• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

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

marke

Well-known member
Once again, this would NOT freeze rivers and lakes from the BOTTOM UP.
I don't know if the Alaskan muck froze from the bottom up but I do have a hard time believing the frozen hailstones penetrated 2,000 feet of tropical water to freeze the accumulated floodwaters from the bottom up.

Lake and river water sometimes freezes from the bottom up today.
 

Idolater

"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I don't know if the Alaskan muck froze from the bottom up but I do have a hard time believing the frozen hailstones penetrated 2,000 feet of tropical water to freeze the accumulated floodwaters from the bottom up.

Lake and river water sometimes freezes from the bottom up today.
I think the idea is that during the Flood the crust broke apart at least in very large areas if not completely, into basically rubble, so it was moving around almost like a sea of rocks as a result of all the energy being released by the crust breaking open, releasing the supercritical subterranean waters.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Verse 9 in particular is clearly talking about the surface of the earth.

That is the water above the expanse. The water below the expanse is under the crust.
The heavens IS the expanse.
It is the waters gathered below the expanse (heavens) that is called seas.
The waters above the expanse (heavens) is not said to be gathered together and is not called seas.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I don't know if the Alaskan muck froze from the bottom up but I do have a hard time believing the frozen hailstones penetrated 2,000 feet of tropical water to freeze the accumulated floodwaters from the bottom up.
Who made such a claim?
Lake and river water sometimes freezes from the bottom up today.
No, they don't. Under normal conditions water always freezes at the top (which protects the lower portions from freezing and killing all of the life contained therein).
 

Right Divider

Body part
The heavens IS the expanse.
Not the one that divided the waters.
It is the waters gathered below the expanse (heavens) that is called seas.
Nope.
The waters above the expanse (heavens) is not said to be gathered together and is not called seas.
You believe that there are waters above the sun and stars?

Gen 1:14-19 (AKJV/PCE)
(1:14) ¶ And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (1:15) And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. (1:16) And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: [he made] the stars also. (1:17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (1:18) And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that [it was] good. (1:19) And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

No, there is not "water" above "the firmament of the heaven".

The firmament that divided the water is NOT the firmament of the heaven. No matter how hard you push that idea.
 

marke

Well-known member
I think the idea is that during the Flood the crust broke apart at least in very large areas if not completely, into basically rubble, so it was moving around almost like a sea of rocks as a result of all the energy being released by the crust breaking open, releasing the supercritical subterranean waters.
If the crust broke open then the ocean waters must have been very hot which would make it even harder for the water salted with hail stones to freeze solid to depths of many thousands of feet.
 

marke

Well-known member
Why? What is the evidence of this? Where did the "volcanic debris" come from?
Volcanoes spew debris into the atmosphers.


One of the deadliest volcanic eruptions in European history, the VEI 5 eruption of Mount Vesuvius spewed superheated debris and gas 21 miles into the stratosphere, and sent out waves of heat and ash that buried multiple cities and incinerated the surrounding area. Many victims of the blast died instantaneously of thermal shock.
 

marke

Well-known member
Who made such a claim?

No, they don't. Under normal conditions water always freezes at the top (which protects the lower portions from freezing and killing all of the life contained therein).



When temperatures plunge to below freezing, Spearfish Creek also freezes...but it might not appear to be frozen. The rushing water in the creek continues to bubble and gurgle along like always. Why? Because unlike most creeks, Spearfish Creek freezes from the bottom up.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Volcanoes spew debris into the atmosphers.
Wow... thanks for the great info. NOT.

One of the deadliest volcanic eruptions in European history, the VEI 5 eruption of Mount Vesuvius spewed superheated debris and gas 21 miles into the stratosphere, and sent out waves of heat and ash that buried multiple cities and incinerated the surrounding area. Many victims of the blast died instantaneously of thermal shock.
The bursting of the great deep was NOT a volcano.
 

Right Divider

Body part

When temperatures plunge to below freezing, Spearfish Creek also freezes...but it might not appear to be frozen. The rushing water in the creek continues to bubble and gurgle along like always. Why? Because unlike most creeks, Spearfish Creek freezes from the bottom up.
One cute story does not change the fact that rivers and lakes freeze top down. If they did not, all life in them would die.
 

marke

Well-known member
Indeed... but not VOLCANIC debris.
I have read sources that said there was significant volcanic activity during the flood.


Earth underwent a complete tectonic restructuring during the great Flood, with supervolcanoes, mega-earthquakes, supercurrents of flowing water and mud, and hypercanes.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I have read sources that said there was significant volcanic activity during the flood.
Not until later parts of the events.

The bursting of the fountains of the great deep involved no volcanic activities.

Earth underwent a complete tectonic restructuring during the great Flood, with supervolcanoes, mega-earthquakes, supercurrents of flowing water and mud, and hypercanes.
Much later... after the buckling of the mantle and the compression event.
 
Last edited:

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
If there was not a huge amount of water in the heavens before the flood then where did all that rain come from?

From below the crust of the earth.

40 days of rainwater fell from the sky.

No canopy could hold that much water without all life on earth boiling from the resulting temperatures.

Nah, it was only the waters gathered below that were called seas.

Genesis 1 ESV
(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. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.
(9) And God said, “Let the waters under the heavens 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.

You're confusing the two (yes, two) firmaments in Genesis 1.

The "firmament" called "Heaven(s)" and the "firmament of the heavens."

Also worth noting is that, grammatically, the "firmament of the heavens" (from Genesis 1) and "windows of heaven" (from Genesis 7:11) are identical, but the "firmament which was called Heaven(s)" (Genesis 1:8) is phrased differently.

God finished and recognized as good what He started on day 2 on day 3, and started and finished and recognized as good something ELSE on day 4.

Fair enough. The water canopy above the earth and below the sky was broken up and rain fell for 40 days and nights.

Supra.

Frozen Alaskan muck covers flattened tropical trees by as much as 2,000' in places. The trees were flattened by a sudden dump of a massive volume of floodwaters which then froze the entire depth.

Which fits the HPT just fine.

Hydroplate theory does not totally explain the freezing of tropical waters of those depths by the earth rolling over off its axis and being pelted with hail from outer space.

You're forgetting that the fountains of the great deep were already subzero (in Celsius) by the time they reached the surface of the earth, made even colder by the time they reached space, which acts like a virtually infinite heat sink, which would have cooled the fountains even colder. The material launched from the fountains that didn't make it into orbit, would have fallen back to earth, supercold.

Creationist scientists claim volcanic eruptions spewed matter into space where it is extremely cold - cold enough to instantly freeze large mammals like the elephant and mammoth.

That's a nice fairy tale, and a veiled appeal to authority.

But no volcano has enough force to launch anything into the upper atmosphere and beyond, let alone to cover the earth with debris.

And besides, the volcanos came later.

If air and matter were spewed into space from earth

Not by volcanos, they weren't.

then likely super cold temperatures from space were forced down to earth at the same time freezing the air and everything the air blasted.

You must have read AiG's "Fountains of lava of the great deep" article at some point...

But the Bible doesn't describe lava being what flooded the earth. It was water.

Even with your reading, this isn't true.
Genesis 1:9-10 (KJV) 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven (remember he had just defined "firmament" as "heaven", which you say was the earth's crust and now he's using the word as defined) be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

Wrong.

The "firmament called Heaven" is not the "firmament of the heavens" (the sky, space).

The one in Genesis 1:8 is "samayim" ("Heaven(s)"), which is what God called the crust.
The one in Genesis 1:9 is "hassamayim" ("the heavens"), the sky.
The one in Genesis 1:14 and the rest of the chapter is "hassamayim" ("the heavens"), the sky.

Thus, to paraphrase:

1:8
And God called the [crust] [Heaven] . . .
1:9
And God said, "Let the waters under [the sky] be gathered into one place and let the dry land appear. . ."
1:14
And God said, "Let there appear lights in the firmament of [the sky]. . ."

This is supported by 2 Peter 3:5-6:

For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. - 2 Peter 3:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2Peter3:5-6&version=NKJV

In other words, the earth (the dry land, the crust) had water beneath it that it was standing out of (the "pillars" (Job 9:6; 1 Samuel 2:8; Psalm 75:3) being it's "legs") and it had water that it was "in," the seas which lay on top of it.

I believe

What you believe makes no difference here. Here is where we discuss facts, not opinions, especially not when they conflict with scripture and reality.

the "bursting of the crust" spewed volcanic debris into space.

The volcanos did not appear until DURING the flood, at the earliest, and likely only afterwards.

I don't know if the Alaskan muck froze from the bottom up but I do have a hard time believing the frozen hailstones penetrated 2,000 feet of tropical water to freeze the accumulated floodwaters from the bottom up.

Because you're not thinking cold enough.

Lake and river water sometimes freezes from the bottom up today.

As RD said, no it doesn't.

The heavens IS the expanse.

Which one?

The one called Heaven? Or the one "of the heavens"?

See above.

It is the waters gathered below the expanse (heavens) that is called seas.

Wrong.

It is the waters gathered below "the heavens" (the sky) that is called seas.

Not below "Heaven" (which is the crust of the earth).

See also what I said above to Derf in this post.

The waters above the expanse (heavens) is not said to be gathered together and is not called seas.

There is no "water above the heavens."

There is "water above the firmament (which was called Heaven, which was below "the heavens")" and there is "water below the firmament (which was called Heaven)," but there is no "water above the heavens."

If the crust broke open then the ocean waters

Your premise is wrong, therefore your conclusion is wrong.

There were no "oceans" (like what we have today) prior to the flood. There were seas, but no oceans, and they likely would not have been that deep, relatively speaking, certainly not as deep as todays oceans are.

must have been very hot

There were no oceans, only seas, but why do you assert that they would have been hot? The fountains were sub-freezing, and the seas would have been normal temperatures.

which would make it even harder for the water salted with hail stones

The water in the oceans of today is the remnant of the flood.

There would have been only fresh-water seas prior to the flood.

to freeze solid to depths of many thousands of feet.

Supra.

Volcanoes spew debris into the atmospher.

So what?

Volcanos didn't cause the flood.

Dr. Brown suggested that when the great deep burst it caused comets and asteroids to be launched from earth. I call that debris.

Which has nothing to do with volcanos.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I'm 100% confident that it did not.
Good for you. I mean it, no sarcasm.
Circumstantial evidence isn't enough to go off of in support of an idea.
Sure it is sometimes. It depends on circumstances. I think in this circumstance it is.
Which isn't enough to go on to make a claim that a canopy existed.
I think it's enough.
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!
Again, don't take continued discussion of a topic as *clinging*, in the sense of emotionally not being able to let go of an idea. Circumstantial evidence holds different weight to different people, and the weight of the evidence you have is different for different people.
Begging the question.
That's not what begging the question is. The first chapter of Genesis doesn't tell us when the atmosphere was created, but to say it was created when the dry land was created under it is a safe assumption. And to say, if there was a canopy created, it was created with the atmosphere would also be a safe assumption.
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.
Seriously? You don't see how this implies that if Moses had written about three layers it could mean a canopy? Therefore what I wrote is implicitly correct?
Yet a canopy causes more problems than it solves. Wouldn't you say that takes away credence?
I think it solves more problems than it creates. But, yes, problems created by a solution take away credence.
Other than the fact that the fountains of the great deep broke forth, and the windows of heaven were opened.
I take it you didn't find me saying "there *must* have been a canopy"?

Right, other than the fact that they were both broken in the flood, the Great deep and the canopy have nothing to do with each other.
I take it this is in answer to the requested link? I was at that event live. I even was able to ask a question about a canopy during q&a, to which I was told VCT doesn't work when I specified even then VCT didn't work.
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...
Ok, so you say it's incompatible with scripture all based on... physics! If you don't see how you are doing this, I'll expand.

So, you see physics problems with a canopy, and no scripture problems. But I already acknowledge the physics problems. But with very little data we can't be sure how serious, or not, those problems are.
I find that hard to believe.
I'm reading it as a figure of speech.
That's how it was written.

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

It makes far more sense than "canopy."

A figure of speech that means that it started raining. Not vague at all.
We both agree it rained, that's not the vague part. The vague part is the "windows of heaven". It could be referring to heavy rain or referencing a canopy.
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.
That could be the case. But there are reasons there may have been a canopy, as I've already pointed them out.
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.
A canopy could solve more problems than it causes. Especially since some of the solutions listed in the book are rather weak.
No windows of heaven came down. They were opened.
Open windows, or windows opened because they are broken open, cause the rain to come in. It's a figure of speech.
It doesn't help it either, and adds more problems than need to be solved.
I think it could help. And it would solve more problems than it causes.
Then why insert one?
I'm not inserting a canopy into Genesis 1. That's the point.
But it doesn't fit.
Then you're betting against. We'll see.
Yet you're not willing to give up the idea of a canopy, despite the evidence against it.

I call that clinging.
I'm not willing to give up on an idea that you've shown nothing against. Scripture? It's an argument against silence or the interpretation of a figure of speech. Physics? It's mostly the heat problem, but that isn't a new argument. When you actually have some scripture or new data against the idea, I'm ready to dump the idea. Although it will still be dumping the idea with little consequence.
You don't understand the problem. I'm familiar with and already agree with the information in these videos. Nether touch on, to any meaningful extent, the anomalies I mentioned.
Yes, that's what I said.

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

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.

Make the argument, otherwise it's just conjecture.
Your conjecture is no more valid than mine. Who says Noah was unaffected because he had good genetics? That's just speculation. More speculation about the genetics of his wife. Who says Shem was not mature because he was only 100 years old? Conjecture. Where does it say Shem died of old age? Conjecture. Where does it say Ham and Japheth died young like Shem? Conjecture. Even that the only or mostly the reason pre flood people's lived long ages was because of a lack of radio activity is conjecture. The argument may be entirely right, but logic and wisdom dictates it to be weak at this point.
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?
There is no requirement, but it might help explain, at least in part some anomalies.
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.
I don't insist. But if there was was a canopy it probably would have added a bit of rain.
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.
That's all hunches are based on. It's enough for that.
There's no reason for one.
So you say. That doesn't say it's ruled out by 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.
First, the witnesses include the anomalies. And second, the strength of the witness required is dictated by the gravity of the decision. Since it really isn't that important, it doesn't need more witness than it has to speculate.
No, there's not enough evidence to even propose the idea, let alone decide whether it existed or not.
I think there is. The weight of the evidence is somewhat subjective, and I guess we weigh it differently.
Yes, you do.
It depends on how you define "cling". I see it more as something that one holds to for dear life. In that sense, I'm not clinging.
Yes, it is.

No, it really doesn't.
It's not obsolete as even Dr Brown would admit, like Dr Vardiman does, the theory has a very slim chance but it hasn't been completely disproven (not like VCT, which has been completely disproven).
One witness is not enough to establish a matter. Two or three witnesses are needed.
It's not an established matter. It's a hunch, conjecture, speculation. You only need one witness for that, even if a canopy has more than one.
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.
Supra.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
No, it would not. To freeze the mammoth quickly enough to preserve the undigested food in its stomach requires a much colder temperature than normal ice.

Page 276

At normal body temperatures, stomach acids and enzymes
break down vegetable material within an hour. What
inhibited this process? The only plausible explanation is
for the stomach to cool to about 40°F in ten hours or
less.76 But because the stomach is protected inside a warm
body (96.6°F for elephants), how cold must the outside
air become to drop the stomach’s temperature to 40°F?
Experiments have shown that the outer layers of skin
would have had to drop suddenly to at least -175°F! 77
Independently, Sanderson concluded, “The flesh of many
of the animals found in the muck must have been very
rapidly and deeply frozen, for its cells had not burst. …
Frozen-food experts have pointed out that to do this,
starting with a healthy, live specimen, you would have to
suddenly drop the temperature of the surrounding air to
well below minus 150 degrees Fahrenheit.”78
Actually, an elephant's stomach doesn't need to freeze that fast to preserve what is in it. Maybe a humans, but not an elephant's. Plus, it looks like there is oil/coal below the frozen mammoths meaning that the frozen mammoths happened after the flood. Dr Brown does admit if oil/coal was found under the frozen mammoths that part of the theory would be wrong. Since it's looking like oil/coal is there, it would be a good idea to take a look at Dr Austin's theory.
 
Top