you'll probably be very very bored
yeah so dinos went to bed really early, and is sleeping very very late, so I used the time to write this boring email to this guy who wrote a totally BS article. I don't think anyone will enjoy reading it, but I spent an incredible amount of time and effort on this, so I figured I would put it here, and anyone who felt like reading it could leave there impressions.
the original article can be found here http://www.theophilus.org/ofc/vapor.html
Dear Mr. Bob West,
I have just finished reading an excerpt, from your work titled "The Vapor Canopy Theory" which can be found http://www.theophilus.org/ofc/vapor.html
Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, Lord knows I too have beliefs that I hold purely at face value, with no real evidence but my own feelings to support them. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, as long as when you tell people these believes, you explain the trith behind them.
That said, there are some glaring untruths in this article. Starting from the beginning, the article states:
"There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (Genesis 2:6). That's exactly what we would expect if God put water up there and surrounded the earth with it. We will say it is water vapor because you would be able to see through it. The sun would have had to come through. It may have been 33% less bright. They would have been able to see some of the stars.
Water vapour would not be see through. Water refracts and reflects light. Clouds are evidence enough of this property. When did you last peer through the clouds on an overcast night and see the stars? Clouds are water that has condensed out of the air, the particles are trapped in the wind that constantly blows around the earth and do not fall until they reach a certain size, we call this rain. Water vapor is far less likely to be see through that say a large floating body of water covering the entire earth, because the light would only be refracted by the water once. Each particle of water vapor would again refract the portions of the light that it did not out right reflect.
formulas and explantions of the properties of water can be found here http://www.iapws.org/relguide/rindex.pdf
the the section titled "Evidence of a vapor canopy" it is stated that
"If the earth was like that, what might we expect to find as evidence that the earth was once greenhouse warm? Do we have any evidence for that?"
"Palm tree fossils have been found in Alaska. How did palm trees get to Alaska? Some textbooks say that they traveled there. It is called tectonic plate movement. How long would it take a palm tree to travel from southern California to Alaska? About 20 million years. However, the oldest palm trees they have found in Alaska, according to current dating techniques, is only 10,000 years old. You can't have a 10,000 year old tree making a 20 million year trip."
As I have stated earlier, clouds would reflect and refract light, the clouds would also reflect a great deal of heat energy back into space, and would absorb a even more. Very little heat would reach the earth. As it stands now, the average temperate of the earth is approx. 14.5 degree's celcius. With less sunlight reaching the earth, we would not have a warmer earth, but a much much colder earth. An ice age would ensue.
I have and am unable to find any research of frankly any evidence that states that "palm tree fossiles" were found in alaska.
the article states
"But, a vapor canopy around the earth during the first heaven and earth system would explain this. The sun could heat the water vapor to 212 degrees hot. That would warm the entire earth, including Alaska. Palm trees could live there""
First I ask why the water vapor would be heated to 212 degrees. Secondly, as I have pointed out, less heat radiation from the sun would reach earth. The only way more heat would reach the earth would be is the sun were hotter, or closer to the earth.
again, the properties of water vapor can be found at the sites named above.
the article then discusses coal, which I know very little about, and will not try to argue in this email.
in response to this statement:
"What are some other predictions that we might expect to find if the earth was once greenhouse warm? We would expect greater atmosphere pressure. Some scientists have made a study and determined that if there was about 40 feet of water spread out as water vapor, it would have increased atmospheric pressure to about twice what it is today."
I ask what does "greenhouse warm" mean? The greenhouse effect as defined by wikipedia :
"The greenhouse effect, first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, is the process by which an atmosphere warms a planet. The name is from the similar effect which greenhouses utilize in order to facilitate plant growth."
and can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
the article then discusses how this would effect the longevity of life on this planet, stating:
"How could that have affected life on earth during the first heaven and earth system?
Healing would be quicker. For example, surgeons and physicians have discovered that burn patients heal up much more efficiently and quickly in a pressurized room with lots of oxygen in "
I believe you are referring to a treatment known as hyberbaric oxygen therapy. Essentially, the treatment works by limiting the growth of bacteria, increasing the effectiveness of antibiotics, and to provide oxygen to oxygen deprived tissue. The process requires a pressure 2.36 times greater than those normally seen by humans at sea level on earth today, and 100% oxygen.
http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/april/Wright/HyperbaricOxygen.html
Also, the earth has an average saturation of 21% oxygen. At a saturation of 23.5% the atmosphere becomes oxygen-enriched, and explosive.
http://www.oshainfo.gatech.edu/confined-gi/sld057.htm
Therefore, an earth with an atmospheric oxygen saturation of 100%, that required to have a substantial effect on life, would also be an entire planet primed to explode.
the article continues:
"We are told that Tyrannosauruswere huge, swift, aggressive meat eaters (Editors of Life, Evolution, (New York: Life Nature Library, 1962), 122). Has a scientist ever found a Tyrannosaurus rex's stomach with undigested lizards in it? Not to my knowledge. But they have recently removed some teeth from some of the skulls of Tyrannosaurus rex and made an amazing discovery. The teeth have little tiny roots. They are too small for a bone-crushing, meat-tearing animal. More likely, they ate leaves. They used those sharp teeth and the spaces between them to strip the leaves from branches."
You ask the question, "Has a scientist ever found a Tyrannosaurus rex's stomach with undigested lizards in it?"
Well has one ever been found with plant remains in it? Of course the answer to both of those questions is no. You yourself point to the scientific evidence that these massive dinosaurs were in fact carnivors, then you deny that evidence, but provide no evidence to support your claim. Digesting fiberous material is extremely difficult, even for creatures that live entirely off of plant material. Most large plant eating animals chew, swallow, then re-chew their food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cud
The food must be broken apart, and high surface area is important. Carnivores, including the famed t-rex, have mouths filled with Carnassial, sharp teeth that define the carnivor species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnassial
These teeth would be extremely innefective at chewing fiberous plant material.
the article then says:
"Scientists have discovered that in our atmosphere, dinosaurs could not have pumped the blood up their long skinny necks unless their hearts were almost as big as their whole body. But, if the atmostphere had been heavier and greenhouse warm, they probably could have done it with the extra pressure."
There is no evidence whatsoever that higher atmospheric pressures or increased temperatures have a positive affect on cardiac function. Also, today there are many tropical environments, which is what I assume "greenhouse warm" means, and there are no giant lizards and they certainly do not live hundreds of years.
the article continues:
"The Bible says before the flood of Noah, everything ate green plants. Giant reptiles could have lived easier. Dinosaurs could have grown very, very big, because they continue to grow as long as they live. Fossil dragonflies with a 32-inch wing span have been found. Before the flood of Noah, things got very big."
It is a fact that carnivoros dinosaurs existed. It is unlikely that the size of any dinosaur is a result of it living a thousand years. Few wild animals live more than 30 years, do to predation, disease, and the weather.
The fossil dragonfly that the article refers too is indeed large, and it is possible that this is evidence of a slightly more oxygen rich environment.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005ESP/finalprogram/abstract_87840.htm
But, unlike the indefinite growth postulated by the article, there are limiting factors. Namely, as an organism increases in size, its surface area multiplies, while its internal volume grows exponentially. This limits the size of insects due to the way they obtain oxygen.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1974_01_pick.html
the section titled "the vapor canopy and aging" basically states that the vapor canopy would filter out all the harmful radiation. First, this contradicts the notion that the vapor canopy would increase the greenhouse effect, as less radiation is reaching the earth. It says that by blocking harmful radiation, our life expenctancy would drastically increase, and mentions a study. I can not find this study, and no link is provided. One of the most profound causes of aging is damage by free radicals. Free radicals are a result of the metabolic process of all oxygen breathing organisms.
Also, in an environment that was oxygen rich, and populated by large organisms that breathed more oxygen, had increased metabolic activity, there would be an increase in free radical damage, and aging would be at the very least, as it stands now. This also stands in the face of the argument that dinosaurs lived longer, as the effects of aging would still be in effect.
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/shortmed/nelson/radicals.html
it continues:
"Scientists say that hundreds and hundreds of volcanoes went off simultaneously all over the earth somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago. They call it the "Ring of Fire." The fountains of the deep burst open the day the flood began (Genesis 7:11). How is water formed on earth? Scientists tell us that it occurs through volcanic activity. So we have water coming up from under the earth through volcanic activity. We have volcanoes shooting their dust up into the water vapor canopy, causing the nuclei of condensation. Down comes the rain. That could be an explanation for what caused the canopy to come down."
The ring of fire does not refer to all of the volcanoes on the whole of the planet "going off." The ring of fire is not an event, it is a place, usually referring to the arc of volcaoes along the pacific rim tectonic plate, but also referring too the volcanoes that appear along the major fault lines, this includes nearly 75% of all the earth volcanoes.
http://geography.about.com/cs/earthquakes/a/ringoffire.htm
http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=geography&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fvulcan.wr.usgs.gov%2FGlossary%2FPlateTectonics%2FMaps%2Fmap_plate_tectonics_world.html
(map)
Science has yet to say just why earth has as much water as it does. There are many theories, and they may all hold some truth to them.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_12_161/ai_84546023/pg_2
If the canopy of vapor was in fact already vapor, than the water had already condensed out of the air, therefore condensation nuclei are unnecassary. If the Lord wanted the is canopy to fall, then why not just let it rain? Also, the great flood mentions nothing of great volcanic eruptions.
it continues:
"The quick-frozen mammoths in Siberia is another evidence for the flood. (See "Riddle of the Frozen Giants," by Ivan T. Sanderson, The Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 16, 1960, p. 39.) Usually you see pictures of them in blizzards with "an ice age" creeping slowly upon them. Some of these mammoths had undigested buttercups in their mouths and in their stomachs. Undigested! They have examined many of these mammoths and have found up to 1,500 species of plants in their stomachs. They can still tell the color of the buttercups."
The article that is referenced, I was unable to obtain, but I found many, many references to this article, mostly as part of a creationist article. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=article+%22+riddle+of+the+frozen+giants%22&btnG=Search
The article then continues:
"Some scientists went to the Birds-Eye Frozen Food Company and asked what it would take to quick freeze a happy, grazing giant 9-ton mammoth so that the buttercups in its stomach did not digest. How quickly must that animal be frozen? These experts on quick-frozen meat said, as far as they could determine, it would take a chill of wind moving at 200 to 400 miles per hour constantly over a four to eight hour period with a temperature of minus 175 degrees Fahrenheit. We don't have anything like that on earth today."
We don't have anything like that on earth anywhere. I can find no evidence for the scientific inquiry of the Birds-Eye experts. Also, I find it highly unlikely that one A scientist, would consult the guy who runs a factory, and that two, they would not test the theory.
I can find no record of this encounter online, I called Birds-Eye foods customer service at 1-800-563-1786, but found out that the company has had many owners since the publication of this article in 1994. No record existed that I could find at General Mills, or Dean Foods, the only previous owners of the Birds-Eye name brand that I could track down.
the article then says:
"Until the flood of Noah, it would have been tropically warm under the vapor canopy. In this environment they could have easily grown to be the giants that have been found. There would have been plenty to eat, and we're just recently discovering what they did eat. Plants! Just like Genesis 1:30 says."
This also assumes that tropical temperatures have any effect on the size of an organism, which there is no evidence for. The contrary seems true, as the largest organisms on the planet today exist in a variety of environments including the Malheur forest, which is home to the largest fungus Armillaria ostoyae, spanning 220 acres, the largest vertebrate the blue whale at 110 ft, and living in the ocean, and the Giant Sequoia, which grows naturally in western Sierra Nevada, California. None of these environments even approach tropical. Also, again, the canopy would lead to global cooling, also there is definitive proof of carnivorous reptiles.
And the most important question of all is, why are there so many fossils, and yet not a single one from this time period is human. If all this life was wiped out at one time, and if humans were around as your article suggests, since the great flood existed to rid the world of humans, where is the evidence of humanity? Where is the evidence of A giant flood?
This email will be posted on http://lifeotheparty.livejournal.com/
along with a link to the article, so that anyone reading this will also have the opportunity to read your article and form their own opinion. If you do respond, I will also post your response.
Thank you for your time
~Mark Regan
the original article can be found here http://www.theophilus.org/ofc/vapor.html
Dear Mr. Bob West,
I have just finished reading an excerpt, from your work titled "The Vapor Canopy Theory" which can be found http://www.theophilus.org/ofc/vapor.html
Everyone is entitled to their religious beliefs, Lord knows I too have beliefs that I hold purely at face value, with no real evidence but my own feelings to support them. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, as long as when you tell people these believes, you explain the trith behind them.
That said, there are some glaring untruths in this article. Starting from the beginning, the article states:
"There went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground" (Genesis 2:6). That's exactly what we would expect if God put water up there and surrounded the earth with it. We will say it is water vapor because you would be able to see through it. The sun would have had to come through. It may have been 33% less bright. They would have been able to see some of the stars.
Water vapour would not be see through. Water refracts and reflects light. Clouds are evidence enough of this property. When did you last peer through the clouds on an overcast night and see the stars? Clouds are water that has condensed out of the air, the particles are trapped in the wind that constantly blows around the earth and do not fall until they reach a certain size, we call this rain. Water vapor is far less likely to be see through that say a large floating body of water covering the entire earth, because the light would only be refracted by the water once. Each particle of water vapor would again refract the portions of the light that it did not out right reflect.
formulas and explantions of the properties of water can be found here http://www.iapws.org/relguide/rindex.pdf
the the section titled "Evidence of a vapor canopy" it is stated that
"If the earth was like that, what might we expect to find as evidence that the earth was once greenhouse warm? Do we have any evidence for that?"
"Palm tree fossils have been found in Alaska. How did palm trees get to Alaska? Some textbooks say that they traveled there. It is called tectonic plate movement. How long would it take a palm tree to travel from southern California to Alaska? About 20 million years. However, the oldest palm trees they have found in Alaska, according to current dating techniques, is only 10,000 years old. You can't have a 10,000 year old tree making a 20 million year trip."
As I have stated earlier, clouds would reflect and refract light, the clouds would also reflect a great deal of heat energy back into space, and would absorb a even more. Very little heat would reach the earth. As it stands now, the average temperate of the earth is approx. 14.5 degree's celcius. With less sunlight reaching the earth, we would not have a warmer earth, but a much much colder earth. An ice age would ensue.
I have and am unable to find any research of frankly any evidence that states that "palm tree fossiles" were found in alaska.
the article states
"But, a vapor canopy around the earth during the first heaven and earth system would explain this. The sun could heat the water vapor to 212 degrees hot. That would warm the entire earth, including Alaska. Palm trees could live there""
First I ask why the water vapor would be heated to 212 degrees. Secondly, as I have pointed out, less heat radiation from the sun would reach earth. The only way more heat would reach the earth would be is the sun were hotter, or closer to the earth.
again, the properties of water vapor can be found at the sites named above.
the article then discusses coal, which I know very little about, and will not try to argue in this email.
in response to this statement:
"What are some other predictions that we might expect to find if the earth was once greenhouse warm? We would expect greater atmosphere pressure. Some scientists have made a study and determined that if there was about 40 feet of water spread out as water vapor, it would have increased atmospheric pressure to about twice what it is today."
I ask what does "greenhouse warm" mean? The greenhouse effect as defined by wikipedia :
"The greenhouse effect, first discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, is the process by which an atmosphere warms a planet. The name is from the similar effect which greenhouses utilize in order to facilitate plant growth."
and can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
the article then discusses how this would effect the longevity of life on this planet, stating:
"How could that have affected life on earth during the first heaven and earth system?
Healing would be quicker. For example, surgeons and physicians have discovered that burn patients heal up much more efficiently and quickly in a pressurized room with lots of oxygen in "
I believe you are referring to a treatment known as hyberbaric oxygen therapy. Essentially, the treatment works by limiting the growth of bacteria, increasing the effectiveness of antibiotics, and to provide oxygen to oxygen deprived tissue. The process requires a pressure 2.36 times greater than those normally seen by humans at sea level on earth today, and 100% oxygen.
http://www.worldwidewounds.com/2001/april/Wright/HyperbaricOxygen.html
Also, the earth has an average saturation of 21% oxygen. At a saturation of 23.5% the atmosphere becomes oxygen-enriched, and explosive.
http://www.oshainfo.gatech.edu/confined-gi/sld057.htm
Therefore, an earth with an atmospheric oxygen saturation of 100%, that required to have a substantial effect on life, would also be an entire planet primed to explode.
the article continues:
"We are told that Tyrannosauruswere huge, swift, aggressive meat eaters (Editors of Life, Evolution, (New York: Life Nature Library, 1962), 122). Has a scientist ever found a Tyrannosaurus rex's stomach with undigested lizards in it? Not to my knowledge. But they have recently removed some teeth from some of the skulls of Tyrannosaurus rex and made an amazing discovery. The teeth have little tiny roots. They are too small for a bone-crushing, meat-tearing animal. More likely, they ate leaves. They used those sharp teeth and the spaces between them to strip the leaves from branches."
You ask the question, "Has a scientist ever found a Tyrannosaurus rex's stomach with undigested lizards in it?"
Well has one ever been found with plant remains in it? Of course the answer to both of those questions is no. You yourself point to the scientific evidence that these massive dinosaurs were in fact carnivors, then you deny that evidence, but provide no evidence to support your claim. Digesting fiberous material is extremely difficult, even for creatures that live entirely off of plant material. Most large plant eating animals chew, swallow, then re-chew their food.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cud
The food must be broken apart, and high surface area is important. Carnivores, including the famed t-rex, have mouths filled with Carnassial, sharp teeth that define the carnivor species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnassial
These teeth would be extremely innefective at chewing fiberous plant material.
the article then says:
"Scientists have discovered that in our atmosphere, dinosaurs could not have pumped the blood up their long skinny necks unless their hearts were almost as big as their whole body. But, if the atmostphere had been heavier and greenhouse warm, they probably could have done it with the extra pressure."
There is no evidence whatsoever that higher atmospheric pressures or increased temperatures have a positive affect on cardiac function. Also, today there are many tropical environments, which is what I assume "greenhouse warm" means, and there are no giant lizards and they certainly do not live hundreds of years.
the article continues:
"The Bible says before the flood of Noah, everything ate green plants. Giant reptiles could have lived easier. Dinosaurs could have grown very, very big, because they continue to grow as long as they live. Fossil dragonflies with a 32-inch wing span have been found. Before the flood of Noah, things got very big."
It is a fact that carnivoros dinosaurs existed. It is unlikely that the size of any dinosaur is a result of it living a thousand years. Few wild animals live more than 30 years, do to predation, disease, and the weather.
The fossil dragonfly that the article refers too is indeed large, and it is possible that this is evidence of a slightly more oxygen rich environment.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2005ESP/finalprogram/abstract_87840.htm
But, unlike the indefinite growth postulated by the article, there are limiting factors. Namely, as an organism increases in size, its surface area multiplies, while its internal volume grows exponentially. This limits the size of insects due to the way they obtain oxygen.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/master.html?http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/editors_pick/1974_01_pick.html
the section titled "the vapor canopy and aging" basically states that the vapor canopy would filter out all the harmful radiation. First, this contradicts the notion that the vapor canopy would increase the greenhouse effect, as less radiation is reaching the earth. It says that by blocking harmful radiation, our life expenctancy would drastically increase, and mentions a study. I can not find this study, and no link is provided. One of the most profound causes of aging is damage by free radicals. Free radicals are a result of the metabolic process of all oxygen breathing organisms.
Also, in an environment that was oxygen rich, and populated by large organisms that breathed more oxygen, had increased metabolic activity, there would be an increase in free radical damage, and aging would be at the very least, as it stands now. This also stands in the face of the argument that dinosaurs lived longer, as the effects of aging would still be in effect.
http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Samples/shortmed/nelson/radicals.html
it continues:
"Scientists say that hundreds and hundreds of volcanoes went off simultaneously all over the earth somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago. They call it the "Ring of Fire." The fountains of the deep burst open the day the flood began (Genesis 7:11). How is water formed on earth? Scientists tell us that it occurs through volcanic activity. So we have water coming up from under the earth through volcanic activity. We have volcanoes shooting their dust up into the water vapor canopy, causing the nuclei of condensation. Down comes the rain. That could be an explanation for what caused the canopy to come down."
The ring of fire does not refer to all of the volcanoes on the whole of the planet "going off." The ring of fire is not an event, it is a place, usually referring to the arc of volcaoes along the pacific rim tectonic plate, but also referring too the volcanoes that appear along the major fault lines, this includes nearly 75% of all the earth volcanoes.
http://geography.about.com/cs/earthquakes/a/ringoffire.htm
http://geography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=geography&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fvulcan.wr.usgs.gov%2FGlossary%2FPlateTectonics%2FMaps%2Fmap_plate_tectonics_world.html
(map)
Science has yet to say just why earth has as much water as it does. There are many theories, and they may all hold some truth to them.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_12_161/ai_84546023/pg_2
If the canopy of vapor was in fact already vapor, than the water had already condensed out of the air, therefore condensation nuclei are unnecassary. If the Lord wanted the is canopy to fall, then why not just let it rain? Also, the great flood mentions nothing of great volcanic eruptions.
it continues:
"The quick-frozen mammoths in Siberia is another evidence for the flood. (See "Riddle of the Frozen Giants," by Ivan T. Sanderson, The Saturday Evening Post, Jan. 16, 1960, p. 39.) Usually you see pictures of them in blizzards with "an ice age" creeping slowly upon them. Some of these mammoths had undigested buttercups in their mouths and in their stomachs. Undigested! They have examined many of these mammoths and have found up to 1,500 species of plants in their stomachs. They can still tell the color of the buttercups."
The article that is referenced, I was unable to obtain, but I found many, many references to this article, mostly as part of a creationist article. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=article+%22+riddle+of+the+frozen+giants%22&btnG=Search
The article then continues:
"Some scientists went to the Birds-Eye Frozen Food Company and asked what it would take to quick freeze a happy, grazing giant 9-ton mammoth so that the buttercups in its stomach did not digest. How quickly must that animal be frozen? These experts on quick-frozen meat said, as far as they could determine, it would take a chill of wind moving at 200 to 400 miles per hour constantly over a four to eight hour period with a temperature of minus 175 degrees Fahrenheit. We don't have anything like that on earth today."
We don't have anything like that on earth anywhere. I can find no evidence for the scientific inquiry of the Birds-Eye experts. Also, I find it highly unlikely that one A scientist, would consult the guy who runs a factory, and that two, they would not test the theory.
I can find no record of this encounter online, I called Birds-Eye foods customer service at 1-800-563-1786, but found out that the company has had many owners since the publication of this article in 1994. No record existed that I could find at General Mills, or Dean Foods, the only previous owners of the Birds-Eye name brand that I could track down.
the article then says:
"Until the flood of Noah, it would have been tropically warm under the vapor canopy. In this environment they could have easily grown to be the giants that have been found. There would have been plenty to eat, and we're just recently discovering what they did eat. Plants! Just like Genesis 1:30 says."
This also assumes that tropical temperatures have any effect on the size of an organism, which there is no evidence for. The contrary seems true, as the largest organisms on the planet today exist in a variety of environments including the Malheur forest, which is home to the largest fungus Armillaria ostoyae, spanning 220 acres, the largest vertebrate the blue whale at 110 ft, and living in the ocean, and the Giant Sequoia, which grows naturally in western Sierra Nevada, California. None of these environments even approach tropical. Also, again, the canopy would lead to global cooling, also there is definitive proof of carnivorous reptiles.
And the most important question of all is, why are there so many fossils, and yet not a single one from this time period is human. If all this life was wiped out at one time, and if humans were around as your article suggests, since the great flood existed to rid the world of humans, where is the evidence of humanity? Where is the evidence of A giant flood?
This email will be posted on http://lifeotheparty.livejournal.com/
along with a link to the article, so that anyone reading this will also have the opportunity to read your article and form their own opinion. If you do respond, I will also post your response.
Thank you for your time
~Mark Regan