One theory is that the pre-Flood Earth had a canopy of ice above it that squeezed the atmosphere down to, say, 15 miles [...] If you squeezed the air down to 15 miles - instead of 100 - it would be more clear because there would be less distortion - atmospheric twinkle it's called. And probably this canopy of ice would act as a photo-amplifier where you would actually see things much more clearly. That's one theory that [in] the pre-Flood world you don't need a telescope - you could see incredibly well.
114 comments
Yeah, and raising the air temperature to a point where we'd all be lightly cooked.
Maybe the air would have been clear enough to see the IRS coming too.
That's not a thoery, that's insanity. If there was a thick layer of ice covering the entire planet's atmosphere (regardless of how that would be possible) most of the light from the sun would have been deflected and the surface would be incredibly cold and dark.
Oddly enough the earth was at one time completely covered in ice. It killed off all but about 5% of all the life that had evolved up until that point though. I'm not entirely sure how it would affect vision though as stromatolites and oncolites don't have eyes...
I thought this was Whiterider, until I saw the name at the bottom.
Sounds like Kent's ready for that padded cell, eh?
Uhmmm...if the atmosphere was squeezed from a couple hundred miles to a mere 15, wouldn't it render the atmosphere a liquid, essentially?
Not to mention, the layer of ice would do one of two things. Either deflect all light, and render the Earth a frozen wasteland, or act as a magnifying glass, flash frying pretty much all life as we know it.
Of course, if this hare-brained idea did happen, the temperature of the extremely complressed gas would rise. That's how a Diesel engine works. This oven-like atmosphere would quickly melt the ice canopy and revert to STP conditions.
Hey, Mr. Hovind, once you're on parole, why don't you set up an experiment to simulate that level of air pressure and then go live in it. You do want us to see the truth of Biblically correct creationism, don't you?
Just when I think Kent Hovind can't possibly get more retarded, we get this little gem of stupidity.
Tall ya what, why don't you go ahead and encase your monitor in about 5 feet of ice and see if you can read the screen better.
That is, if they let you do it while in jail for tax evasion.
Whoever wrote:
""Atmospheric Twinkle"? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Seriously, in what scientific journal is this mentioned?" Actually, "twinkling" is the correct term Astronomers use when referring to atmospheric distortion. It can be a serious problem seeing stars clearly with a telescope through warm summer night air, due to convection currents and the inevitable boundaries between "bubbles" of slightly-less-dense and slightly-more-dense air. Twinkling is also more severe with stars close to the horizon than for stars high overhead, due to the "slant angle" of the starlight (i.e. light from the stars low on the horizon has to pass through more miles of air than light from stars overhead).
However.
Taking 100 miles' worth of atmosphere and squeezing it down to 15 miles, even after you dissipated all the heat from that compression, would mean the air would be 6.67 times denser than it is today. This wouldn't ameliorate the twinkling problem ONE BIT. Sure, the starlight would have fewer miles of air to pass through, but now each mile of air would produce more distortion.
Thanks, Tracer, it's always interesting to learn about REAL scientific phenomena. More and more I'm seeing how fundies take random scientific facts, twist them around, and add a heaping helping of B.S. to "prove" they're right.
I thought, many years ago, that I had atmospheric twinkle, but people said it was just that I was doing a lot of heavy drinking.
You fail at science, and I suspect also, at life.
Twinkle?
Ha ha ha ha ha... twinkle... ha ha ha ha ha
Say we squeeze the apple juice out of an orange with a screw driver while standing on our heads playing the banjo.
I'll bet this came from his bible. It says many things in the bible. Things like, Jesus loves you little boy, and popes can fuck boys, and the earth was created by some dude in like four days... I mean it goes on and on and on really.
duuude...I think a denser atmosphere would refract light more, resulting in MORE distortion. Not to mention increasing the temperature (higher pressure = high temperature).
Not that it matters as you just pulled all that crap out of your ass.
his story keeps changing: canopy of ice, dome of water etc, etc.
It's called "making it up".
And this certainly isn't in the babble, it's special pleading to get a certain end justified.
But that's what Hovind seems to do
LOLWUT?
See, no, see... Telescopes make things look bigger, not neccesarily clearer. And how are you writing these things in jail, anyways?
And if you had the atmosphere "squeezed down" that much, you'd have surface air pressure like you get now at the bottom of oceanic trenches. Plus requiring a temperature close to red-hot to maintain evaporation and a water cycle at that pressure (especially because such "pre-Flood Earth" theories also claim that rain did not exist at the time; its place was taken by a mist that rose from somewhere and watered the plants).
Oh Kent, what won't you believe?
I just can't bring myself to hate this guy. He must know he's making it all up. Anyone with the balls to stand up and spout genuine bollocks like Hovind does deserves at least a round of applause before they get pulled offstage by the regulation crooked stick..
*impossible bullshit*
*impossible bullshit*
*impossible bullshit*
wtf? i cannot understand a thing this guy says.......'you dont need a telescope - you could see incredibly well".....because we cant see anything now.....or are we talking about the night sky...because in that case, well i can still see the moon and stars if thats the point....not that i know what this guys point is
Since the floods impossible Notadoctor Hovind figures you just pile more impossible things on top and "Poof" magically delicious explanation.
And people buy it.
Fairy tales don't need explanations Kent, and you'll never debunk actual science (that's why he and his ilk make up stuff that scientists never said and disprove it (amazingly still) badly
That is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard of Kent Hovind saying. Though, as you can imagine, its up against tome pretty stiff competition. Like "I'm bankrupt! Honest!"
I particularly like the sack of his ability to construct a simple chain of events.
Magical flying water goes down.
Atmosphere suddenly expands to its current thickness.
Rapid, rapid decompression occurs.
Everything explodes in a fountain of gore. And is dead.
WTF?
@guarani09 (410609)
That way, when their idiocy is deemed correct, they are considered the intelligent ones, as they are so certain they are.
"Atmospheric twinkle", you say? Hmmm. Sounds plausible.
I might just have to use it in a poem or something.
/sarcasm
lets all take a moment to reflect that mr hovind is comfortably living inside some thick concrete walls with gruel for breakfst lunch and dinner, and every time he showers some guy is just waiting for him to drop it ^_^ thats right hes in jail and we are not ^_^ thank you mr hovind for being so smart to not pay your taxes
Not a clue what qualifies as scientific theory, eh?
Your a success if your aim was a fact less paragraph.
There's another theory that states that you are just one crazy-stupid man, Kent.
It's quite a popular one.
Um, what? Kent Hovind has no idea what he's talking about. The vast majority of the atmosphere is in the bottom 15 miles anyway - even if the rest was removed and not compressed(!) it wouldn't make a noticeable difference. (2/3 of the atmosphere's mass is below the peak of Everest at a mere six miles up.)
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
