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

[Yorzhik]

Chapter, verse.

The Windows of Heaven verse. That's it. No other verses.

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

What anomalies?

Which of them cannot be explained by the HPT?

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

HPT has good explanations for and anomalies I mention. But I think a canopy would be better for some. The gas mixture of the air before the flood was different, I'm guessing carbon dioxide was higher and oxygen was lower. Higher pressures could be helpful in that situation especially for larger animals and insects.

If the earth were not tilted, or less tilted, a canopy would account for more even temperatures that would allow for a greater amount of arable surface on the earth.

Pressure + the mix of gases, and a filtering of UV light could easily be a factor in how long people lived before the flood. Perhaps plants with health benefits were able to grow better with that mix of gases and higher pressures that couldn't make it in those forms after the flood, prompting God to add meat to the diets of man as the best solution.

You can tell me HTP's solutions to these problems, which I already know but feel free to mention them for other people reading, and I'll agree they could be correct. But we don't have enough evidence to be sure either way, and I think a canopy solving all of them is a more elegant solution.

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?

First, if you haven't read in this thread, I don't support the Vapor Canopy Theory. VCT is wrong. Relative to the great deep, no flood water was supplied by a canopy. But the anomalies I mentioned is consistent with something about the antediluvian atmosphere, plants, animals, and human life being very different than we have today. Especially air pressure, which intuitively seems like a canopy would be responsible for.

That being said:

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. 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 and other forensic evidence. That would go a long way toward addressing some of the more or less intuitive issues I have with the idea like the mix of gases in the air before the flood, how extensive was vegetation on the antediluvian earth. And there are other issues related to HPT that just needs more study.

 

[Derf]

The Windows of Heaven verse. That's it. No other verses.


HPT has good explanations for and anomalies I mention. But I think a canopy would be better for some. The gas mixture of the air before the flood was different, I'm guessing carbon dioxide was higher and oxygen was lower. Higher pressures could be helpful in that situation especially for larger animals and insects.

If the earth were not tilted, or less tilted, a canopy would account for more even temperatures that would allow for a greater amount of arable surface on the earth.

Pressure + the mix of gases, and a filtering of UV light could easily be a factor in how long people lived before the flood. Perhaps plants with health benefits were able to grow better with that mix of gases and higher pressures that couldn't make it in those forms after the flood, prompting God to add meat to the diets of man as the best solution.

You can tell me HTP's solutions to these problems, which I already know but feel free to mention them for other people reading, and I'll agree they could be correct. But we don't have enough evidence to be sure either way, and I think a canopy solving all of them is a more elegant solution.


First, if you haven't read in this thread, I don't support the Vapor Canopy Theory. VCT is wrong. Relative to the great deep, no flood water was supplied by a canopy. But the anomalies I mentioned is consistent with something about the antediluvian atmosphere, plants, animals, and human life being very different than we have today. Especially air pressure, which intuitively seems like a canopy would be responsible for.

That being said:

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. 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 and other forensic evidence. That would go a long way toward addressing some of the more or less intuitive issues I have with the idea like the mix of gases in the air before the flood, how extensive was vegetation on the antediluvian earth. And there are other issues related to HPT that just needs more study.

The original canopy theory I remember hearing about was a firm structure of hydrogen "beaten" or compressed into a very thin (one molecule thick, maybe?) shield of sorts around the earth. I'm going based on a 45 year old memory of a series of sermons our pastor gave back then. It wasn't a vapor.

 

[Right Divider]

The original canopy theory I remember hearing about was a firm structure of hydrogen "beaten" or compressed into a very thin (one molecule thick, maybe?) shield of sorts around the earth. I'm going based on a 45 year old memory of a series of sermons our pastor gave back then. It wasn't a vapor.

What sort of basis is this "theory" founded upon? Sounds pretty strange to me.

At this point, we are "discussing" such vague theories that I don't even think that we can discuss them.

It is my understanding that the first "water canopy theory" was developed in an attempt to force a single "firmament" upon scripture. I see no other reason for such an idea to begin with.

From this article:
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/state-of-canopy-model/

"There are several canopy models, but they all have one thing in common.1 They all interpret the “waters above” the expanse (firmament) in Genesis 1:7 as some form of water-based canopy surrounding the earth that endured from creation until the Flood."

 

[Clete]

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

The amount of energy it would take to send that much material just into low Earth orbit is more than would likely be generated by the processes described in the book, never mind sending it into an orbit around the Sun! The idea is more than a little bit implausible to my mind.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

The amount of energy it would take to send that much material just into low Earth orbit is more than would likely be generated by the processes described in the book, never mind sending it into an orbit around the Sun! The idea is more than a little bit implausible to my mind.

Clete

I think that you simply underestimate the amount of energy involved.

 

[Derf]

What sort of basis is this "theory" founded upon? Sounds pretty strange to me.

I don't remember, but it was at least loosely based on Henry Morris's work. And the "beaten" nomenclature was, I think, from the verses talking about stretching out the heavens, the idea being that if you compress metal, which includes hydrogen, it both flattens and spreads out.

At this point, we are "discussing" such vague theories that I don't even think that we can discuss them.

Yes, I couldn't discuss it without finding the description somewhere. My point was merely to show there are non-vapor canopy hypotheses.

It is my understanding that the first "water canopy theory" was developed in an attempt to force a single "firmament" upon scripture. I see no other reason for such an idea to begin with.

From this article:
https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/state-of-canopy-model/

"There are several canopy models, but they all have one thing in common.1 They all interpret the “waters above” the expanse (firmament) in Genesis 1:7 as some form of water-based canopy surrounding the earth that endured from creation until the Flood."

Yes, that makes sense, and the reasoning is similar to @Yorzhik's--trying to make sense of the windows of heaven verses.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Windows of Heaven verse. That's it. No other verses.

Just two verses?

So, you've formed your beliefs on two verses?

Do you not see the problem with that?

But we don't have enough evidence to be sure either way, and I think a canopy solving all of them is a more elegant solution.

You say "we don't have enough evidence" but when you see "windows of heaven" two times in scripture you come up with some weird theory theory based on another dead theory?

And all that in spite of being presented with a far more rational theory that fits the Bible so much better?

Could not "windows of heaven" (could also be translated "sluices of heaven") simply be referring to the fact that began raining, especially considering that it had never rained before on the earth? And especially considering that the fountains broke forth first, THEN the windows of heaven were opened? The fountains launch water up into the air, and physics demands "what goes up must come down (unless it reaches escape velocity, of course), and it's not hard to imagine that some of the water did NOT reach escape velocity, and fell back to earth as rain, thus, "the windows of heaven were opened" after the fountains broke forth."

Also, the rains stopped long before the water receded.

I gave this example before, but Bryan Nickel illustrated it better (watch until 11:06):

The original canopy theory I remember hearing about was a firm structure of hydrogen "beaten" or compressed into a very thin (one molecule thick, maybe?) shield of sorts around the earth. I'm going based on a 45 year old memory of a series of sermons our pastor gave back then. It wasn't a vapor.

And the "beaten" nomenclature was, I think, from the verses talking about stretching out the heavens, the idea being that if you compress metal, which includes hydrogen, it both flattens and spreads out.

The problem is that hydrogen is a non-metal. It's a gas. Only when it's cooled to such low temperatures will it become a solid.

The freezing point of hydrogen is -434.5°F.
It can become a metal at extreme pressures.

Neither of these conditions are likely in a "canopy" above the earth (too hot on the sunward side, and not cold enough in the shadow, and obviously the extreme opposite of high pressure in the vacuum of space) except miraculously, which the Bible does not specify. One should avoid using ad hoc miracles.

 

[Derf]

Just two verses?

So, you've formed your beliefs on two verses?

Do you not see the problem with that?



You say "we don't have enough evidence" but when you see "windows of heaven" two times in scripture you come up with some weird theory theory based on another dead theory?

And all that in spite of being presented with a far more rational theory that fits the Bible so much better?

Could not "windows of heaven" (could also be translated "sluices of heaven") simply be referring to the fact that began raining, especially considering that it had never rained before on the earth? And especially considering that the fountains broke forth first, THEN the windows of heaven were opened? The fountains launch water up into the air, and physics demands "what goes up must come down (unless it reaches escape velocity, of course), and it's not hard to imagine that some of the water did NOT reach escape velocity, and fell back to earth as rain, thus, "the windows of heaven were opened" after the fountains broke forth."

Also, the rains stopped long before the water receded.

I gave this example before, but Bryan Nickel illustrated it better (watch until 11:06):

The problem is that hydrogen is a non-metal. It's a gas. Only when it's cooled to such low temperatures will it become a solid.

The freezing point of hydrogen is -434.5°F.
It can become a metal at extreme pressures.

mercury is a metal, even when in a liquid form, which it is at standard temp and pressure. It remains a metal when it is vaporized. "Metal" is a chemical designation that applies to all phases of the element in question. There is some disagreement about whether hydrogen actually meets the criteria.

Is Hydrogen a Metal?

www.scientificamerican.com

But since you have made my point for me, we can move on.

Neither of these conditions are likely in a "canopy" above the earth (too hot on the sunward side, and not cold enough in the shadow, and obviously the extreme opposite of high pressure in the vacuum of space) except miraculously, which the Bible does not specify. One should avoid using ad hoc miracles.

I don't think the creation story in general gets to avoid miracles quite as easily as most other biblical narratives. Hydrogen is thought to be in a liquid state in the gas giant planets, and metallic under the more interior pressures.

What is metallic hydrogen, and does it exist at the core of all the gas giants in our solar system?

categories:Science | tags:Ask Astro, Magazine

www.astronomy.com

Is that miraculous?

My trouble with the idea of the hydrogen canopy is that hydrogen isn't water, so if the idea is to continue to thrive, it needs a little oxygen. (Pun intended.)

We also know of other states of matter, perhaps unimagined even 200 years ago. Here's one that's particularly relevant, if it's confirmed.

Superionic ice​

Water as a beginning and as an end. Water is the only substance present in nature in the three classical states, and it is also the substance in which, at the beginning of 2018, a new form or state of arrangement was discovered: superionic ice. To achieve this, ice crystals were subjected to a pressure 2 million times higher than atmospheric pressure and at a temperature close to 5,000°C. That brutal pressure forces the ice to adopt a very compact packing, but, at the same time, the high temperature dissolves the bonds of the water molecule. The result is that in superionic ice two phases coexist: one liquid and one solid. Oxygen atoms adopt a crystalline structure, through which hydrogen nuclei flow.

It is believed that superionic ice could exist in large quantities in gaseous and icy giant planets such as Uranus. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
It is believed that superionic ice could exist in large quantities in gaseous and icy giant planets such as Uranus or Neptune, within which the appropriate conditions for its formation are found. If it were confirmed that other substances subject to similar conditions also adopt this arrangement, we would be in the presence of a new state of matter.

And just because something doesn't stay forever in its initial condition doesn't mean it wasn't made to be in that condition at the beginning. Even Want Brown uses the degeneration of the initial conditions to account for the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't think the creation story in general gets to avoid miracles quite as easily as most other biblical narratives. Hydrogen is thought to be in a liquid state in the gas giant planets, and metallic under the more interior pressures.

What is metallic hydrogen, and does it exist at the core of all the gas giants in our solar system?

categories:Science | tags:Ask Astro, Magazine

www.astronomy.com

Is that miraculous?

My point was that, except with outside influence (the "miracles" I mentioned) hydrogen in a canopy above the earth would simply dissipate, and quickly. It would not form a solid or enter a metallic state.

 

[Derf]

My point was that, except with outside influence (the "miracles" I mentioned) hydrogen in a canopy above the earth would simply dissipate, and quickly. It would not form a solid or enter a metallic state.

Agreed, assuming there were no unknown physical phenomena active at the time, or miracles, which might look like each other, when we don't understand either. Which is kind of like not agreeing with you, I suppose.

 

[Clete]

I think that you simply underestimate the amount of energy involved.

In order for something to go from being in orbit around the Earth to being in an orbit around the Sun, you have cancel out most of the kinetic energy that is making the object(s) follow the Earth in its orbit. The Earth is moving something like 67,000 miles per hour in its path around the Sun. So, you're tell me that water pressure being released, not in a stream, but along a seam that is thousands of miles long, is going to be sufficient to accelerate billions, (probably trillions) of tons of water and rock, past the escape velocity to get out of Earth immediate gravity well and well beyond that, to a speed that is a significant percentage of 67,000 mph so that a stable orbit around the Sun is achieved.

Even if that were accomplished, why wouldn't there be this long line of comets and other objects that traveling, more or less together, in very similar orbits? In other words, even if such an event could actually occur, it seems that it would create at least a partial ring around the sun, not solitary comets in wildly different orbits.

 

[Idolater]

... Even if that were accomplished, why wouldn't there be this long line of comets and other objects that traveling, more or less together, in very similar orbits? In other words, even if such an event could actually occur, it seem that it would create at least a partial ring around the sun ... .

Isn't that the asteroid belt?

 

[Right Divider]

In order for something to go from being in orbit around the Earth to being in an orbit around the Sun, you have cancel out most of the kinetic energy that is making the object(s) follow the Earth in its orbit.

I'm not following you. The material that became comets and asteroid were not in earth orbit originally. They were ejected directly from the earth. They were part of the earth.

The Earth is moving something like 67,000 miles per hour in its path around the Sun. So, you're tell me that water pressure being released, not in a stream, but along a seam that is thousands of miles long, is going to be sufficient to accelerate billions, (probably trillions) of tons of water and rock, past the escape velocity to get out of Earth immediate gravity well and well beyond that, to a speed that is a significant percentage of 67,000 mph so that a stable orbit around the Sun is achieved.

Motion is relative. The fact that the earth is moving at 67,000 miles an hour means that ALL of the material that makes up the earth is also moving at 67,000 miles an hour.

Also, the "water pressure" was far more than you think, as the water was not just pressurized, it was super critical. Super critical water expands to many, many times its original volume when the pressure is released.

Even if that were accomplished, why wouldn't there be this long line of comets and other objects that traveling, more or less together, in very similar orbits?

Because the forces were very random in all directions. Many groups of chunks did travel together to form the comets and asteroids in the first place. Have you ever watched this video?

In other words, even if such an event could actually occur, it seems that it would create at least a partial ring around the sun, not solitary comets in wildly different orbits.

It seems to me that you just don't understand the events as Dr. Brown describes them. I highly recommend that you watch that video, as it explains it all very well.

 

[Derf]

I'm not following you. The material that became comets and asteroid were not in earth orbit originally. They were ejected directly from the earth. They were part of the earth.

Motion is relative. The fact that the earth is moving at 67,000 miles an hour means that ALL of the material that makes up the earth is also moving at 67,000 miles an hour.

Also, the "water pressure" was far more than you think, as the water was not just pressurized, it was super critical. Super critical water expands to many, many times its original volume when the pressure is released.

Because the forces were very random in all directions. Many groups of chunks did travel together to form the comets and asteroids in the first place. Have you ever watched this video?

It seems to me that you just don't understand the events as Dr. Brown describes them. I highly recommend that you watch that video, as it explains it all very well.

How many of those simulations have been done? It seems like just 2 comets could be considered a coincidence, but the coincidental nature would quickly subside as more are added.

 

[Right Divider]

How many of those simulations have been done?

Do you feel the need for simulations? Can you not imagine it well enough based on the information given? Are there a lot of simulations of the big bang out there? Or the formation of the solar system from a "swirling gas cloud"?

It seems like just 2 comets could be considered a coincidence, but the coincidental nature would quickly subside as more are added.

No clue what you're getting at there.

Have you ever watched any of the Bryan Nickel videos?

 

[Derf]

Do you feel the need for simulations? Can you not imagine it well enough based on the information given? Are there a lot of simulations of the big bang out there? Or the formation of the solar system from a "swirling gas cloud"?

No clue what you're getting at there.

Have you ever watched any of the Bryan Nickel videos?

Did I not just respond to your post of a Bryan Nickel's video where my question referenced something within the video? Yes, I've watched a couple. They are well done and compelling. I'm not being antagonistic with my question, but you can't just show how two comets had a near miss with each other and extrapolate that all comets were once in that location at the same time. And if you're going to knock all simulations, then you should stop posting Bryan Nickel doing simulations.

 

[Yorzhik]

The original canopy theory I remember hearing about was a firm structure of hydrogen "beaten" or compressed into a very thin (one molecule thick, maybe?) shield of sorts around the earth. I'm going based on a 45 year old memory of a series of sermons our pastor gave back then. It wasn't a vapor.

Sure. I don't know the makeup of the canopy, although the fact that the windows of Heaven brought rain, I'm thinking water had to be a component somehow.

 

[Derf]

Sure. I don't know the makeup of the canopy, although the fact that the windows of Heaven brought rain, I'm thinking water had to be a component somehow.

There are other viable sources of water, too. Mars once had enough surface water to have a global flood. Some have suggested the reason Mars is named after a god of war is because it used to precess in its orbit in a way that it came close to the earth on occasion, so it could have collided with the earth, breaking up the fountains of the great deep and dumping water from the "windows of heaven". I don't think it's a correct understanding, and it hasn't been thought out near as well as Brown's theory. A planetary explosion from a planet between Mars and Jupiter might do the trick. There would be enough water for the windows and perhaps a large chunk of solid material (ice?) to break up the fountains of the deep. It would possibly account for both the Mars flooding and the asteroid belt, not to mention the comets and TNOs, but maybe not the moon cratering. Tracing the comets (more than 2 of them) back to a rendezvous point might distinguish one of these ideas over another.

 

[Yorzhik]

Just two verses?

Yes.

So, you've formed your beliefs on two verses?

"Beliefs" is far too strong a word for a rather insignificant bet.

Did I base my hunch on a single set of passages and the physical evidence? Sure.

Do you not see the problem with that?

No. It's called being logical and reasonable.

You say "we don't have enough evidence" but when you see "windows of heaven" two times in scripture you come up with some weird theory theory based on another dead theory?

I'm not basing my theory on a dead theory. The dead theory was a theory about providing water for the flood. My hunch is based on solving gas mix, light filtering, and pressure problems and it has little if anything to do with providing water for the flood.

And all that in spite of being presented with a far more rational theory that fits the Bible so much better?

My hunch specifically about gas mix, light filtering, and pressure via a canopy is just as rational as the explanations of HTP. And it fits the bible just as well having a positive mention of the structure while not having to explain away a passage like HTP does the windows of heaven.

You see, the windows of heaven don't need to be mentioned at all, but simply that it rained.

Could not "windows of heaven" (could also be translated "sluices of heaven") simply be referring to the fact that began raining, especially considering that it had never rained before on the earth? And especially considering that the fountains broke forth first, THEN the windows of heaven were opened? The fountains launch water up into the air, and physics demands "what goes up must come down (unless it reaches escape velocity, of course), and it's not hard to imagine that some of the water did NOT reach escape velocity, and fell back to earth as rain, thus, "the windows of heaven were opened" after the fountains broke forth."

Yes. Of course. That's also reasonable. That's why we need more evidence. Because I'm almost as close to agreeing with you as I am to the idea of a canopy. But at the moment the canopy idea is tipping the scale a bit in its favor... In my opinion.

Also, the rains stopped long before the water receded.

You seem to be implying this means something against the idea of a canopy, but I don't see how.

I gave this example before, but Bryan Nickel illustrated it better (watch until 11:06):

Supra.

 

[Yorzhik]

There are other viable sources of water, too. Mars once had enough surface water to have a global flood. Some have suggested the reason Mars is named after a god of war is because it used to precess in its orbit in a way that it came close to the earth on occasion, so it could have collided with the earth, breaking up the fountains of the great deep and dumping water from the "windows of heaven". I don't think it's a correct understanding, and it hasn't been thought out near as well as Brown's theory. A planetary explosion from a planet between Mars and Jupiter might do the trick. There would be enough water for the windows and perhaps a large chunk of solid material (ice?) to break up the fountains of the deep. It would possibly account for both the Mars flooding and the asteroid belt, not to mention the comets and TNOs, but maybe not the moon cratering.

I never heard that one, but then again, I grew up Lutheran so they didn't get into the science.

Tracing the comets (more than 2 of them) back to a rendezvous point might distinguish one of these ideas over another.

If it's possible to do that, it's exactly what I'm talking about. More data.