I think — and the only source I have on this idea is me — that God created a firmament with a hole in it. The hole was the source of the four rivers that watered the garden.
I think Stripe was juxtaposing his view to having no pressure combined with no destabilizing forces.
Mid-ocean ridges.
Granted. I was working with the assumption that the pressure did the rupting.
| Genesis 7:11–12. A lot of rain fell from somewhere. Genesis 7:11–12 states that “the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell ...” Doesn’t this imply a canopy? Response: If it did, similar canopy interpretations should predate Vail’s in 1874. Where are they? Quite often it is hard to see alternatives once we have learned “the accepted explanation.” Actually, Genesis 7:11–12 says that “all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell ...” Later, Genesis 8:2 states “the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained.” These events were probably in cause-and-effect order. That is, the fountains of the great deep caused extreme, torrential rain. Once the fountains stopped, this violent rain ended. Then milder, more normal, rain fell. In other words, “the rain from the sky was restrained.” A cause and effect sequence is also given in Proverbs 3:19–20: “The Lord by wisdom founded the Earth; by understanding He established the heavens. By His knowledge the deeps were broken up, and the skies dripped with dew.” The same Hebrew word, baqa ((qab@f), is used for “broken up” and “burst open” in Proverbs 3:20 and Genesis 7:11. Baqa describes a violent and complete splitting, sometimes of the Earth’s crust (Numbers 16:31, Micah 1:4, Zechariah 14:4). Isaiah 34:15 and 59:5 use baqa to describe the breaking of an egg shell by internal pressure as a baby bird exits. This aptly describes events of the hydroplate theory—the globe encircling rupture splitting the Earth’s crust by internal pressure and releasing fountains of water. The Hebrew word, matar, means normal rain. Violent rain is geshem (used in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2). It is sometimes accompanied by high winds and huge hailstones that can destroy mortared walls (Ezekiel 13:11–13). The hydroplate theory (pages 118– 157) explains this sequence in more detailed, physical terms. We have failed to appreciate the explosiveness, magnitude, and power of “the fountains of the great deep.” [See “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity” on pages 391– 429.] |
| A Uniformly Warm Climate. “A canopy may have given the Earth a uniformly warm climate. This might explain why fossils of temperate animals and plants (such as dinosaurs and large trees) are found in Antarctica and on islands inside the Arctic Circle.” Response: At the end of the flood, mountains were suddenly pushed up. This imbalanced (and rolled) the Earth, shifted the poles, and brought temperate regions to today’s polar regions. [For details see “Earth Roll” on page 141 and Endnote 84 on page 154.] Also, during the global flood, some plants and animals may have floated to today’s polar latitudes where they were later fossilized. Even if a canopy produced a warm polar climate, it would not satisfy another requirement for lush vegetation— sunlight in the winter. Polar nights are six months long, and when the Sun does shine, it is always low in the sky. How could large trees and dinosaurs (requiring long food chains) survive, let alone thrive, during the long polar night? Despite much speculation, no one knows what temperatures would exist under a canopy. Today, even experts disagree on the extent to which carbon dioxide warms the Earth. Think how much more difficult it is to determine the warming, thousands of years ago, under a canopy of unknown thickness, reflectivity, content, and height above the Earth. |
| * ICR's Dr. John Morris on the Canopy: Hear also at 24:32 Dr. Morris regarding, "a huge canopy that covered the globe... we don't have the evidence, and the evidence we do have doesn't allow the canopy. If there were such a canopy, it would cause such a heat problem on the surface that it would be boiling temperature. Nothing could survive such a canopy. That's the problem... The more scientists have looked at that canopy theory, there are almost no creation scientists anymore who have studied it, who still hold to that traditional view of the canopy that was presented in [my father's book] The Genesis Flood... The Scripture doesn't say it. And the geological evidence doesn't support it." |
Rebels against God do not know where water on earth came from while there is no water on the moon and little water on other planets. Furthermore, secularists do not know how the moon was formed so near the earth or how close it once was to the earth. Judging by its current rate of moving away from the earth, 4 billion years ago it must have been embedded in the earth.
Why would you doubt that it would be super heated?
Who says that it was what breached the crust? It escaped once the crust was breached but that doesn't mean that it had to be the mechanism that breached it.
No it doesn't.
Who cares what Calvinists might say? They see no reason for their doctrine to make sense so they can say they believe anything.
It really isn't that complicated.
I'm trying to picture what you mean by "felling of the Tree of the Knowledge" to try and visualize how it connects to the flooding of the earth.
Sure.
Could be just as plausible as anything else I've heard.
I think the word "again" rules that out.
If I was trying to derail the thread it should be easy enough to quote me doing it.
12 minutes in the guy asserts/assumes gravity as a force.
Begging the question.
Gas expanding in all directions to fill space is scientific fact.