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.
Please don't stoop to false accusations about me. You have not shown any evidence that a canopy once existed.
So you'd count the bolded part as evidence? Or, if nothing else, a reasonable conclusion from the evidence?
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 providing evidence for a canopy. That is your job.
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....
What pressure change? How do you think that you know what the pressure was before and after the flood?
"More CO2 would mean more pressure without a canopy."
Yes. That's evidence for something, right?
One thing we can know for sure is that the mix of gasses were probably different than today.
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.
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.
Sorry, for you I should have said "More CO2 would mean more pressure EVEN without a canopy."
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.
"Know for sure" and "probably" do not mix!
A true statement.
Why? You don't think that there could be other factors involved?
Life's thriving pretty good at the present level.
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.
So you claimed that you were providing evidence when you are simply speculating and ignoring that there could be other possibilities.
There could have been a canopy. We have no evidence that it ever existed. There could be pink elephants too.
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.
So, ignoring a canopy for a moment, this would be evidence, right? Evidence for something, right?
For certain gas mixes, more pressure would be required and a canopy is consistent with that.
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.
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.
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.
Sure. And better at lower UV levels.
Not trying to prove a canopy existed, but simply pointing out it is consistent with certain possible pre-flood scenarios.
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.
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.
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%).
I understand what evidence is... you do not.
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.
Speculating about the mix of gases without any knowledge of it is not a form of evidence of any kind.
We agree that it was probably different. But exactly what is was is completely unknown.
You are actually speculating based on a LACK of evidence.
If, if if... where is the actual evidence of more pressure? Do you have any?
As I've said so many times already. What might be helpful is NOT evidence of anything.
Anybody can create a story.
Ad nauseam...
No, you speculate based on a 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.
Yes.
Where is the evidence that the pressure was higher? Again, that is speculation without any evidence.
These kinds of accusations on the Internet are funny and untrue.
You can speculate without evidence all that you want. Carry on.
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).
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.
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.
Correct. And with other facts we can come up with we can figure out our various conclusions.
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.
Yes. Animals were larger and lived longer. You may not draw the same conclusion with those facts, but higher pressure is a valid one.
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'.
And the one I have is consistent with the evidence.
I'll keep repeating the same answer to your same question.
But not a total lack of evidence.
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.
I've pointed out the evidence repeatedly.
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.
That's not what I do, but I'm glad to have your permission to do so.
That's not too bad... and it is exactly what you have not shown.
Nonsense... more false accusations.
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.
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.
What facts? Please give these facts.
We do not know how long animals lived. The only record that we have about ages is for humans, per the Bible.
We do not know that the pressure was, so your speculation without evidence is pointless.
Please feel free with to give the "fact that the speculation is built off of".
It certainly is what I've shown. I've listed both facts or things we agree on concerning the antediluvian world.
It isn't a false accusation since I demonstrated it just below what I wrote, and you confirmed it in your response.
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.
Since we both assume the mix of gases was different it counts as evidence.
And by facts you also mean what we agree is true.
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.
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?
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.
The different mix of gases. Larger animals. Longer lives. The greater abundance of plant life that seemed to cover much more of the earth.
This is a claim without evidence. To make this claim stick... you need evidence.
This might be true because there is actually evidence in the fossil record.
Another claim without evidence. Where is your evidence concerning the ages of animals before and after the flood?
This is evidence of something, but you cannot say what.
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.
So you aren't sure there were very large land creatures before the flood? And very large insects, too?
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?
We can make reasonable guesses as to what. A canopy is one reasonable guess.
After just admitting I have evidence you contradict yourself.
The "great deal more plant life" grew over many, many years. It did not happen all at once.
I'm sorry, I've made a language mistake again.
I believe that it was probably true. But this is an assumption without any direct support. Just like everything else regarding the canopy.
We know humans lived longer, but that does not mean "canopy".
I disagree. I don't think that a canopy is a reasonable guess.
You gave evidence (larger animals), but nothing supporting a canopy.
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.
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.
I expect you're right, but I haven't seen calculations one way or another.
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.
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 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.
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?
I don't think so.