could ask other questions, like how is the earth suspended perfectly within it? How fast would it melt? What would the effect be of such a canopy. Would it have blocked any essential radiation?

There is even a part in there about how the entire canopy was vaporized at once, resulting in sudden cloud cover that then rained doom on the world.

What amount of energy would it take to vaporize a sphere of ice bigger than our earth? What would be side effects of that.

I have never heard of such a thing as the ice canopy before, (although i have recently read about the vapor canopy) and think it is a swell way to have fun with people that believe this crap.

The problem is that while my high school science education is enough to tell me that no such ice canopy existed, (at least i hope something as huge and interesting as an ice canopy that surrounded the world would have been covered in geology!) it is not enough to tell me why it could not have happened, or what evidence might have remained if it had.

Can anyone here help me have fun with this, using facts? Or point me in the right direction?

Thanks.

L.

Ampoliros
May 5, 2007, 02:02 AM
My reason for posting this here, is because it is so ludicrous that i wanted to know the science behind it, or not behind it as the case may be.


Most of the theories like the ice canopies are basically long and convoluted ways of saying 'goddidit' without the creationist-in-question thinking they're saying 'goddidit'. They contain only just enough fact-like substances to keep from collapsing in on themselves.

For example, if we know how much water it would take to completely flood the earth in the way that genesis describes, could we then determine the thickness of the ice canopy described in the post by LG47?

You'd need to know what height it was at as well, but yeah.

Once we know the thickness, we could ask other questions, like how is the earth suspended perfectly within it?

That one actually happens to be independent of thickness, actually. A large shell around the earth has no net gravitational attraction to it; in other words, its not in orbit. If it were, if you 'pushed' it (assuming you have something to push off of) it'd basically change orbits, alter its pathway, etc. However, as its not in orbit, if something hits it, pushes/pulls it, even slightly, it'll eventually crash into the earth unless corrected. And, being as there's a lot of potential pushing and pullings (gravity of sun and the moon, even other planets), I doubt it'd last long at all.

How fast would it melt?
I'll guess it has something to do with how transparent it is and how fast it spins, if it does spin at all.
What would the effect be of such a canopy. Would it have blocked any essential radiation?
Radiation would probably depend on transparency, but I'd guess nothing huge. The effects would vary depending on how high up it was.

There is even a part in there about how the entire canopy was vaporized at once, resulting in sudden cloud cover that then rained doom on the world.

What amount of energy would it take to vaporize a sphere of ice bigger than our earth? What would be side effects of that.

All that water falling to earth is going to create a lot of kinetic energy, which will probably become heat via friction...and probably a lot of that. Noah would probably have been well-steamed. :eek:

Can anyone here help me have fun with this, using facts? Or point me in the right direction?

There's some good stuff (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH401.html) over at talkorigins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/canopy.html), too.

jayh
May 5, 2007, 09:01 AM
This happens when people theorize without thinking

1) water vapor and ice have substantial greenhouse effects MUCH MORE than CO2. The earth would have been incredbly hot.

2) Just because they are in the upper atmosphere DOES NOT MAKE THEM WEIGHTLESS. Enough water content to create thousands of feet of water depth would be creating the same amount of pressure on the atmosphere below. The planet would thave been subject to thousands of atm of pressure instead of the 1 we currently experience.

That theory is flat out impossible.

ppnl
May 5, 2007, 10:37 AM
Can we say meteor collision boys and girls?

Oh wait. All that space rubble up there was probably caused by the fall. My bad.

Sven
May 5, 2007, 11:05 AM
Maybe this thread would do better in Ev/Cr, the canopy was often discussed there. Here's an example:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=161166

SophistiCat
May 5, 2007, 11:14 AM
Much to my surprise, i learned that the poster was apparently serious.

He is also apparently serious about him being the Messiah. I kid you not.

Withered
May 5, 2007, 04:43 PM
thanks for the repsonses folks.

I am going to be reading about the vapour canopy for a while. damned intersting how a single of scripture can generate such completely insane ideas.
:huh:

Yggdrasill
May 5, 2007, 05:14 PM
No one mentioned that the world would be completely dark, as no light would penetrate 5? kms of ice. As a result, the temperature at ground level would be very cold.

Withered
May 6, 2007, 03:39 AM
oh, no you will clearly see in the quoted material that the ice canopy was completely clear, allowing light and warmth through it, without melting it.

It is fascinating to me that the people that embrace this idea will make up ridiculous stories to avoid having to say goddidit for as long as they can.

Mizled
May 6, 2007, 05:39 AM
Anyone can make up random bullshit and then factor in magic to explain it. What's the point of even trying to be scientific?

Sven
May 6, 2007, 11:16 AM
Anyone can make up random bullshit and then factor in magic to explain it. What's the point of even trying to be scientific?
That's exactly what I've never understood about "scientific" creationism.

You see similar things happening with (albeit ignorant) IDists: When pressed why their "intelligent" creator created bad designs (you'll get countless examples from Oolon at Ev/Cr), they claim that these were caused by the Fall. Very scientic indeed.

Coragyps
May 6, 2007, 11:22 AM
oh, no you will clearly see in the quoted material that the ice canopy was completely clear

Yes, we all know that ice was Different Back Then - it didn't absorb infrared light like it does now. It had to cycle through a Fludde onto a Sinful World before it started that "absorbing" crap. :rolleyes: