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

[Yorzhik]

No canopy at all is "required for life".

Sorry, I made some edits.

What canopy theory are you talking about? I've never eluded to any *formal* canopy theory.

I'm not so sure the canopy would have had to be that thick to exist. It only had to be thick enough to induce the pressure that was required for life.

And at the gas mix that I suspect was before the flood, that pressure would have been required.

 

[Right Divider]

Sorry, I made some edits.

What canopy theory are you talking about? I've never eluded to any *formal* canopy theory.

I'm not so sure the canopy would have had to be that thick to exist. It only had to be thick enough to induce the pressure that was required for life.

And at the gas mix that I suspect was before the flood, that pressure would have been required.

As @JudgeRightly has mentioned, the canopy (by those who adhere to the theory) is supposed to be thick enough to provide for the rain of the flood.

 

[Derf]

As @JudgeRightly has mentioned, the canopy (by those who adhere to the theory) is supposed to be thick enough to provide for the rain of the flood.

It only need be thick enough to provide for SOME of the flood. The fountains of the great deep are still to be considered. And once rain started falling it could be replenished by the interim (during the flood) hydrologic cycle, whatever that might look like.

 

[Right Divider]

It only need be thick enough to provide for SOME of the flood. The fountains of the great deep are still to be considered. And once rain started falling it could be replenished by the interim (during the flood) hydrologic cycle, whatever that might look like.

It depends on many things. Those that adhere to the canopy theory tend to argue that the canopy is where the rain came from. I don't think that any canopy theory "holds water"

 

[Derf]

It depends on many things. Those that adhere to the canopy theory tend to argue that the canopy is where the rain came from. I don't think that any canopy theory "holds water"

At least not any more!

 

[Clete]

I thought the idea of a water canopy died a long time ago. I remember it was popular when I was a kid but wasn't it abandoned decades ago now? Atmospheric pressure was only one of its problems. Seems like there was something about a major issue about the temperature. Water vapor is a very effective green house gas and liquid water is a huge heat sink. Meaning that it hangs on to heat energy very well and has a very high heat capacity. The Earth would be a giant pressure cooker and would killing everything.

That's entirely by memory and so if I'm wrong on that, just say so. No time this morning to look it up!

 

[JudgeRightly]

I thought the idea of a water canopy died a long time ago. I remember it was popular when I was a kid but wasn't it abandoned decades ago now? Atmospheric pressure was only one of its problems. Seems like there was something about a major issue about the temperature. Water vapor is a very effective green house gas and liquid water is a huge heat sink. Meaning that it hangs on to heat energy very well and has a very high heat capacity. The Earth would be a giant pressure cooker and would killing everything.

That's entirely by memory and so if I'm wrong on that, just say so. No time this morning to look it up!

Just 4 inches of water in a canopy above the earth would literally boil everything on the surface. The earth would be unlivable.

 

[Right Divider]

Besides the heat and pressure issues, there is also the issue of the need for constant miraculous intervention needed to keep the water canopy in place. There is no known way that it could be there and follow the laws of physics that guide all other physical aspects of earth's existence.

 

[Yorzhik]

As @JudgeRightly has mentioned, the canopy (by those who adhere to the theory) is supposed to be thick enough to provide for the rain of the flood.

Wow. Amazing that I disavowed the popular theory clearly, forcefully, and loudly when I began to talk about a canopy in this thread making it the most relevant point relative to the other points I was trying to make. And yet it's the only point that the people responding can't stop talking about.

I'll say it again. The canopy did not supply water for the flood. At least not compared to the water supplied by the great deep.

It was mentioned in the bible only because it was there and its absence caused measurable changes. I'm not claiming it was there because I don't know about its problems. I claim something was there because it solves some problems, some anomalies, that are left with little study because of fear the *formal* canopy theory and how wrong it is will drag down any fruitful discoveries.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'll say it again. The canopy did not supply water for the flood.

Correct, because there was no canopy.

At least not compared to the water supplied by the great deep.

A priori assumption that there was a canopy.

It was mentioned in the bible

Chapter, verse.

only because it was there and its absence caused measurable changes.

Or those changes were caused by something else, and you're just assuming it was a canopy.

I'm not claiming it was there because I don't know about its problems. I claim something was there because it solves some problems, some anomalies, that are left with little study because of fear the *formal* canopy theory and how wrong it is will drag down any fruitful discoveries.

What anomalies?

Which of them cannot be explained by the HPT?

 

[Clete]

Wow. Amazing that I disavowed the popular theory clearly, forcefully, and loudly when I began to talk about a canopy in this thread making it the most relevant point relative to the other points I was trying to make. And yet it's the only point that the people responding can't stop talking about.

I'll say it again. The canopy did not supply water for the flood. At least not compared to the water supplied by the great deep.

It was mentioned in the bible only because it was there and its absence caused measurable changes. I'm not claiming it was there because I don't know about its problems. I claim something was there because it solves some problems, some anomalies, that are left with little study because of fear the *formal* canopy theory and how wrong it is will drag down any fruitful discoveries.

Okay, so what is it about whatever canopy that you think was there that's superior to the best theories that bible believing scientists are currently putting forward? In what way would it be a superior hypothesis, either scientifically or biblically?

 

[Right Divider]

It was mentioned in the bible only because it was there and its absence caused measurable changes.

There is no "water canopy mentioned in the Bible".

I'm not claiming it was there because I don't know about its problems. I claim something was there because it solves some problems, some anomalies, that are left with little study because of fear the *formal* canopy theory and how wrong it is will drag down any fruitful discoveries.

What "problems"? What "anomalies"? I'm not aware of any of those.

 

[Derf]

There is no "water canopy mentioned in the Bible".

What "problems"? What "anomalies"? I'm not aware of any of those.

Well, calling the earth "heaven" is a pretty serious flaw.

 

[Right Divider]

Well, calling the earth "heaven" is a pretty serious flaw.

Nonsense. God called the firmament Heaven. What is the "serious flaw" with that?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well, calling the earth "heaven" is a pretty serious flaw.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

God calling the firmament (Hebrew: raqia - an extended surface, expanse) that He created in the midst of the waters which were introduced in verse 2, that states that the Spirit of God was hovering ABOVE the face of which, perfectly describes the crust of the earth being formed with water above and below it.

God then called that same firmament "Heaven"

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Genesis 1: 8a — Two Interpretations

hpt.rsr.org

 

[Derf]

Saying it doesn't make it so.

yes, my point exactly.

God calling the firmament (Hebrew: raqia - an extended surface, expanse) that He created in the midst of the waters which were introduced in verse 2, that states that the Spirit of God was hovering ABOVE the face of which, perfectly describes the crust of the earth being formed with water above and below it.

God then called that same firmament "Heaven"

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Genesis 1: 8a — Two Interpretations

hpt.rsr.org

then He put stars and the sun and moon in it. In the crust of the earth. Saying it not only doesn't make it so, it makes the whole theory totter on the edge of the riduculous. But take that part away, and he has some great concepts to consider.

 

[JudgeRightly]

then He put stars and the sun and moon in it. In the crust of the earth.

Uh, no. That's not what HPT says. Nor is it what the Bible says, more importantly.

Saying it not only doesn't make it so, it makes the whole theory totter on the edge of the riduculous. But take that part away, and he has some great concepts to consider.

Then you don't understand the theory.

Hence why I posted the link above. I recommend you read it, so that you can be on the same page as us.

 

[Clete]

Uh, no. That's not what HPT says. Nor is it what the Bible says, more importantly.



Then you don't understand the theory.

Hence why I posted the link above. I recommend you read it, so that you can be on the same page as us.

Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory is the best I've ever seen, BY FAR! I'm not sure that I buy every aspect of it, though. The idea that ejecta from the Earth could account for comets needs a more robust analysis, for example. Over all, however, it is easily the most scientifically sound and biblically faithful theory I've ever heard of.

It would be nice if we could get someone to do some really high quality computer modeling of the theory. That would go a long way toward addressing some of the more or less intuitive issues I have with the idea that comets are left overs from Noah's flood.

 

[Stripe]

The idea that ejecta from the Earth could account for comets needs a more robust analysis.

Don't forget Pluto!

And Charon.

 

[Right Divider]

@Clete What is it about the earth origin of comets that gives you a problem?