Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Yorzhik]

My point was that the "windows of heaven" is not some water originating from above the sky.

It's a figure of speech. It most certainly could be talking about a canopy.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's a figure of speech. It most certainly could be talking about a canopy.

Not when none exists, none was mentioned in scripture before that, and the phrasing fits a different theory better than it fits the idea of a canopy.

 

[Right Divider]

It's a figure of speech. It most certainly could be talking about a canopy.

See JR's post ^^^^

 

[JudgeRightly]

Since I've been repeatedly clear, over and over, redundantly, again and again, that I support and promote HPT. I've even been evangelizing it for many many years...

If you support the HPT, then why do you still cling to a canopy?

Why do you bring up the "firmament" when I said "firmament of the heavens"?

Yes, that's my point. The firmament of the heavens has no water above it.

It's no different than you interpreting it to mean rain falling after water was pushed into the air.

Sure it is. See below.

That's not confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is selecting and/or looking for information that confirms what a person wants to think and ignoring contrary information. I'm doing neither of those things. I don't even care if it turns out there was no canopy. If you think I am simply confirming my bias, please tell me what information I'm ignoring.

Genesis 1:6-19.

On day 2 God created a firmament in the midst of the waters, dividing waters above from waters below, called it Heaven, then on day 3 He finished what he started on day 2, moving that "Heaven" so that dry land appeared and seas formed, Earth and Seas respectively. Then on day 4, He puts the stars in the sky ("firmament of the heavens") and makes the sun and moon. There is NO WATER made or moved on day 4, and ALL of the water talked about on days 2 and 3 was on the earth, either above or below the "Heaven"-named crust.

Scripture NEVER mentions, during the creation week or elsewhere, any water in the sky. It's ALL on the earth.

Your confirmation bias is due to the fact that you start with the a priori belief that there's a canopy, and then see "windows of heaven," and think, "hey, that must be referring to the canopy," except that it's tied to the fountains of the great deep, the great deep being the waters below the crust of the earth, yet there is NO, repeat NO mention of a canopy ANYWHERE in the passage, or anywhere else in scripture.

I know you want to say I'm ignoring Gen 6-10, but I'm not since I evangelize Dr Brown's theory on those passages.

You're ignoring Genesis 1, among others.

I'm not ignoring the heat problem although I don't have an answer for that. What am I ignoring?

What heat problem?

I've taken all the data into account. To call it PLENTY of data is a bit optimistic in the context of a canopy.

No, you haven't done so.

No, there are still unanswered questions. I'll get to one in just a bit about man's general age of death.

Answered here:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Before the Flood, Why Did People Live for about 900 Years?

Since I support and promote HPT where do you get this idea we are talking about disproving it?

Maybe I'm getting my threads mixed up, but earlier there was discussion about different theories and whether they'll be disproven eventually.

But yes, Dr brown has been wrong on some smaller issues.

So what?

That the water came down and froze the tundra (and the woolly mammoths) is one. He said if oil and/or coal was found under the tundra he would say that was wrong. It's looking like there is oil there, so when he is sufficiently convinced it's there it won't change the overall theory at all.

I'm not going to comment on speculation like this. There's no point.

I'm not sure this is accurate. And please don't quote the book since I'm very familiar with what it says on this topic. What data did Dr Brown use to make this conclusion?

I'm trying to find the show where it was talked about...

I know that's why I support it.

The HPT and any canopy theory are incompatible.

Hey, you said you understood I reject VCT and you wouldn't bring it up as what I'm defending.

You said you reject it as a major source of water, not that you reject it entirely.

So which is it?

Now what other scripture rules out a canopy? Don't bring up Gen 6-10 since we booth agree what that is saying.

Genesis 1, for starters.

And all the verses in the Google Sheets link I posted earlier.

Otherwise, it's just a figure of speech that means that there was heavy rain, which makes sense considering the canopy came down.

Sorry, that's not how it works.

I was half quoting scripture. You're reading canopy into the text where there is none.

See the difference?

Eisegesis is a terrible way to read the Bible.

So am I.

No, you're not.

If you were, you'd quickly realize that there's no support for a canopy.

Of course they were not 2 separate events. The fountains of the deep breaking out is also what brought down the canopy. How could the fountains of the great deep not rip through it on the way out? One event.

Again, reading a canopy into the text is not the proper way to read scripture.

Again, all the water mentioned so far in Genesis by chapter 7 is on the earth, not in the sky. Thus, it makes perfect sense for the "windows of heaven" to be, as we agree, a figure of speech for a heavy downpour. The problem is that you're inserting "canopy" into the equation where there is no room for it.

I thought you said you understood I reject VCT?

... as a major source of water during the flood. You never said you rejected the rest of the theory.

For clarity's sake, would you please state your position in clear terms?

That I agree the firmament on day 2 is the crust of the earth? Did you forget?

If you believed that, then I'm not seeing how you can fit a canopy into the scriptures where there is no possibility for one, based on the fact that the firmament of day 2 is the crust.

That's why it's a figure of speech. The windows of heaven could be either, but I'm betting it involves a canopy.

You're betting it involves a canopy?

If you fully admit that the windows of heaven could be a heavy downpour from the water released by the fountains, with no canopy, and there's no further support for a canopy elsewhere in scripture, then why do you still cling to the belief?

If your best (and arguably ONLY) evidence for a belief can be interpreted in a different way that fits better to other things you believe, why hold onto that belief at all?

What other scriptures does a canopy not jive with? Don't forget I reject VCT.

Flood Models & Bible Verses

rsr.org/hpt Bible Material Uniquely Supporting Various Flood Models (See note #1) Apparently Uniquely Supportive of: Hydroplate Theory,Vapor Canopy Theory,Catastrophic Plate Tectonics No "It was good" on Day 2 (because raqia was unfinished; see note #2),✔ The dry land finished the crust process ...

docs.google.com

But it's not just long lived organisms that keep growing throughout there life.

Ok, and?

The plants buried in the sediments, coalified et al. I don't think you understand the anomaly.

Please explain what you think the anomaly is.

Compared to radio carbon dates after the flood. I'm already well read with what the book says.

Please explain what you think the anomaly is.

Nope. Noah should have died early like Shem,

Why?

Why do you think Noah's lifespan would have been immediately affected? He had lived much of his life before radiation existed on the earth. Same with his sons and his wife and their wives. We DO see a general shortening of lifespans from Noah to Moses.

and we don't know how long Ham and Japheth lived. We don't know exactly how Shem died either, and it's one data point. Even Dr Brown would not say the Shem evidence was relatively strong.

So what?

This doesn't mean I reject the radiation theory, I'm sure that's included (or even a major factor), but there are probably other factors,

Agreed on this.

including changes from a fallen canopy, that also contributed.

Still trying to insert a canopy where there is none.

There would have been MORE water in the sky after the flood than before, not less.

We know this because the Bible states very clearly that before the flood there was no rain, only after it, and that the water came up from the ground to water the earth, not from above it.

You act as if reality outside of scripture, especially reality consistent with scripture, doesn't count.

We haven't even gotten around to discussing the physical evidence yet. We're still discussing scripture, last I checked.

If you think there's physical evidence for a canopy, by all means, present it!

Pressure isn't what would cause the temperature rise. It would be infrared wave lengths reflected back onto earth. I wouldn't be so sure the earth got as hot as you are assuming since the science of a canopy is not well understood.

Your understanding of what I said is backwards.

A canopy would trap solar energy underneath it, causing temperatures to rise AND higher pressures as a result of those temperatures, and there would be no easy way to relieve that pressure, nor to disperse the heat, as water, especially pure water, is an excellent insulator for heat. And since there is no way to dissipate the heat, the earth would only keep getting hotter and hotter under the canopy, eventually boiling all life.

Who are you talking to? Someone who supports VCT?

Supra.

Really? "Jesus wept" supports HPT? But not a canopy? How so? I think you a dabbling in a bit of rhetoric with that line.

It's called hyperbole, Yorzhik.

The bible supports a canopy just as well.

Then quote all the verses that support it, please. Because so far you've given a single verse that could just as easily NOT refer to a canopy.

What geological evidence is there against a canopy (don't forget, not VCT)?

The fact that there is water below the crust of the earth, which lends credit to what the Bible says, which is that the firmament had water below and above it, the water above it then being called Seas, yet provide no mention of a canopy.

What historical evidence is there against a canopy (don't forget, not VCT)?

Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book I

penelope.uchicago.edu

Chapter 3, section 5.

What cultural evidence is there against a canopy (don't forget, not VCT)?

How about all the flood (or similar) stories in cultures throughout the world that never mention a canopy of any sort.

I agree there are still unanswered questions in physics about a canopy, but there is also little known about how a canopy would work with which to apply physics. Thus, wait and see.

We can safely discard the idea, because it's not supported by scripture, nor the evidence.

No, as you seem to have forgotten, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

If the firmament of day 2 is the crust, then any idea of a canopy based on the water being above the "firmament" goes out the window (no pun intended).

Right. As you've forgotten, I agree with HPT's day 2 interpretation.

Yet you still cling to an obsolete idea.

===================

Yorzhik, would you mind presenting your best evidence for a canopy from scripture?

Make the argument, because I'm finding that I'm having to try to make your argument for you, and I don't want to do that.

 

[Idolater]

Woke up this morning thinkin about oil. Black gold, Texas Tea, bubblin crude.

Oil is, we are told, the degraded remains of tissue.

The fact that there are benzene rings in oil is consistent with this theory, because how else would benzene rings get made if not enzymatically, within an organism?

I know that HPT includes teachings on crude, and I also know very little about what that teaching is, I have only noticed it in passing as I slowly read through the pages on RD's link.

But not knowing anything, about crude or geology (I'm "level zero" in both disciplinary areas), here's nonetheless what I was thinking: If all oil is the degraded remains of tissue, then what explanation is there for the fact that oil is everywhere, and why is it frequently found underneath literally miles (vertical) of rock? How ever did those organisms get themselves trapped under that much rock? And why do we find this condition all around the whole earth? Under the sea, on land, everywhere there is oil there is oil under miles of solid rock.

Seems to me this evidence is consistent with something global occurring. That either happened a lot at different times all around the whole earth, over "billions of years", or maybe it happened during 150 days, just once, about 6000 years ago.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've taken all the data into account. To call it PLENTY of data is a bit optimistic in the context of a canopy.

. . .

I'm not sure this is accurate. And please don't quote the book since I'm very familiar with what it says on this topic.

. . .

Pressure isn't what would cause the tempurature rise. It would be infrared wave lengths reflected back onto earth. I wouldn't be so sure the earth got as hot as you are assuming since the science of a canopy is not well understood.

. . .

I agree there are still unanswered questions in physics about a canopy, but there is also little known about how a canopy would work with which to apply physics. Thus, wait and see.

Here, I found it, 23:00, starting at 21:40:

 

[Stripe]

Oil deposits require a process to bury vast amounts of plant life under cement rich, sediment rich water.

The Hydroplate theory sets up the conditions to achieve this with supplies of all four elements:

Plant life was more extensive and grew larger in the pre-flood world.
Water erupted all over the planet, dragging with it cement-rich sediment.

There are other explanations for the process of oil formation. None of them account for all of the ingredients in a global scale.

 

[Tambora]

If the crust of the earth was rock, how did soil originate?

 

[Right Divider]

If the crust of the earth was rock, how did soil originate?

We would have to assume that God created some soil on the top of the crust.

 

[Tambora]

We would have to assume that God created some soil on the top of the crust.

Is the earth getting bigger?
We find cities and civilizations on top of others.
So where is all the extra dirt coming from that keep covering them?

 

[Right Divider]

Is the earth getting bigger?

I don't think so. The earth actually got a bit smaller during the aftermath of the flood.

We find cities and civilizations on top of others.

Where?

So where is all the extra dirt coming from that keep covering them?

There is no "extra dirt". The earth does shift from time to time and sometimes things get covered up (or exposed).

Secularists and evolutionists have the strange idea that the deeper you go in the ground, the older it is. That is is not based on any actual facts.

 

[Yorzhik]

Not when none exists, none was mentioned in scripture before that, and the phrasing fits a different theory better than it fits the idea of a canopy.

See JR's post ^^^^

You don't know that none existed. The bible doesn't rule it out, in fact it might be mentioning it when it talks about the windows of heaven. We just don't know.

It doesn't mention it in scripture before because it wasn't important enough to mention. It didn't contribute to the flood enough to mention. And it didn't matter to scripture what the mix of gases were before and after the flood, either. The canopy is almost on the same level of importance as the mix of gases in the air. The only difference is the tiny sliver of a possible mention as "the windows of heaven" when it comes to a canopy.

And to further the point, the bible doesn't mention anything about the mix of gases before the flood or how they were different from today. But it is reasonable to agree the gas mix was different because evidence outside the bible shows it's true and it is still consistent with scripture. Come to think of it, the mix of gases is a parallel example of both the importance of, and consistency with, the bible.

If you support the HPT, then why do you still cling to a canopy?

I don't cling to it. You two are the ones fighting here. I guess this is the point of continuing this particular discussion (besides for my own benefit of studying the idea of the canopy - you are definitely making me think); To let you two vent about a minor point that we have little information on. Wisdom would say your response should be: "since it doesn't change the overall theory, and since the bible didn't find it important enough to hardly even mention it if at all, I guess we'll see who's right either in this world if the data becomes available or in the next if anyone still cares enough to ask in the next life."

Again, I don't have an emotional attachment to the idea. Not the way you two have and emotional reaction in opposing it. I simply think we have some anomalies that a canopy might help explain and the bible says "windows of heaven". If it turns out that I'm wrong it will be on the level of being wrong about remembering what I had for breakfast.

Yes, that's my point. The firmament of the heavens has no water above it.

Then your point isn't a response my mine. God doesn't mention making an atmosphere at all! He seems to assume it in Gen1:9 when He explicitly creates the seas and dry land. But that's exactly where the canopy was made I'd guess, simply as a part of the atmosphere at the wasn't important enough to explicitly mention the creation of.

I guess this is a real sticking point with you, that if there was a canopy the creation of it *had* to be explicitly mentioned in Gen 1. But it was just as important as mentioning the explicit creation of the rest of the atmosphere, meaning not important enough.

Genesis 1:6-19.

On day 2 God created a firmament in the midst of the waters, dividing waters above from waters below, called it Heaven, then on day 3 He finished what he started on day 2, moving that "Heaven" so that dry land appeared and seas formed, Earth and Seas respectively. Then on day 4, He puts the stars in the sky ("firmament of the heavens") and makes the sun and moon. There is NO WATER made or moved on day 4, and ALL of the water talked about on days 2 and 3 was on the earth, either above or below the "Heaven"-named crust.

Scripture NEVER mentions, during the creation week or elsewhere, any water in the sky. It's ALL on the earth.

Sigh. I really blew here and a little farther down. I meant to say Gen 1:6-10. I realize it was very confusing to type "Gen 6-10" referencing chapters. I'm sorry.

That being said, let me restate, only correctly, that I'm not ignoring Gen 1:6-10. Gen 1:6-10 does not reference a canopy in any way.

Your confirmation bias is due to the fact that you start with the a priori belief that there's a canopy, and then see "windows of heaven," and think, "hey, that must be referring to the canopy," except that it's tied to the fountains of the great deep, the great deep being the waters below the crust of the earth, yet there is NO, repeat NO mention of a canopy ANYWHERE in the passage, or anywhere else in scripture.

No, I start with the evidence of anomalies and realize that a single solution answers all of them. As Bob Enyart said, a single solution that answers disparate questions gives credence to that solution.

And you are wrong about claiming I have ever said "windows of heaven" must be a canopy. I'm pretty sure you won't find it since I'm fairly certain I'm careful to say might or maybe or could. Or I might not have added the indefinite qualifier if I thought it was clear in context.

So either show that I claimed "must" or retract the statement.

Secondly, if there was a canopy it has no connection with the great deep.

Thirdly, there is NO, repeat NO mention of the explicit creation of the atmosphere ANYWHERE in the passage, or anywhere else in scripture. Get that? It's a parallel topic.

You're ignoring Genesis 1, among others.

Sadly, answered above. Again, I apologize.

What heat problem?

A canopy that has water as a part of its makeup (or all its makeup?) would act like a greenhouse. I don't know how the heat was mitigated, but I'm not ignoring the problem.

No, you haven't done so.

Yes I have. Except for my typo, you haven't point out anything I've ignored.

Answered here:

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Before the Flood, Why Did People Live for about 900 Years?

Answered a bit farther down.

Maybe I'm getting my threads mixed up, but earlier there was discussion about different theories and whether they'll be disproven eventually.

Must have been a different thread.

So what?

Dr Brown being wrong on other small side issues means we can still support the theory even if there are errors in it as long as they don't affect the overall theory.

I'm not going to comment on speculation like this. There's no point.

It's not speculation. Dr. Brown said, as Bob Enyart claims as a first hand witness, that if there was oil and/or coal under the tundra that part of the theory was incorrect.

It's OK. Dr. Brown is a big boy and he can handle corrections when new data comes in. It doesn't affect the overall theory.

I'm trying to find the show where it was talked about...

Link it when you find it.

The HPT and any canopy theory are incompatible.

Now that's just lashing out. There is no reason they cannot be compatible, unless you are thinking I'm talking about VCT.

And if you understand I'm not talking about VCT, can you please mention the incompatibility? It's not in Gen 1 since the canopy isn't even mentioned there (unless it is part of the assumed atmosphere in Gen 1:9).

You said you reject it as a major source of water, not that you reject it entirely.

So which is it?

What? There is no "which is it?" for claims that are not exclusive. I reject it as a main source of flood water but not as something that existed and affected the pre flood world when it was there.

Genesis 1, for starters.

And all the verses in the Google Sheets link I posted earlier.

The verses in the spreadsheet address VCT.

Sorry, that's not how it works.

I was half quoting scripture. You're reading canopy into the text where there is none.

See the difference?

Eisegesis is a terrible way to read the Bible.

I'm not reading the figure any differently than you are. You are reading heavy rains after water was flung into the air into it, and you might be right. But it's a figure of speech which are by necessity somewhat vague.

No, you're not.

If you were, you'd quickly realize that there's no support for a canopy.

Yes I am. "Windows of heaven" is in scripture.

Again, reading a canopy into the text is not the proper way to read scripture.

Again, all the water mentioned so far in Genesis by chapter 7 is on the earth, not in the sky. Thus, it makes perfect sense for the "windows of heaven" to be, as we agree, a figure of speech for a heavy downpour. The problem is that you're inserting "canopy" into the equation where there is no room for it.

Technically, there was water vapor in the air when it was created. 100% dry air is not good.

But of course, God is not so pedantic as to mention the water in the air, including the canopy if there was one.

... as a major source of water during the flood. You never said you rejected the rest of the theory.

For clarity's sake, would you please state your position in clear terms?

There are anomalies that could possibly be answered, at least in part, by the existence of a canopy. It doesn't exist today because the windows of heaven came down when they were opened.

Do I also need to mention that HPT is a solid theory? That having a canopy (not as a major contributor to the flood - VCT) does not affect HPT in the slightest?

If you believed that, then I'm not seeing how you can fit a canopy into the scriptures where there is no possibility for one, based on the fact that the firmament of day 2 is the crust.

I don't understand what you aren't seeing. The firmament on day 2 is the crust and there is no mention of a canopy (barring assuming it is there with the sky in Gen 1:9 along with the atmosphere) in Gen 1.

You're betting it involves a canopy?

Yes. Call it a bet with little consequence like when I bet on which team will win a game. I base my bet on who I think is the better team, but I've been right and wrong. I couldn't tell you a single game I ever bet on because the consequence of winning or losing the bet was so small it wasn't worth remembering.

If you fully admit that the windows of heaven could be a heavy downpour from the water released by the fountains, with no canopy, and there's no further support for a canopy elsewhere in scripture, then why do you still cling to the belief?

I think it is one solution that solves disparate problems.

So it's really not "clinging" to the belief since that evokes the picture of holding on to something against grave consequences. It's more a hunch that I think would be cute if I'm right about than an idea I'm clinging to for dear life.

If your best (and arguably ONLY) evidence for a belief can be interpreted in a different way that fits better to other things you believe, why hold onto that belief at all?

Depends on what those other things are that I believe. Sometimes when all the data is not clear we'll hold on to an idea even if it has problems until things get more clear.

Flood Models & Bible Verses​

rsr.org/hpt Bible Material Uniquely Supporting Various Flood Models (See note #1) Apparently Uniquely Supportive of: Hydroplate Theory,Vapor Canopy Theory,Catastrophic Plate Tectonics No "It was good" on Day 2 (because raqia was unfinished; see note #2),✔ The dry land finished the crust process ... docs.google.com

That doesn't mention any scripture that excludes a canopy. It certainly excludes VCT but I hope you are clear about that by now.

Ok, and?

Higher air pressure might help, at least in part, to answer how they grew to those sizes.

Please explain what you think the anomaly is.

Certainly there seems to have been a great deal more CO2 in the pre flood atmosphere based on the volume of plant material that needed it to grow. A mix of gases that includes a lot more CO2 might benefit from higher air pressure when it comes to breathing.

Please explain what you think the anomaly is.

Radio carbon dates of pre flood material is consistently 10's of thousands of years. The ratio of C12 to C14 could either be affected by what was just mentioned, and the production of C14 might be lower if the canopy affected protons going through it.

Why?

Why do you think Noah's lifespan would have been immediately affected? He had lived much of his life before radiation existed on the earth. Same with his sons and his wife and their wives. We DO see a general shortening of lifespans from Noah to Moses.

Didn't you read that section? Dr Brown says radiation affected life spans of everyone even if their genetics were pre flood. The evidence provided was Shem dying less than the average lifespan. But Noah lived the average lifespan and he was after the flood, prompting Dr Brown to say that Noah had matured more, had less life to get over with, and so was not affected by the post flood causes of lower lifespan. Noah doesn't get affected at all in 350 years but 100 year old mature Shem ages out losing 1/3 of his lifespan? That's weak... needs more data. And we don't know that Shem died of old age, shortened by the affects of the flood because we don't know what killed him. And we don't know about Ham and Japheth. If they died at average pre flood ages it would be evidence against that idea, or if they even died of old age or not.

So what?

Not knowing about Ham and Japheth means Dr Brown is going off a single data point with little data. There is certainly room for alternate ideas on the long lifespans of pre flood peoples, and a canopy might be part of the answer to that question.

Still trying to insert a canopy where there is none.

There would have been MORE water in the sky after the flood than before, not less.

We know this because the Bible states very clearly that before the flood there was no rain, only after it, and that the water came up from the ground to water the earth, not from above it.

I don't see how this relates to the statement I made.

We haven't even gotten around to discussing the physical evidence yet. We're still discussing scripture, last I checked.

If you think there's physical evidence for a canopy, by all means, present it!

I have been presenting physical evidence all along. It's intrinsic to presenting anomalies.

Your understanding of what I said is backwards.

A canopy would trap solar energy underneath it, causing temperatures to rise AND higher pressures as a result of those temperatures, and there would be no easy way to relieve that pressure, nor to disperse the heat, as water, especially pure water, is an excellent insulator for heat. And since there is no way to dissipate the heat, the earth would only keep getting hotter and hotter under the canopy, eventually boiling all life.

Your explanation here is really confusing to say the least. But it doesn't matter since I acknowledge there is a heat problem with a canopy.

It's called hyperbole, Yorzhik.

I know. But it means that the canopy is as consistent with the whole bible as HPT.

Then quote all the verses that support it, please. Because so far you've given a single verse that could just as easily NOT refer to a canopy.

I guess saying the windows of heaven stopped in Gen 8:2 that's another verse. But it seems to me to be a single pair and not 2 separate references.

But, yeah, that's all the verses. Why do you think there should be more?

The fact that there is water below the crust of the earth, which lends credit to what the Bible says, which is that the firmament had water below and above it, the water above it then being called Seas, yet provide no mention of a canopy.

I asked for geological evidence against a canopy, not VCT, which is what you provided.

Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews, Book I Chapter 3, section 5.

That doesn't saying anything for or against a canopy.

How about all the flood (or similar) stories in cultures throughout the world that never mention a canopy of any sort.

They don't say anything for or against a canopy.

We can safely discard the idea, because it's not supported by scripture, nor the evidence.

It's not ruled out in scripture, it might even be mentioned in scripture. And the evidence is somewhat lacking to make a firm decision on whether it existed or not.

Yes, it is.

If the firmament of day 2 is the crust, then any idea of a canopy based on the water being above the "firmament" goes out the window (no pun intended).

I'm only answering this to confirm again that I don't support VCT.

Yet you still cling to an obsolete idea.

I don't cling nor is the idea obsolete. VCT is obsolete but a canopy still has a slim chance of having existed.

===================

Yorzhik, would you mind presenting your best evidence for a canopy from scripture?

Make the argument, because I'm finding that I'm having to try to make your argument for you, and I don't want to do that.

When this was asked for before, I answered directly and ended with "That's it". Saying "That's it" meant what I presented was all I had and there was essentially nothing more.

Here it is again: There are anomalies that might be answered, at least in part, by the existence of a canopy. The bible says there were "windows in heaven" that were opened and rain came down. That's it.

 

[Right Divider]

You don't know that none existed.

So we should just assume that it did? Without any evidence whatsoever?

The bible doesn't rule it out, in fact it might be mentioning it when it talk about the windows of heaven. We just don't know.

It's backwards to assume that something exists without at least some evidence.

 

[Yorzhik]

So we should just assume that it did? Without any evidence whatsoever?

It's backwards to assume that something exists without at least some evidence.

Some evidence was provided.

 

[Right Divider]

Some evidence was provided.

If "windows of heaven" is your only evidence... Then, No, you've provided nothing.

 

[Yorzhik]

If "windows of heaven" is your only evidence... Then, No, you've provided nothing.

It's not. There is more in my post to JR.

 

[Stripe]

Is the earth getting bigger?

The opposite. It is compacting. Every time there is an earthquake, rocks move toward the core. It's similar to how the volume decreases when you shake a bucket of stones.

 

[Tambora]

Here's my viewpoint of the firmament of Genesis 1.

Starts out with one body of waters called the deep.
And the waters were then divided with an expanse.

(6) And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.”​

(7) And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.​

(8) And God called the expanse Heaven. [H8064]​

(9) And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens [H8064] be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so.​

(10) God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.​

​

(26) Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens [H8064] and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”​

Dry land did not appear until the waters were separated above and below the expanse.
So all land was within water (not dry) until it was separated by the expanse so it could become "dry" when the waters under the expanse were gathered to form seas.
It is the dry land that is called "earth".
The expanse is the area that would be called "Heaven" (above the earth that would become "dry" and above the seas that were gathered).
That still leaves the waters above the expanse.

 

[Tambora]

The opposite. It is compacting. Every time there is an earthquake, rocks move toward the core. It's similar to how the volume decreases when you shake a bucket of stones.

So we don't get "space dust" landing on our topsoil.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You don't know that none existed.

I'm 100% confident that it did not.

The bible doesn't rule it out, in fact it might be mentioning it when it talk about the windows of heaven. We just don't know.

Circumstantial evidence isn't enough to go off of in support of an idea.

The only difference is the tiny sliver of a possible mention as "the windows of heaven" when it comes to a canopy.

Which isn't enough to go on to make a claim that a canopy existed.

I don't cling to it.

You ARE clinging to it. You have so little evidence to support your belief, and what evidence you do have is circumstantial at best. Even worse, it's even possible to interpret what little evidence you have in a different way that makes WAY more sense!

But that's exactly where the canopy was made, simply as a part of the atmosphere at the wasn't important enough to mention the creation of.

Begging the question.

I guess this is a real sticking point with you, that if there was a canopy the creation of it *had* to be explicitly mentioned in Gen 1.

I never said that. I'm saying that the way Moses wrote about the creation week, he wrote about two layers of water, not three, one below the crust, and one above the crust.

Sigh. I really blew here and a little farther down. I meant to say Gen 1:6-10. I realize it was very confusing to type "Gen 6-10" referencing chapters. I'm sorry.

That being said, let me restate, only correctly, that I'm not ignoring Gen 1:6-10. Gen 1:6-10 does not reference a canopy in any way.

Sadly, answered above. Again, I apologize.

Acknowledged.

No, I start with the evidence of anomalies and realize that a single solution answers all of them. As Bob Enyart said, a single solution that answers disparate questions gives credence to that solution.

Yet a canopy causes more problems than it solves. Wouldn't you say that takes away credence?

And you are wrong about claiming I have ever said "windows of heaven" must be a canopy. I'm pretty sure you won't find it since I'm pretty sure I'm careful to say might or maybe or could. Or I might not have added the indefinite qualifier if I thought it was clear in context.

So either show that I claimed "must" or retract the statement.

Secondly, if there was a canopy it has no connection with the great deep.

Other than the fact that the fountains of the great deep broke forth, and the windows of heaven were opened.

A canopy that has water as a part of its makeup (or all its makeup?) would act like a greenhouse. I don't know how the heat was mitigated, but I'm not ignoring the problem.

Yes I have. Except for my typo, you haven't point out anything I've ignored.

Answered a bit farther down.

Must have been a different thread.

Walt being wrong on other small side issues means we can still support the theory even if there are errors in it as long as they don't affect the overall theory.

It's not speculation. Dr. Brown said, as Bob Enyart claims as a first hand witness, that if there was oil and/or coal under the tundra that part of the theory was incorrect.

It's OK. Dr. Brown is a big boy and he can handle corrections when new data comes in. It doesn't affect the overall theory.

Link it when you find it.

Done.

Now that's just lashing out. There is no reason they cannot be compatible, unless you are thinking I'm talking about VCT.

And if you understand I'm not talking about VCT, can you please mention the incompatibility? It's not in Gen 1 since the canopy isn't even mentioned there (unless it is part of the assumed atmosphere in Gen 1:9).

The incompatibility is with scripture and physics.

All of the miracles described in the Bible are obvious. A canopy, shell of water, what have you, above the atmosphere, would necessarily be miraculous in nature, because there's no physical way to keep a sphere of water floating above the atmosphere. A ring? Sure. But not a sphere.

And since it would need to be miraculous, it would have to be mentioned in scripture, yet there is no mention of God miraculously keeping a sphere of water above the atmosphere.

Not to mention the heat that would build over the course of the 1600+ years between creation and the flood...

I'm not reading the figure any differently than you are.

I find that hard to believe.

You are reading heavy rains after water was flung into the air into it,

That's how it was written.

And it makes perfect sense. What goes up, must come down, no?

and you might be right.

It makes far more sense than "canopy."

But it's a figure of speech which are by necessity somewhat vague.

A figure of speech that means that it started raining. Not vague at all.

Yes I am. "Windows of heaven" is in scripture.

Which follows after "fountains of the great deep," and following it, rain that lasted for 40 days.

Fountains broke forth, windows opened, 40 day rains.

Water launched into the air, water falls back to earth, lasting for 40 days.

There's literally no reason to even think about a canopy.

There are anomalies that could possibly be answered, at least in part, by the existence of a canopy.

Again, the canopy causes more problems than it solves, and all of the supposed anomalies you've given so far are easily explained by various aspects of the HPT, no canopy required.

It doesn't exist today because the windows of heaven came down when they were opened.

No windows of heaven came down. They were opened.

That having a canopy (not as a major contributor to the flood - VCT) does not affect HPT in the slightest?

It doesn't help it either, and adds more problems than need to be solved.

I don't understand what you aren't seeing. The firmament on day 2 is the crust and there is no mention of a canopy (barring assuming it is there with the sky in Gen 1:9 along with the atmosphere) in Gen 1.

Then why insert one?

Yes. Call it a bet with little consequence

But it doesn't fit.

I think it is one solution that solves disparate problems.

Supra.

So it's really not "clinging" to the belief since that evokes the picture of holding on to something against grave consequences. It's more a hunch that I think would be cute if I'm right about than an idea I'm clinging to for dear life.

Yet you're not willing to give up the idea of a canopy, despite the evidence against it.

I call that clinging.

Certainly there seems to have been a great deal more CO2 in the pre flood atmosphere based on the volume of plant material that needed it to grow. A mix of gases that includes a lot more CO2 might benefit from higher air pressure when it comes to breathing.

Radio carbon dates of pre flood material is consistently 10's of thousands of years. The ratio of C12 to C14 could either be affected by what was just mentioned, and the production of C14 might be lower if the canopy affected protons going through it.

Didn't you read that section? Dr Brown says radiation affected life spans of everyone even if their genetics were pre flood.

Yes, that's what I said.

The evidence provided was Shem dying less than the average lifespan. But Noah lived the average lifespan and he was after the flood,

He was also the only one "perfect in his generations" from before the flood (referring to his genetics). Nothing is said about his wife.

prompting Dr Brown to say that Noah had matured more, had less life to get over with, and so was not affected by the post flood causes of lower lifespan. Noah doesn't get affected at all in 350 years but 100 year old mature Shem ages out losing 1/3 of his lifespan? That's weak... needs more data.

Considering Noah was 600 years old when the flood occurred, and he lived 950 total, I'd say he was well past the age where anything would have affected him much.

As you said, Shem was only 100 when the flood occurred, and he lived 600 years. Considering the average lifespan, and even the aging process, I'd say he was a young man at the flood, definitely more susceptible to external factors, and he only lost 300 years.

And we don't know that Shem died of old age, shortened by the affects of the flood because we don't know what killed him. And we don't know about Ham and Japheth. If they died at average pre flood ages it would be evidence against that idea, or if they even died of old age or not.

Not knowing about Ham and Japheth means Dr Brown is going off a single data point with little data. There is certainly room for alternate ideas on the long lifespans of pre flood peoples,

Sure.

and a canopy might be part of the answer to that question.

Make the argument, otherwise it's just conjecture.

I guess saying the windows of heaven stopped in Gen 8:2 that's another verse. But it seems to me to be a single pair and not 2 separate references.

Here's the problem as I see it. The Bible says that the fountains broke forth, and the "windows" were opened, and then it's not even until the next chapter that the "windows" were stopped, and the rain restrained. Where's the need for a canopy?

You promote the HPT, which means you recognize that the fountains were the source of at least most of the rain, yet still insist that a small portion of it was from a canopy that only causes problems that cannot be easily solved.

But, yeah, that's all the verses. Why do you think there should be more?

One would think that a person would build their beliefs on more than two verses in scripture, and not even full verses, just a figure of speech used in those two verses.

It's not ruled out in scripture,

There's no reason for one.

it might even be mentioned in scripture.

Yet aside from two verses, you cannot provide a verse that does mention it.

God tells us that two or three witnesses are needed to establish a matter, and He says "two or three" because He expects us to weigh the evidence. If the evidence is not strong enough, even with two witnesses, a third is needed. The two verses you claim support your theory, and not even two verses, just a single figure of speech, only support it circumstantially at best, or not at all.

And the evidence is somewhat lacking to make a firm decision on whether it existed or not.

No, there's not enough evidence to even propose the idea, let alone decide whether it existed or not.

I don't cling

Yes, you do.

nor is the idea obsolete.

Yes, it is.

a canopy still has a slim chance of having existed.

No, it really doesn't.

Here it is again: There are anomalies that might be answered, at least in part, by the existence of a canopy. The bible says there were "windows in heaven" that were opened and rain came down. That's it.

One witness is not enough to establish a matter. Two or three witnesses are needed.

At best you have two circumstantial verses that make more sense, according to the very theory you hold to, being interpreted as simply the water from below the crust falling back to earth after having been launched by the fountains, but it's really only the one figure of speech.

We can safely reject the idea of a canopy because you are lacking witnesses to its existence, just as Jesus dismissed the charges against the adulteress due to lack of witnesses.