It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Vapor canopy.
This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown:
How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
Hydroplate.
Walt Brown's model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.
And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.
In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns
I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by CherubBaby
reply to post by isyeye
It was 15 cubits above the mountains actually and your wrong about your assumptions of the amount of water that was used for the flood and where it came from.
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.
And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.
In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns
I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:
Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.
edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep
Originally posted by banishedfromthisarea
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.
And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.
In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns
I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:
Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.
edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep
Uh, uplift?
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.
And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.
In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns
I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:
Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.
edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.
And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.
In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns
I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:
Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.
edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by isyeye
Can you tell me what verse states that the flood waters only went 15 cubits high please?
Genesis 7:18-20
17And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth.
18And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters.
19And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered
Originally posted by novastrike81
Genesis 7:20
20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered
edit on 1-1-2012 by novastrike81 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by MrXYZ
Originally posted by edmc^2
Originally posted by MrXYZ
The Genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense. Even when the first oceans formed, the earth was NEVER fully covered in water.
And using the various myths as "proof" is laughable given that the floods they talk about didn't even happen around the same time period.
In short: That global flood myth is pseudo-scientific nonsense just like unicorns
I mean, what's next? You gonna come out claiming the earth is only 10k years old?edit on 31-12-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)
OK - let me dangle this one and see if you and the other skeptics will bite:
Seashells and other aquatic life forms on top of the himalayas and on the tall(est) mountains of the world.
edit on 31-12-2011 by edmc^2 because: rep
Like I and others have already told you about half a dozen times in other threads:
Those seashells are there because of PLATE TECTONICS. Read up on how the Himalayas formed and it should be abundantly clear why there's seashells up certain mountains
Cliff notes: The genesis flood is complete and utter nonsense
Originally posted by InFriNiTee
I've read over the entire thread at this point, and I'm wondering about what the book of Genesis wrote that said that the waters below were apart from the waters above. Are people in the thread stating that the waters above were always separated by them being the clouds, or are people saying there was a waterway above the earth?
If they are saying the latter, I would think it could be difficult to ever prove that hypothesis.
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
Do you agree with me then these tall mountains (like the Himalayas) were under water at one point in time?
If so do you agree with me that the mountains we see today are a lot lower than they are today?
Some of these tall mountains contain marine life on their peaks.
If this is the case why do you disagree then that it's impossible for the entire globe to be covered with water if 70% of the earth is covered with water and the tall(est) mountains way back then were submerge under water?
Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by edmc^2
Do you agree with me then these tall mountains (like the Himalayas) were under water at one point in time?
No.
If so do you agree with me that the mountains we see today are a lot lower than they are today?
Want to try that again?
Some of these tall mountains contain marine life on their peaks.
Yes, of course, lobsters and hammerhead sharks cavorting about the peaks of the Himalayas. See 'em every day.
If this is the case why do you disagree then that it's impossible for the entire globe to be covered with water if 70% of the earth is covered with water and the tall(est) mountains way back then were submerge under water?
For reasons you are clearly incapable of understanding, despite having had them kindly explained to you at least a dozen times over, in this thread and elsewhere.
Put a sock in it, troll.
edit on 2/1/12 by Astyanax because: of a URL.
If this is the case why do you disagree then that it's impossible for the entire globe to be covered with water if 70% of the earth is covered with water and the tall(est) mountains way back then were submerge under water?