gray wolf

Ummm about the footprints. They have sinced been dismissed, even by AiG

Not to mention the carnivores... I'm still puzzling over that. I'm open to suggestions about the scenario following the flood.

The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water By Paul Farrar In this short and, I hope, simple note I will discuss the physical implications of the often proposed "vapor canopy" explanation for the source of water for Noah's Flood as recorded in "Genesis". Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed. The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went. First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point. Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today. How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible? No one has addressed this. As the OP referenced the water canopy, thought the physics of that would be relevant... There is an error in the water canopy narrative. The flood was not only the result of rain, but also of waters that burst forth from the deep.

Proof would be indisputable evidence, I should think. Perhaps the discovery of Dino bones and human remains in the same sediment. What do you think?

I would like to see your tons of evidence. Richard Dawkins wrote that if it could be proven that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, it would blow evolution out of the water. I've seen Enoch's pictures already

Isn't the dispensation of conscience a sort of salvation by merit then? If an ancient person or someone with no exposure to the Law or Gospel listens to their conscience and does the right thing, isn't that saying that they are justified by righteousness?

I have heard a lot of good ideas since the OP. It has given me a chance to really think things over. Thank you

The best response for Christians to make would be not to see such a movie given the descriptions of it. No point in giving the company that made such a story our money. A boycott would have sent a strong message to the producers.

Sure there is. Sometimes we cannot see the evidence or proof directly but we see its effect elsewhere and can infer the evidence.

Evidence is evidence. How much is required for proof? It depends on the person considering the evidence. For some, it may be proof of what they have in mind. Another may look at the same evidence and come up with another answer. Evolutionists and Creationists both have the same evidence, as Ken Ham rightly points out. It depends on the model under consideration.

Hey what can I say? I'm just a natural politician

Blind faith = bad thing. Faith should be informed and based on a reasonable agreement with evidence.

Prediction of the pattern may still fail. Hence the theory must be reexamined.

See it ? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: It is all clear to me. I'll let you two have at it. I don't see that it's really such a big deal, just undo grief over terms.

You didn't spell out the whole definition given in the link. I don't see here what is defined there. Merriam Webster states thus 1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says Equivocal: : having two or more possible meanings : not easily understood or explained

I fail to see equivocation anywhere.

In the OP there was a reference to other religions. I wouldn't say that theories is the correct term here. Better to leave it at religion or to some degree worldview.

As I have quoted Alistair McGrath before: apologetics is not about winning the argument, it is about winning people to Christ.

I think my allusion to the Argument Clinic is very timely.

Very well. You may have the last word. I am going to getting hit on the head lessons.

Let's give it a rest. Perhaps I miscommunicated what I was trying to say. I don't feel that I demonstrably voiced a falsehood. I meant to say we do not have a proof to offer, just compelling reasoning.

Something tells me you just like to quarrel for the sake of quarreling. I was being rather being unequivocal-- I think you misused the word above. . not making equivalent. What do you think? Are we merely believers in a belief system? I think it is more than that. Evidence--- we have evidence and arguments. Such makes up some of the rationale for our assent to our beliefs- - telling us that we are being sensible and rational in what we have faith in. I am intrigued by the idea that what Thomas saw and felt was not tantamount to proof at any rate.

And no, no one said we come from monkeys, did she or he? With the exception perhaps of my brother in law.

Obviously I am not saying that our faith is blind faith, such as in myriad belief systems around the globe (and no, Christianity is more than a belief system). What I meant to say is that in today's world we have no ironclad proof. We have evidence and how we interpret that evidence plays a role in our faith, helping us determine whether it is justified or not. More blessed are we that we believe without the proof offered to Thomas, as Jesus said.

That should sew it up. Clever arguments in apologetics are valuable in that they may get a person thinking about the Ultimate, but it is faith that delivers.