Talk:Flood and kinetic energy
Separate page
I believe that this subject should have it's own page so that those debating the flood subject can easily find it. And the search engines will list it under the subject heading. This is one of the main subjects that evolutionists like to use against the flood in a debate. And the subject of matching the sun's heat is part of the debate they love to leave out.http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 01:21, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
this article should be joined with the canopy article
Why? Because it ASSUMES that that model is the standard model for the Flood, however, it's out of date and has been replaced by much better models.
The whole anti-Flood argument presented here assumes that 100% of the water came from rain. Problem solved. Most of the water came from the spring of the deep.
One reason why I am so ardent against your science articles (not so much your theology ones)is that they COMPLETELY contradict what I have written in my own articles, thus I feel I must make my opinion known.
The following criticisms I am about to make I will also post on the vapour canopy talk page and maybe even the actual article.
1: The ozone blocks ultraviolet light. Right? But if a canopy ,OF ANY FORM, where to exist, it would be out side of the ozone layer. Thus it would be exposed to ultraviolet light and intern this would dissociate the minerals or liquids that would be in the canopy.
Conclusion the canopy , OF ANY FORM, could last more then a few days and would come down to earth in a non liquid form.
2: heat can go threw glass of a green house easily, but it has a hard problem getting BACK OUT. Thus the temperature would increase over time and would make it hard for life to exist. Luckily, a greenhouse has a way to get rid of all this heat. NIGHTTIME.
However, a canopy of any form doesn't have this mechanism. Over time it would get so hot, mass amount of water would evaporate from the earth’s surface, especially its oceans. More water in the air means a greater greenhouse effect. This cycle would keep on going and would then , according to calculations by ICR, create "surface temperatures as high as 400°F".
“Numerical Climate Modeling at ICR,” Acts & Facts, April 1998, p. 2.
What's really makes your personal canopy model completely absurd is the fact it would act as a magnifying glass! Putting a glass like shell around the earth does that.
I made sure that these two model applied to the vapour canopy and your pet theory, but I could make more that could be unique to both. --Nlawrence 12:14, 7 July 2007 (EDT)File:M
- So is a one sided view the only acceptable view that this wiki may provide to it's readers? This wiki is based on providing creation information for the reader, so that he or she can determine what to believe based on the info provided. So all sides have to be presented in order for this to happen. And if I'm wrong, someone please correct me.[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 21:41, 7 July 2007 (EDT)
