I learned this stuff by reading. You want to have the same knowledge
read. I read the nasa links. It does not say the earths magnetic field
is weakening. Only the headline says that. Within the body of the
article it mentions LOCAL measurements.

The nove link... Nova and the Discovery Channel both also have articles
on the shifting of the magnetic poles. They are right alongside the one
about the magnetic field (Which as the nasa article also state LOCAL
measurements specificially within the south pacfic).

As for mars. The solar wind theory is a theory based on exploration of
less then 2% of the planet by robot probes. The fact of mars gravity I
'claimed' is a calculated certainty. Mars gravitational field forces
are not strong enough to sustain an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere for long.
Water on mars is a theory proposed based on the same explorations I
referenced above.

You want links find them yourself as I have. There are literally
thousands of them. Or read a book.

Knowledge is not something given it is something you earn by your
efforts.

AdventureBegins,

First line from the National Geographic link "Earth's magnetic field is
fading. Today it is about 10 percent weaker than it was when German
mathematician Carl Friedrich Gauss started keeping tabs on it in 1845,
scientists say. "

From the Nova article "At the present rate, Earth's magnetic field could
be gone within a few centuries, exposing the planet to the relentless
blast of charged particles from space with unpredictable consequences
for the atmosphere and life."

From the MSNBC article "At the current rate of decline, the field could
vanish altogether in 1,500 to 2,000 years, said Jeremy Bloxham of
Harvard University."

From the Guardian "Scientists have discovered that its strength has
dropped precipitously over the past two centuries and could disappear
over the next 1,000 years."

AdventureBegins,

Only a fool would believe your weak excuse for your lack of proof. Your
assertions have no basis in science and you know it. You inablity to
prove support for your assertions has proven that you are willing to lie
to argue your point. I don't see any reason to discuss anything, little
less waste my precious free time talking to you. I won't waste any more
time typing responses to you, until you can show a little intellectual
honesty.

Intellectuall?

I use my intellect. Since you insist upon being taught instead of
guided here you go.

Nova (I am sure you know how to find nova on the web).

'An even older record of Earth's fluctuating field than Shaw refers to
shows a more complicated picture. Ancient lava flows from the Hawaiian
Islands reveal both the strength of the field when the lava cooled and
its orientation—the direction of magnetic north and south. "When we go
back about 700,000 years," says geologist Mike Fuller of the University
of Hawaii, "we find an incredible phenomenon. Suddenly the rocks are
magnetized backwards. Instead of them being magnetized to the north like
today's field, they are magnetized to the south.'

The magnetic field has started changing polarity as I stated. The
earlier reports (which you referenced) did not take into account the
cycles of when this occures. Yes the field will decay as it flips.
That decay will then reverse (as does a em field in a AC engine) and the
poles will be reversed.



As far as the information that I have stated about water 'canopys' and
the surface tempeture of the earth.

I will give you a link to ONE fact. You can than put that fact into the
math I did on your other thread and do the math yourself (or just accept
mine). My information is quite accurate.

The surface tempeture of the earth is effected by the gasses known as
'greenhouse' gasses. There are several of them one of which is water
vapor. Those greenhouse gasses raise the surface tempeture of the earth
by 35 degrees. That fact (35 degree diference) can be found at...

HTTP://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanets.html

Next time I present facts you could try looking them up yourself.

Spider, I admire your knowledge and admit that I am slighty jealous. I
need to learn more about the bible. Great job!

Slightly*

So thats how it is then...

You attack my posts. Call me a lier. Ask me for proof. Tell me I have
no intellect because I do not provide links.

And when I provide those links you are suddenly absent. I once
apoligized to you for misreading one of your posts could it be that I
will not receive the same consideration?

Is it possible that I have learned 'turn the other cheek' better than
you O' Quoter of the scriptures.

AdventureBegins,

Since you still refuse to read what I type, let me repeat myself. You
are not Intellectually...wait for it...HONEST. You must have a real
inferiority complex to assume I am calling you stupid on every other
post. You claimed that the Earth's magnet field isn't weakening, but
offered no proof. I realize that scientists believe that a pole
reversal might happen, but that doesn't change the fact that the magnet
field is weakening. If the earth's magnet field doesn't reverse before
we reach the zero dipolar state, there is a good chance that it will be
catastrophic. I already posted a link that shows that OUR atmospehere
is blowing away in the solar winds, they have satellite photos of it
happening.

Your point about the 35 degree increase due to the greenhouse effect
would have been completely clear, if you had included a link. Without
the link, what you said was confusing, because you had to mix in your
tree-hugging personal philosophy. The whole of the earth's atmosphere
works as a greenhouse, so does every other atmosphere. You can't just
make up an equation and add a multiplier to the 35 degrees. There are
many variables that you have missed.

You assume that you can make up silly little math equations to disprove
the vapor canopy theory. But the truth is that there are many variables
that you can't know. First, God told Noah that there would now be
seasons, does that mean the earth's tilt changed? Could that be what
caused the flood? Second, depending on the angle of the earth, water
can reflect 2% to 90% of incoming solar radiation
(http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/3rv.html). Currently, 51% of solar
radiation is absorbed as heat energy by the earth, what was that
percentage before the fall? As I mentioned, it is very likely that the
earth didn't have the same amount of landmass. The dry land is more
likely to absorb heat energy than water is, because it is less
reflective (http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7f.html). The
point being that every physicist who has addressed the issue of a water
canopy has assumed that the canopy would have had to contain enough
water to submerge Mt Everest and I don't believe that is true.
Mountains were not mentioned until the flood. The Bible records that
the waters covered up even the "high mountains", but the word for
mountain can also mean hill. Before the account of Noah's flood, there
is no mention of mountains, only hills. If you read about "rapid
subduction" you will see that this model of plate techtonics would allow
for the continents to have moved to their current position in days.
This would have created mountains as we see them now. Mt Everest has
fossilized sea creatures on it's summit, at some point it was compeltely
underwater (http://www.catmando.com/president/mountain.htm).

I offer links to prove that I am being honest. You can make faith
statements without sources, because they don't need them. Make
statements of science with sources only, it's the only way to have an
honest and respectful debate.

Cant have a respectful debate. You have shown me no respect. The math
I posted did was not limited to a single possibility. The math team
that worked on the canopy theory built mathmatical models based on
several different possibilities. read the darn link you asked for.

They started out with the premise that the canopy was real and where
trying to prove it. They were a team of deep christian faith. They
still have their faith but there conclusions were that the flood was not
caused or even helped by a 'canopy' and that such a canopy never
existed.

The tried every possible scenario.

1. They tried from the premise that the sun put out less energy then.
2. They tried from the premise that the younger solar system had dust
particles between the earth and the sun to filter the sun light.
3. They tried from the premise that the water was orbiting the earth
outside the atmosphere.
4. They built models with no surface features higher than 1/5the the
size of everest.
5. They built models with the no surface features at all.
6. They tried it from the premise that only a small fraction of the
earths water was in the canopy (making the canopy .1 inch thick) but
that the majority of the water was in the 'fountains of the deep'
7. They tried it by mixing up all the above to give the best possible
outcome slanted towards proving the theory of a 'canopy'.

with all that the best surface tempeture they could get was 212 degrees
F.

That is because earth has its own radiated energy. I am not talking
about the reflected energy from the solar constant I am talking about
radiated energy from earth processes that have been documented by
geologists.

As far as intellectual HONESTY. I have my own intellect. I do not
google biblical quotations and spew them forth with my own
interpretations of them. I got curious and started checking some of the
things you have said. I found most of them in obscure christian web
sites that believe science answeres are prayed for not thought about. I
warn everyone here that believes you really know your bible... Anyone
can find a biblical reference (just type in what you want and hit the
search key).

Speak not to me the words of the son. I know the father.

Oh yeah just for some clarification.

I don't hug trees. I breath of their essence, appreaciate their beauty
and praise the father that he has provide me with shade and a way to
cleanse my air.


But thank you any way for the attempted insult. Trees are a wonderful
part of creation.

AdventureBegins,

You gave one dead link with a redirector to another website. You didn't
give me a link to any creationist website or any website that discussed
the possiblity of a vapor canopy.

Nice try to repudiate what I have written "I found similar information
on other websites!" "He uses google to find scriptures!"

Which link was dead?

I was on the links I posted to you at 2 am on the the 7th day of the 5th
month of the year 2007 after dominion.

That was but a few hours ago.

AdventureBegins,

Why ask me what link? You only gave one. It's dead with a redirector
on it. There is no information on the link, it just redirects you to
the home page. There is no information about a water canopy that I
could find, would you care to quote it? Oh, probably not. You have
serious issues about linking and quoting...

The links I have place upon this electonic medium were but two.

One about the water canopy. It was not dead I extracted a portion of it
to provide you with the mathmatical proof you demanded and posted that
portion in the thread so that you might read it and from it either be
able to strengthin your opinion or perhaps alter that opinion to include
new information.

the link to the fact of the earths tempreture difference being 35
degrees greater because of greenhouse gasses was valid. I was there but
a few hours ago. Yes it takes you to the home page. From that home
page you must click on the link labeled EARTH. There are other planets
within our local stellar area. What? Did you expect me to do all the
work for you?

AdventureBegins,

I only see one link, I went back and looked at each post you made in
this thread. I already read the part about the 35 degrees celcius and
addressed that. I figured something on that webpage that your link
redirects to must be what you were talking about. As I said, if you had
given that link to begin with, it would have saved some trouble.

My bad...

that other link is posted in a different thread.

I don't remember which one but it got hyjacked from its original post
and turned into a debate on the flood.

it sends you to a site called godandscience.org and the reference page
is canopy.html

AdventureBegins,

I am very familiar with that website. The guy who runs it is right on a
lot of things IMO, but he is an old earth creationist. I don't
subscribe to that world view. As I have said many times, rapid
subduction allows for a global flood. The oceans could have deepened
through sea floor spreading. The earth's axis could have tilted and
would have to, because without the tilt, you don't have seasons. God
had to explain what seasons were to Noah. I am sure that he is a good
Christian, but we disagree on some fundamental issues. I believe that
the Genesis account is accurae and so does he, but he believes that the
days were not literal days. Anyways, I see what you are talking about
how he doesn't believe in the water canopy, but I disagree with his
position. He still insists that all of the water would have to come
from the canopy, which isn't necessarily the case.

With the rapid subduction occuring, the water could have rose (from
subterranian sources and from the vapor canopy) and the lands could have
sunk as they were moving. After they were in their finial resting
place, the sea floor spreading would have deepened the oceans so that
the waters receeded from the land.

I do not disagree with you about subduction and sea floor spreading or
any of that.

but the water must have come from other than a canopy. The math is
accurate. The axial tilt you mentioned could have occured but was one
of the models used by rush et al it had the best tempreture range but
still would have resulted in a 212 degree surface tempeture due to the
earths own radiation. If you take into account the geological processes
necessary to have created a subduction that surface tempreture raises
even further (geological forces provide some of the earths intrinsic
radiation) and would have resulted in a surface tempreture of 810
degrees F. Could Noah have survived that.

There is another answer. If you had extensive polar ice caps and had an
axial tilt (mentioned in your post) that prevented seasons and that
axial tilt was changed suddenly and dramaticlly(resulting in or being
caused by a change in the earths magnetic field - see the nova 'magnetic
storm' that magnetic shift did occure) an immediate and catastrophic
melting of the ice caps would have been the result. Such a melting
would have put more water vapor into the atomosphere than the atmosphere
would have been able to sustain - resulting in torrental rains.
Extensive melting of the ice caps would have taken several days (perhaps
40?) and would have increased the oceans as well as saturating the
atmosphere ergo you have water in the heavens raining down and water
from the depths of the ocean rising up.

AdventureBegins,

Melting of the ice caps might explain it, but I have one problem with
that theory. There would have been no landmass under the south pole.
The north pole is mostly floating ice. If it all melted, we would see a
net decrease in the depth of the ocean. This can be seen by putting a
large ice cube into a bowl. If you then fill the bowl to the top with
water, the water level will decrease as the ice melts, because ice has
more mass than water. Two totally ice poles would have resulted in a
net decrease in ocean depth.

This is all assuming that the single land mass would have been near the
equator. If it weren't, then there could have been significant ice and
snow buildups that would have melted if the axis changed. The added
weight of the water to the already spreading sea floor would have caused
increased heat (more pressure = more heat). The added water could have
started the rapid subduction. Rapid subduction requires huge tracts of
lava, which would have added to the rainfall by turning water into
steam.

The whole thing could have been started by a gigantic meteor or meteors
hitting the earth. Any dust thrown into the atmosphere would have been
carried to earth by fourty days of rain, thus explaining why massive
dust clouds were not mentioned in the Bible.

When I post a thread with theorys, I don't mean to imply that things had
to be this way, but rather things COULD have been this way. I hope you
would agree at this point, that a world wide flood could have been
possible. Maybe not probably by today's science, but science is always
learning. I struggled with the Bible for a long time, because I have a
very scientific mind. I hope that something I post offers a door into
Christianity that someone who is looking for truth can walk through.
This is the ministry that I have taken, I feel that God gave me certain
gifts that will help me with this endeavor.

Due to the extensive reading I have done I have no problem with the
flood.

It happened... Of that there is no doubt.

It is mentioned in every historical document from antiquity. Each tribe
of man has a bit of that story.

But the how of it is way open to congecture.

And if as the University of Hawahii study shows the earths magnetic
poles were flipped that would mean the the the land mass under the
current south pole would have been the north not south. That land mass
was a part of pangea.

Also the melting would have at first become vapor and entered the
atmosphere so the rain would have come first and cancelled the effect of
the melting ice (ergo no loss of shore line).

Ever watched a bit of melting ice. The surface melts first in the form
of vapor.