• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

Right Divider

Body part
I've never said being beneficial is the evidence. That you would claim I have shows a non-charitable reading of ground I've covered many times. What you should be able to see is that a canopy is a reasonable result of the evidence.
Again, I've seen you show NO evidence whatsoever.
That isn't true. Since we both agree the mix of gasses was different, and likely that CO2 was a great deal higher, higher pressures would be required for life depending on the mix - especially life that was in a very good environment to thrive - especially life that was living very long - especially life that could grow quickly - especially life that could grow very large.
More CO2 would mean more pressure without a canopy. We don't know what the pressure was, but even then... more pressure is NOT evidence of a canopy. Try again.

Note that more oxygen would also make more pressure since it is slightly more dense than nitrogen.
That you claim I haven't presented this evidence previously when I repeat the evidence every time you ask shows a lack of curiosity for understanding what you are arguing against.
Please don't stoop to false accusations about me. You have not shown any evidence that a canopy once existed.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Again, I've seen you show NO evidence whatsoever.

More CO2 would mean more pressure without a canopy. We don't know what the pressure was, but even then... more pressure is NOT evidence of a canopy. Try again.
So you'd count the bolded part as evidence? Or, if nothing else, a reasonable conclusion from the evidence?

Note that more oxygen would also make more pressure since it is slightly more dense than nitrogen.

Please don't stoop to false accusations about me. You have not shown any evidence that a canopy once existed.
The problem you have is that more oxygen combined with more pressure would result in easier combustion. We are currently a few points away from this being a problem as it is considering 25% oxygen at sea level would result in an unlivable environment. And it isn't a threshold, it's a gradient that just gets worse as the oxygen ratio and pressure go up. CO2 in reasonable amounts would not mitigate this problem, because the more CO2 you add the higher the pressure while the flood would have pushed off N2, O2, and CO2 at roughly the same rate.

And to get pressures that would really make a difference, you'd need a lot more atmosphere. I'm sure we lost atmosphere at the flood, but I we'd need to see more evidence it was enough to account for as big a pressure change that would make a difference.
 

Right Divider

Body part
So you'd count the bolded part as evidence? Or, if nothing else, a reasonable conclusion from the evidence?
I'm not providing evidence for a canopy. That is your job.

I'm pointing out the obvious nature of the density of various molecules.
The problem you have is that more oxygen combined with more pressure would result in easier combustion. We are currently a few points away from this being a problem as it is considering 25% oxygen at sea level would result in an unlivable environment. And it isn't a threshold, it's a gradient that just gets worse as the oxygen ratio and pressure go up. CO2 in reasonable amounts would not mitigate this problem, because the more CO2 you add the higher the pressure while the flood would have pushed off N2, O2, and CO2 at roughly the same rate.
I'm not claiming that I know what the oxygen content was. But none of this provides evidence that a canopy existed. I'm still waiting for some evidence for the canopy....
And to get pressures that would really make a difference, you'd need a lot more atmosphere. I'm sure we lost atmosphere at the flood, but I we'd need to see more evidence it was enough to account for as big a pressure change that would make a difference.
What pressure change? How do you think that you know what the pressure was before and after the flood?

Again, I'm waiting for some kind of actual evidence that there was a canopy. You're dancing all around, but not providing evidence. (Yes, I know that you think that I don't understand that "evidence" means, but I'd say that it is actually you that does not know).
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm not providing evidence for a canopy. That is your job.
"More CO2 would mean more pressure without a canopy."

Is what you wrote evidence at all? Do you recognize that the mix of gasses in the pre-flood atmosphere is evidence at all, regardless whether it's evidence for a canopy or not?

I'm pointing out the obvious nature of the density of various molecules.
Yes. That's evidence for something, right?
I'm not claiming that I know what the oxygen content was. But none of this provides evidence that a canopy existed. I'm still waiting for some evidence for the canopy....
One thing we can know for sure is that the mix of gasses were probably different than today.

What pressure change? How do you think that you know what the pressure was before and after the flood?
We don't know what the pressure was. But to make a big difference in lifespan and size, it would have to be more than a little. And life thrives on less UV. And the CO2 must have been at a higher ratio to support what seems like a great deal more vegetation, and with a great deal more CO2 breathing would have been easier at higher pressure.

This is evidence enough for speculation on what would produce the results we see here.

Again, I'm waiting for some kind of actual evidence that there was a canopy. You're dancing all around, but not providing evidence. (Yes, I know that you think that I don't understand that "evidence" means, but I'd say that it is actually you that does not know).
Quite. I'm not dancing all around. I can only provide what is available, and just because there isn't much it doesn't mean I'm dancing. What seems to be a disconnect here is my response immediately above is enough to speculate that there could be a canopy. But it's just a speculation, a wild guess if you want to call it that. You seem to think a hypothesis needs to have more than just a suggestion of evidence to be a valid guess. But it doesn't. What is interesting in this conversation has little to do with a canopy and more to do with your reaction, as if this conjecture threatens HPT. But it doesn't. And if we find out there was a canopy, and I'm sure we'll find out eventually if there was or was not, even Dr. Brown will flippantly say, "huh, that's interesting" and move on to something else that matters.
 

Right Divider

Body part
"More CO2 would mean more pressure without a canopy."

Is what you wrote evidence at all? Do you recognize that the mix of gasses in the pre-flood atmosphere is evidence at all, regardless whether it's evidence for a canopy or not?
Sorry, for you I should have said "More CO2 would mean more pressure EVEN without a canopy."

It is a fact that CO2 is much heavier than nitrogen and oxygen.

Yes. That's 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.
One thing we can know for sure is that the mix of gasses were probably different than today.
"Know for sure" and "probably" do not mix!
We don't know what the pressure was.
A true statement.
But to make a big difference in lifespan and size, it would have to be more than a little.
Why? You don't think that there could be other factors involved?
And life thrives on less UV.
Life's thriving pretty good at the present level.
And the CO2 must have been at a higher ratio to support what seems like a great deal more vegetation, and with a great deal more CO2 breathing would have been easier at higher pressure.
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.
This is evidence enough for speculation on what would produce the results we see here.
So you claimed that you were providing evidence when you are simply speculating and ignoring that there could be other possibilities.
Quite. I'm not dancing all around. I can only provide what is available, and just because there isn't much it doesn't mean I'm dancing. What seems to be a disconnect here is my response immediately above is enough to speculate that there could be a canopy. But it's just a speculation, a wild guess if you want to call it that. You seem to think a hypothesis needs to have more than just a suggestion of evidence to be a valid guess. But it doesn't. What is interesting in this conversation has little to do with a canopy and more to do with your reaction, as if this conjecture threatens HPT. But it doesn't. And if we find out there was a canopy, and I'm sure we'll find out eventually if there was or was not, even Dr. Brown will flippantly say, "huh, that's interesting" and move on to something else that matters.
There could have been a canopy. We have no evidence that it ever existed. There could be pink elephants too.

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.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
A true statement.
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%).
 

Right Divider

Body part
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.
I understand what evidence is... you do not.
So, ignoring a canopy for a moment, this would be evidence, right? Evidence for something, right?
No, it's not evidence of anything. It's simple scientific fact. Some atoms are heavier than others. Some molecules are heavier than some atoms.
For certain gas mixes, more pressure would be required and a canopy is consistent with that.
Speculating about the mix of gases without any knowledge of it is not a form of evidence of any kind.
We are very certain the gas mix was different than today. Not 100%, but easily more than 50% certain.
We agree that it was probably different. But exactly what is was is completely unknown.
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.
You are actually speculating based on a LACK of evidence.
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.
If, if if... where is the actual evidence of more pressure? Do you have any?
Sure. And better at lower UV levels.
As I've said so many times already. What might be helpful is NOT evidence of anything.
Not trying to prove a canopy existed, but simply pointing out it is consistent with certain possible pre-flood scenarios.
Anybody can create a story.
Higher pressure could be achieved in other ways, but a canopy is an obvious possibility if the pressure was higher and UV lower.
Ad nauseam...
What are you talking about? I've constantly said a canopy is speculation based on evidence I've listed repeatedly.
No, you speculate based on a lack of evidence.
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.
I have agreed that "the canopy was a possibility", but that there is not a single shred of actual, tangible evidence that it actually existed.
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.
Yes.
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.
Where is the evidence that the pressure was higher? Again, that is speculation without any evidence.
Then what are you getting all up in arms for?
These kinds of accusations on the Internet are funny and untrue.
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%).
You can speculate without evidence all that you want. Carry on.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I understand what evidence is... you do not.
Evidence is nothing but facts we can show (reproduce for others to see, or agreed with by those within the discussion) upon which we base our reasons why we believe something. As demonstrated below, you seem to think evidence only counts if one uses it to come to conclusions you approve of (not necessarily agree with, but consider valid).

No, it's not evidence of anything. It's simple scientific fact. Some atoms are heavier than others. Some molecules are heavier than some atoms.
It is a fact we can all see. All facts are evidence for something. For example, since CO2 is heavier than O2, it will settle to the ground while O2 would float on top of it - therefore we can conclude that if there were enough CO2 in the atmosphere there would have to be something mixing the gases for them not to separate - or perhaps there is another conclusion we could come to that didn't require mixing gases - or another conclusion that separating gases was OK at certain times and not at others. Regardless, because of the fact that CO2 is heavier it will have to be included in reasons why we believe what we do in the context of an atmosphere with certain amounts of CO2 and O2.

Speculating about the mix of gases without any knowledge of it is not a form of evidence of any kind.
This isn't true. Knowing the mix of gases was different is a fact that allows us to speculate. Not know the makeup of the mix of gases doesn't mean that fact isn't evidence. What we can do is put this and other facts together to come to a conclusion. But this brings up the issue of which facts matter most to a speculation. And that's where people can come up with different ideas based on the same evidence.

We agree that it was probably different. But exactly what is was is completely unknown.
Correct. And with other facts we can come up with we can figure out our various conclusions.

You are actually speculating based on a LACK of evidence.
Correct, but not on a complete lack of evidence. Since the evidence we have is so scant, any conclusions will be based on evidence with a lot of holes.

If, if if... where is the actual evidence of more pressure? Do you have any?
Yes. Animals were larger and lived longer. You may not draw the same conclusion with those facts, but higher pressure is a valid one.

As I've said so many times already. What might be helpful is NOT evidence of anything.
Of course. Saying something is helpful is the speculation, not the fact that speculation is built off of. Saying that something is 'helpful to' is just another way of saying something is 'consistent with'.

Anybody can create a story.
And the one I have is consistent with the evidence.

Ad nauseam...
I'll keep repeating the same answer to your same question.

No, you speculate based on a lack of evidence.
But not a total lack of evidence.

I have agreed that "the canopy was a possibility", but that there is not a single shred of actual, tangible evidence that it actually existed.
I've pointed it out repeatedly.

Thanks. It's speculation because of a lack of evidence so when we get more we'll be able to be more sure if there was a canopy or not. Even if my prediction that there was a canopy is correct, if we get more data that shows it is true it won't be more than a curiosity because I'm not basing my speculation on greater intelligence, but on a hunch.

Where is the evidence that the pressure was higher? Again, that is speculation without any evidence.
I've pointed out the evidence repeatedly.

These kinds of accusations on the Internet are funny and untrue.
I could be wrong because it is very hard to figure out a person's emotion through text, but think an assessment by reasonable people would have at least a few of them say your responses included a fair amount of emotion. And being emotional about this topic isn't even a bad thing.

You can speculate without evidence all that you want. Carry on.
That's not what I do, but I'm glad to have your permission to do so.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Evidence is nothing but facts we can show (reproduce for others to see, or agreed with by those within the discussion) upon which we base our reasons why we believe something.
That's not too bad... and it is exactly what you have not shown.
As demonstrated below, you seem to think evidence only counts if one uses it to come to conclusions you approve of (not necessarily agree with, but consider valid).
Nonsense... more false accusations.
It is a fact we can all see. All facts are evidence for something. For example, since CO2 is heavier than O2, it will settle to the ground while O2 would float on top of it - therefore we can conclude that if there were enough CO2 in the atmosphere there would have to be something mixing the gases for them not to separate - or perhaps there is another conclusion we could come to that didn't require mixing gases - or another conclusion that separating gases was OK at certain times and not at others. Regardless, because of the fact that CO2 is heavier it will have to be included in reasons why we believe what we do in the context of an atmosphere with certain amounts of CO2 and O2.
What you are saying here is not quite true. If it were true, all of the oxygen in the atmosphere would be on the ground and all of the nitrogen would be above it (since oxygen is more dense than nitrogen). Also, about 1 percent of the atmosphere is argon, which is much more dense than oxygen or nitrogen. But we don't see a layer of argon on the ground either.
This isn't true. Knowing the mix of gases was different is a fact that allows us to speculate. Not know the makeup of the mix of gases doesn't mean that fact isn't evidence. What we can do is put this and other facts together to come to a conclusion. But this brings up the issue of which facts matter most to a speculation. And that's where people can come up with different ideas based on the same evidence.
We don't know what the mix of gases was! So there is no "fact" that they were different. We assume that they were and that is NOT the same as a fact.
Correct. And with other facts we can come up with we can figure out our various conclusions.
What facts? Please give these facts.
Correct, but not on a complete lack of evidence. Since the evidence we have is so scant, any conclusions will be based on evidence with a lot of holes.
:rolleyes:
Yes. Animals were larger and lived longer.
We do not know how long animals lived. The only record that we have about ages is for humans, per the Bible.
You may not draw the same conclusion with those facts, but higher pressure is a valid one.
We do not know that the pressure was, so your speculation without evidence is pointless.
Of course. Saying something is helpful is the speculation, not the fact that speculation is built off of. Saying that something is 'helpful to' is just another way of saying something is 'consistent with'.
Please feel free with to give the "fact that the speculation is built off of".
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's not too bad... and it is exactly what you have not shown.
It certainly is what I've shown. I've listed both facts or things we agree on concerning the antediluvian world.

Nonsense... more false accusations.
It isn't a false accusation since I demonstrated it just below what I wrote, and you confirmed it in your response.

Although part of the problem is that you didn't read carefully enough; It isn't just facts, but also what both sides agree was true that would count as evidence.

What you are saying here is not quite true. If it were true, all of the oxygen in the atmosphere would be on the ground and all of the nitrogen would be above it (since oxygen is more dense than nitrogen). Also, about 1 percent of the atmosphere is argon, which is much more dense than oxygen or nitrogen. But we don't see a layer of argon on the ground either.
It's still true. What I said was if there was no mechanism for mixing the gases, they would separate. Luckily for the earth as it is currently there is enough air movement to keep the gases mixed. This isn't true of hydrogen or helium though as they are too light to stay in the atmosphere ever released in gas form. I'd say the air moved enough pre-flood to keep the mix pretty even as well.

We don't know what the mix of gases was! So there is no "fact" that they were different. We assume that they were and that is NOT the same as a fact.
Since we both assume the mix of gases was different it counts as evidence.

I think this is the lynchpin of the nature of evidence you are missing. This is why "evidence" is not a synonym for "fact" because even though facts make up a great part of evidence, what is agreed upon as true also counts as evidence.

What facts? Please give these facts.
And by facts you also mean what we agree is true.

Animals grew larger, and insects grew larger. At least humans grew older, but do you really disagree that animals probably grew older as well? Would you agree the earth was a great deal more covered with vegetation?

We can add this to the gas mix being different.

Don't brush off what I said so quickly. To make a guess, it doesn't take a lot of evidence. In fact, it can be a very tiny amount. And since the evidence is so scant for a lot of what we know about the pre-flood world, the guesses can vary greatly.

We do not know how long animals lived. The only record that we have about ages is for humans, per the Bible.
This is true, but only because the genealogies of humas are all that mattered. But are you sure the reason humans didn't live longer was from the environment they lived in before the flood? And wouldn't that apply to the animals too?

We do not know that the pressure was, so your speculation without evidence is pointless.
Correct, but with the evidence we have it's a valid guess. It isn't a guess you agree with, but it is a valid guess. And it is valid because it is consistent with what little evidence we have, and what little we have doesn't rule it out.

Please feel free with to give the "fact that the speculation is built off of".
The different mix of gases. Larger animals. Longer lives. The greater abundance of plant life that seemed to cover much more of the earth.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The different mix of gases.
This is a claim without evidence. To make this claim stick... you need evidence.
Larger animals.
This might be true because there is actually evidence in the fossil record.
Longer lives.
Another claim without evidence. Where is your evidence concerning the ages of animals before and after the flood?
The greater abundance of plant life that seemed to cover much more of the earth.
This is evidence of something, but you cannot say what.

Again, no evidence of a canopy.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
This is a claim without evidence. To make this claim stick... you need evidence.
You don't think the surface of the earth a great deal more vast than after the flood was covered by plant life? If the amount of coal we have is any indication, it would have taken a lot more CO2 in the air to support that much plant life.

This might be true because there is actually evidence in the fossil record.
So you aren't sure there were very large land creatures before the flood? And very large insects, too?

Another claim without evidence. Where is your evidence concerning the ages of animals before and after the flood?
This is true, but only because the genealogies of humas are all that mattered. But are you sure the reason humans lived longer wasn't from the environment they lived in before the flood? And wouldn't that apply to the animals too?

The evidence is that humans lived longer. Knowing that we can reasonably speculate that animals lived longer, too.

This is evidence of something, but you cannot say what.
We can make reasonable guesses as to what. A canopy is one reasonable guess.

Again, no evidence of a canopy.
After just admitting I have evidence you contradict yourself.
 

Right Divider

Body part
You don't think the surface of the earth a great deal more vast than after the flood was covered by plant life? If the amount of coal we have is any indication, it would have taken a lot more CO2 in the air to support that much plant life.
The "great deal more plant life" grew over many, many years. It did not happen all at once.
If you have actual evidence of the composition of the earth's atmosphere before the flood, go ahead and present it.
So you aren't sure there were very large land creatures before the flood? And very large insects, too?
I'm sorry, I've made a language mistake again.

This is true because there is actually evidence in the fossil record. That does nothing to support the canopy.
This is true, but only because the genealogies of humas are all that mattered. But are you sure the reason humans lived longer wasn't from the environment they lived in before the flood? And wouldn't that apply to the animals too?
I believe that it was probably true. But this is an assumption without any direct support. Just like everything else regarding the canopy.
The evidence is that humans lived longer. Knowing that we can reasonably speculate that animals lived longer, too.
We know humans lived longer, but that does not mean "canopy".
We can make reasonable guesses as to what. A canopy is one reasonable guess.
I disagree. I don't think that a canopy is a reasonable guess.
After just admitting I have evidence you contradict yourself.
You gave evidence (larger animals), but nothing supporting a canopy.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
The "great deal more plant life" grew over many, many years. It did not happen all at once.
Eh? All of the evidence we have of plant life before the flood is from fossils, and it's likely all of that was alive together at the time of the flood.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Eh? All of the evidence we have of plant life before the flood is from fossils, and it's likely all of that was alive together at the time of the flood.
I agree. I think that you are confused about what I said.
I simply said that all of that plant life grew over many years before the flood.
 

Derf

Well-known member
I agree. I think that you are confused about what I said.
I simply said that all of that plant life grew over many years before the flood.
I agree. I think you are confused about what you were arguing against. @Yorzhik was saying there needed to be more CO2 to support the amount of plant life in existence at the time of the flood.
If the amount of coal we have is any indication, it would have taken a lot more CO2 in the air to support that much plant life.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I agree. I think you are confused about what you were arguing against. @Yorzhik was saying there needed to be more CO2 to support the amount of plant life in existence at the time of the flood.
My point was that the CO2 need not be so high as @Yorzhik thinks. Since the plant life grew for many, many years.
His idea is that the atmospheric composition needed extreme pressure that the canopy would provide. I don't think that the difference was so extreme.
Either way, @Yorzhik has provided no evidence for the actual composition of that alleged situation.
 

Derf

Well-known member
My point was that the CO2 need not be so high as @Yorzhik thinks. Since the plant life grew for many, many years.
But the plant life both of you were talking about was plant life alive at the time of the flood, which would have a certain amount of CO2 required to support it staying alive, no matter how long it had been growing prior to that.
His idea is that the atmospheric composition needed extreme pressure that the canopy would provide. I don't think that the difference was so extreme.
I expect you're right, but I haven't seen calculations one way or another.
Either way, @Yorzhik has provided no evidence for the actual composition of that alleged situation.
The evidence is slight, if any, which he admits, but that's the point of the CO2 discussion in the first place. To dismiss his analysis of the scant evidence as no evidence at all is begging the question.
 
Last edited:

Derf

Well-known member
@Right Divider, @Yorzhik
Check out Job 36:29 in th NKJV. It talks about a canopy even after the flood.
Job 36:29 NKJV — Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?


And this one describes it:
Psalm 18:11 NKJV — He made darkness His secret place;
His canopy around Him was dark waters
And thick clouds of the skies.
 

Right Divider

Body part
But the plant life both of you were talking about was plant life alive at the time of the flood, which would have a certain amount of CO2 required to support it staying alive, no matter how long it had been growing prior to that.
I have always said that I also believe that the CO2 was higher then. That does NOT mean that the atmosphere needed the extreme pressure that the canopy would provide.
I expect you're right, but I haven't seen calculations one way or another.
I don't think that we have enough evidence to do any calculations. I guess that we could wildly speculate, but that is not much of an argument.
The evidence is slight,
Evidence for what? We don't have evidence of the composition of the atmosphere and yet we are going to use this missing evidence to speculate about what might then lead to a "slight" argument for a canopy?
if any, which he admits, but that's the point of the CO2 discussion in the first place. To dismiss his analysis of the scant evidence as no evidence at all is begging the question.
I don't think so.
 
Top