Talk:Vapor canopy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not editing the entry, but FYI here is article I wrote on the Canopy Theory for Skeptic magazine. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10428125_ITM I gave a copy to Vardiman of ICR a couple of years ago, since by then he had pretty much given up on trying to defend the theory. Tom McIver 143.105.10.56 02:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made a few changes to the article, and am in utmost anticipation of the comments that those changes are bound to generate. The vapor canopy is one of the greatest factors for Y.E. Creationists like me, and is a strong hypothesis with amounting evidence from independent lines of inquiry. There is no doubt in my mind that it will become a theory in the near future, or at least part of another related theory. Looking forward to writing this article, folks! Regards, Salva 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's nice that there is no doubt in your mind about it, Salva, but it still doesn't make your unscientific and unsubstantiated claims worthy of conclusion. Joshuaschroeder 22:27, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

In order for creatures of tremendous proportions like the dinosaurs to have existed, the content of oxygen in the atmosphere would have to have been much greater than its present-day amount of 20%. If this were in fact the case, dinosaurs such as the brachiosaur would have been much more able to deliver a healthy amount of oxygen to their tremendous bodies.

What basis is there for this statement? -- Temtem 22:06, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Removed a hefty amount of creationist propaganda 2 Information about vapor canopy 3 Just some thoughts. 4 Scientific Monthly Quotation 5 NPOV 6 Coming to terms

[edit] Removed a hefty amount of creationist propaganda

I reverted back to the last version by LexCorp which is the last version that wasn't full of problems. Joshuaschroeder 22:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

may i suggest that when people who actually know and care about a topic add text about it, you npov and improve it, rather than summarily delete it, calling it "creationist propaganda?" there was a good deal of highly pertinent information in that edit, although it had pov problems. but now the text is gone entirely. and what does one have to do to get past your relentless censorship? the world may never know. Ungtss 22:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

thank you, Gareth. you did a fantastic job. Ungtss 22:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pardon, most Creationists find this a very enlightening idea - I'd like an explanation from the person who changed this, please. Salva 19:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, could we discuss reasons for making changes to the article before they are made? Thanks. Salva 19:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Salva31:

• "most Creationists find this a very enlightening idea": do you have references for this? I confess that I don't have any for the claim that most don't, though I've heard it claimed a few times :-). There are certainly creationists who say the vapor canopy theory is no good.
• I don't see any need to discuss reasons for every change before it's made. The time for discussion is when the reasonableness of an edit is disputed.

Speaking of which: I would like to see some evidence for your claims about the beneficial effects of high atmospheric pressure and about triple-size human fossils. These claims are certainly strongly denied by mainstream science and therefore do not belong in a Wikipedia article as flat statements -- especially with words like "undoubtedly" attached. For the time being I have removed them, and I suggest that you bring out your evidence before restoring them. (Note: the fact that Kent Hovind says something is of course not evidence in itself.) I've done a bit of googling about, and not found anything promising.

Gareth McCaughan 20:15, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

That's a good point. I'll get ahold of some information ASAP. By the way, I like the change that was made to the 1rst paragraph. Salva 22:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Information about vapor canopy

OK, I have a research paper here [1] from ICR that might be of some assistance in writing this article. Anyone involved should glaze over it just to get the idea of where I'm going. Resources for fossil evidence is pending; I will post that later on today. Keep in mind - this theory is a working progress just like all of science is. Opinions don't matter here; evidence does. (Of course, I am playing the devil's advocate by saying that.) =) Regards, Salva 17:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just some thoughts.

Hi I'm new to wikipedia and didn't want to just come barging in making changes everywhere. I did however have an objection with some of the article. It feels like instead of being a point counter point type of setup it's more of a why this model doesn't work article.

Some things I think that should be here but are not:

-Auquafiers, every presentation of this idea that I have ever seen was also paired with the notion of immense aquafiers; possibly what was termed as "Fountains of the deep" in Genesis. With just this simple thought added in, the amount of water required to be in the Canopy is lessoned and the subsequent argument about the increased temperature on the earth is tamed at least a little bit.

The aquifer argument is covered and criticised on flood geology.

-The idea of the canopy containing ice in it was dismissed pretty quickly as being unstable. The strange thing about that is that other planets in our galaxy seem to display, what many scientists believe are at least in part, large amounts of ice in orbit around them in the forms of rings and moons. In regards to the falling ice generating heat... with out the protective shell holding in the earths heat anymore massive amounts of heat would be escaping the earths atmosphere for the first time.

There is a difference between an atmosphere and ice particles in orbit.

-Temperature. With a greenhouse in efect over the entire planet, what water there would be on the planet would be less likely to be in the form of ice, making it much deeper. This may have indicated less terain upon which people and creatures could live, and deeper oceans. This would mean less water would have been needed to be added to the surface of the earth to fully submerge the mountains. Current geology seem's to indicate that about 10,000 years ago, the begining of the Holocene Epoch the earths seal level was much deeper.

If there were no ice on the planet, the sea level would rise by about 68 meters. That's not a whole lot deeper.

Thanks for the comments. Joshuaschroeder 11:17, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Just a few thoughts I wanted to toss out for discussion.

PD--65.29.121.217 10:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Two points. First, the article states "... Genesis also states that God created birds to fly in the firmament." It would be more appropriate to note that this is one possible interpretation of the Hebrew, since the text is more like "in front of" than "in". (I'll make this change myself; but it seems worthwhile to note the reasons here since this is a controversial page.)

Second, and less seriously, has anyone suggested that "the firmament" may actually have been a firmament? Not vapor, or ice crystals, but solid ice? I'd like to see an explanation of the physics of that scenario.

-G

[edit] Scientific Monthly Quotation

Hi, just wondering why a quotation from a 1949 edition of "Scientific Monthly" is considered authoritative enough for an encyclopaedia article. If there's recent, authoritative science to support the view, fair enough. But a 50+ year old popular science magazine???

[edit] NPOV

As referenced by the quote mentioned above, this article could use some work. The layout is crappy, and contains little more than speculation. Scientific criticism of the 'physics' of a vapour canopy is strangely absent. And, in the quote above, Scientific Monthly did not 'observe' anything, it suggested, claimed, or even falsely believed. -- Ec5618 19:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The speculation in the article about how the greenhouse effect might have led to a milder and more uniform climate (1) belonged in the "atmospheric conditions" section and (2) was entirely wrong according to mainstream science. I've therefore replaced it with a brief discussion in that section. The "Scientific Monthly" quotation is now gone, along with the quotation from Harold Blum that gives the (I think utterly false) impression that Blum was talking about the "vapor canopy" when he said what he did. Gareth McCaughan 18:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The article states that this is an idea which is fair enough. However, like Ec5618 says, it does not point out that this "idea" is considered laughable by contemporary scientists. - syndicate 22:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coming to terms

Sorry, but I am new to this, please inform me if anything I say is out of line.

I must begin by saying that I am disappointed in this article. Insofar as an encyclopedia is meant to provide information concerning a specific topic this particular article fails completely. It seems more of a vaguely veiled rant against the theory in question without actually taking the theory on its own terms. Or to put it philosophically it sets up a straw man only to tear it down. If one was to come here searching for any information concerning the scientific research supporting they would be sorely disappointed. As far as "creationist propaganda" is concerned, inasmuch as canopy theory is a distinctively creationist theory that springs from a creationist worldview attempting to explain the world in creationist terms one should not be too quick to edit it out. That seems about like removing any references to Zen Buddhism in an article on the Tea Ceremony.

What it boils down to is this: as the article stands it is not about canopy theory but instead is merely a short rant against canopy theory that doesn't actually address any of its claims except the bare bones of its Scriptural basis. Any further attempt to explain how such an idea might work scientifically is missing. Regardless of whether or not one agrees with canopy theory this article is about that theory and therefore should primarily exist in order to explain what that theory is, not just how wrong it is. There is definitely room for critique in such an article but before an idea is critiqued it at least deserves to be fully and accurately explained. That seems to be the only respectful and responsible way of operation.

--luke 04:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, this article doesn't seem like it really talks about the theory more than insist that is didn't happen Dm-schmieder 20:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If this article were written in an "unbiased" way, it wouldn't be factual. Would you expect an article to debate the merits of the flat-earth theory, or just point out (like this article does) the reasons that people believe it and why they don't make sense? Korin43 04:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)