There should be no connection between the gravitational constant and a fall
of the canopy. The moon, which would have been outside fo the hypothetical
earth-canopy system would have experienced no more gravitation before such a
collapse than after the collapse. Newton proved that the gravitational pull
of a planet, mearsured outside of it can be mathematically modeled as if all
the mass were at the central point of the planet. In otherwords, the moon
would continue its orbit as it is even if the earth's mass were compressed
to a black hole.
Secondly, I have to point out that a vapor canopy which is so popular with
young earth creationists would create surface temperatures on the earth
which would fry all life. Consider the following:
------top of atmosphere
water vapor canopy
------- base of canopy; presure = 1 atmosphere
atmosphere (oxygen,nitrogen)
-------earth's surface-----
This is the structure of a canopy. If the pressure at the base of the
canopy is 1 atmosphere, then the amount of water which can precipitate is
around 40 feet of water. However, in order for the canopy to remain vapor,
the temperature must be above 212 degree F. This is the boiling point of
water. If the temperature falls below this value, then the vapor canopy
will condense and collapse.
What does this mean for Adam living on the ground? He is inside of an oven.
Surrounding the earth is an atmosphere above whcih must be 212 deg. F. This
heat will flow to the ground and the ground temperature must , at the very
least, become 212 deg F Could Adam, Eve and the animals have lived on such
an earth? Of course not.
This phenomenon is just like what happens in an oven. The burning gas heats
the bottom of the oven, hot gasses then flow up and around the sides.
Initially this has the oven sides much hotter than the roast on the center
rack. The roast is surrounded by hot things. But heat equalizes and the
roast gets hot, cooks and then you can eat it.
In 1979 I pubilshed an article in the Creation Research soc. Quarterly
entitled "Can the Canopy Hold Water?" Creation Research Society Quarterly.
16:164-169. In it I calculated that the surface temperature would have been
around 1000 deg F when everything was taken into account. I performed this
calculation on an old calculator that would only add subtract multiply and
divide. I made a few simplfying assumptions, but these did not alter the
final conclusion that the temerature would be too hot for life.
How do I know I was correct? ICR agrees with my conclusion: The surface
temperature would be too hot for life. Rush and Vardiman, both of ICR wrote:
"Morton(1979) was apparently the first to conclude that the canopy
would have made the earth's surface too hot for human habitation
(Kofahl did not calculate surface temperatures). Morton made a
number of assumptions that greatly simplified the problem, and his
surface temperatures are much higher than ours, but the general
conclusion is the same: Life as we know it would not have been
possible under a conopy of 1013 mb (1 atm), nor even with a canopy
of only 50 mb. When other features such as clouds are added to the
model, this conclusion could be modified greatly, however.
Preliminary explorations with cloud layers at the top of the 50 mb
canopy have shown significant radiation effects which lower the
surface temperature drastically. Unfortunately, while the surface
temperature decreases when clouds are added, so does the
temperature of the canopy, reducing its stability."~David E. Rush
and Larry Vardiman, "Pre-Flood Vapor Canopy Radiative Temperature
Profiles," in Robert E. Walsh, and Christopher L. Brooks,
Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism,
(Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 1990), p. 238
In spite of the fact that the ICR scientists agree that the vapor canopy is
worthless and would fry the earth, ICR still teaches this thing! In a 1993
ICR Impact Cooper writes:
"Although the results of Dr. Idso's research need to be
studied further, it is intriguing to speculate about the
implications of plants growing larger and becoming more
environmentally efficient as CO2 levels increase. Could it be that
during the pre-flood time, not only was there a water-vapor canopy
and a tropical environment, there also were significantly increased
CO2 levels than what is contained in the earth's atmosphere today?
If this were the case, then there might have been much greater
vegetation than we have today. With increased vegetation, there
would have been a great need for large plant-eating animals such as
dinosaurs to control vegetation levels. IN addition, the large
vegetation levels could have provided more than adequate material
for the production of great quantities of fossil fuels during
Noah's Flood."~Ronald L. Cooper, "The Greenhouse Effect and Pre-
flood Days," Impact, 239, May, 1993, iii.
How can there be a canopy if the temperature was so high? ICR ignores these
issues. They are still publishing the canopy idea at least 3 years after
their own scientists said it wouldn't work. Do you think this is how they
should behave?
Other issues ICR ignores concerning the canopy.
The canopy would do nothing for longevity. Morris states that radiation
shielding would allow for longer life. He writes:
"The vapor canopy also would have served as a highly effective
shield against the many powerful and harmful radiations that surround the
earth, and which are now only partly filtered by our present atmosphere.
Such radiations are now known to be the cause of many physical damages to
man's genetic system, tending to cause harmful mutations and general
biological deterioration. It is quite possible that the blacket was on
major factor contributing to human longevity in those early days."~Henry M.
Morris, The Biblical Basis for Modern Science,(Grand Rapids: Baker Book
House, 1984), p.278
But 4-5 years prior to the publication of the above, Henry Morris was the
sole signatory to a Th D. granted by Dallas Theological to Jody Dillow.
Therefore, Henry knew that Dillow had performed calculations to show that
what he said is not true. In the Dissertation and the subsequent book,
Dillow states:
"So it appears that canopy theorists have been in error when they
appealed to the shielding effect of the canopy as a direct
explanation for antediluvian longevity. Futhermore, it also seems
incorrect to postulate that increased levels of radiation after the
canopy precipitated had any direct bearing on the decrease in
longevity. This is true because the levels of radiation
experienced today are insufficient to have any effect and are the
wrong kind, that is mostly ultraviolet instead of X-rays, and gamma
rays.~Joseph C. Dillow, The Waters Above: The Earth's Pre-Flood
Vapor Canopy, (Chicago: Moody, 1981), p. 170
It would appear to me that the problems of the canopy are ignored by ICR
inspite of documentable proof that they were aware of them.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm