Sorry, for you I should have said "More CO2 would mean more pressure EVEN without a canopy."
Of course. I said, on purpose, that the canopy was not at issue. The remark was simply to figure out if you could admit what evidence is.
It is a fact that CO2 is much heavier than nitrogen and oxygen.
So, ignoring a canopy for a moment, this would be evidence, right? Evidence for
something, right?
We don't actually know what the composition of the atmosphere was. We are both speculating about that composition. But regardless of the composition, a canopy is not required.
For certain gas mixes, more pressure would be required and a canopy is consistent with that.
"Know for sure" and "probably" do not mix!
Sure they do. It is a colloquial way to say we are very certain. But don't get too bogged down in woodenly literal statements, but rather be charitable and figure out what the person on the other side meant. Although I take your point and will try to avoid colloquialisms like this in the future.
We are very certain the gas mix was different than today. Not 100%, but easily more than 50% certain.
Why can't we be sure of the air pressure pre-flood? If you could be sure the pressure was the same as today a canopy would be off the table. Since we can't be sure, we take the evidence available and speculate.
Why? You don't think that there could be other factors involved?
Sure there could be other factors. But if it is a matter of pressure, a canopy would seem to be something worth keeping an eye out for.
Life's thriving pretty good at the present level.
Sure. And better at lower UV levels.
Here you go again, trying to "prove" that a canopy existed by insisting that higher pressure (that we have no proof of) needed the canopy. Stop, backup and provide some actual evidence that a canopy existed.
Not trying to prove a canopy existed, but simply pointing out it is consistent with certain possible pre-flood scenarios.
Higher pressure could be achieved in other ways, but a canopy is an obvious possibility if the pressure was higher and UV lower.
So you claimed that you were providing evidence when you are simply speculating and ignoring that there could be other possibilities.
What are you talking about? I've constantly said a canopy is speculation based on evidence I've listed repeatedly. I've never ignored other possibilities. I've always said a canopy was a possibility, which is the opposite of ignoring other possibilities since "possibility" implies other possibilities.
Can you at least acknowledge I haven't been dogmatic about the canopy? That I've always called it speculation? If not, please include a quote where I said otherwise.
There could have been a canopy. We have no evidence that it ever existed. There could be pink elephants too.
We have no
direct evidence it ever existed. I'm guessing the pressure was higher required by the gas mix and UV light was lower pre-flood. Notice I'm using the word "guessing" for a particular reason... because it's a guess and not a conclusion based on strong evidence.
BTW, I do not consider a canopy as a threat to the HPT. The HPT works with or without a canopy. There is simply no need for a canopy nor any evidence that one ever existed.
Then what are you getting all up in arms for? If there is a canopy, it doesn't matter much, and if there isn't a canopy, it still doesn't matter much. I have a hunch the issue of air pressure and UV light carries a little more weight than a lot of people think, but none of us can be sure. Thus, I speculate a canopy was more likely (~51%) than no canopy (~49%).