The Ice Ball-The Melt-The beginning of life---The Here & NOW

[JudgeRightly]

It appears the whole earth had lush vegetation before the flood. And higher air pressures were not entirely necessary to have gigantic plants and animals, but it would have helped.

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. - Genesis 2:4-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:4-6&version=NKJV

There was lush vegetation because of the mist that went up from the ground every morning.

And it's referenced in Gen 7:11.

Except that that's not referring to a canopy.

I don't understand the large resistance to a canopy in the rest of the WB camp (since I'm in that camp). It's just not that big a deal.

Because it doesn't fit the evidence, nor does it fit the Bible.

Start here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ3.html#wp1147115

(P.S. Don't forget to click to the next page a few times, as there's more than one page on that topic...)

 

[Stripe]

I do not know. Do you know? Clouds? Evaporation? Seas?

One of those is at least reasonable to hold such a vast volume of water.

 

[Stripe]

I think it's possible that there was a "canopy," but it is likely just a radically different atmosphere and it contributed nothing toward increasing the water levels. The main reason behind my thinking is that pre-flood, there was no known means for producing a magnetic field. A "canopy" might have protected life from harmful radiation.

 

[Jacob]

One of those is at least reasonable to hold such a vast volume of water.

I think it's possible that there was a "canopy," but it is likely just a radically different atmosphere and it contributed nothing toward increasing the water levels. The main reason behind my thinking is that pre-flood, there was no known means for producing a magnetic field. A "canopy" might have protected life from harmful radiation.

No known means, but maybe no way to test that?

 

[Stripe]

No known means, but maybe no way to test that?

You can't test an idea of "no known means." You have to test ideas that have been proposed.

The magnetic field we have is generated by the melted inner Earth. The Earth's interior was probably rocky before the flood. If this was the case, something else would have been needed to block out harmful radiation.

 

[Jacob]

You can't test an idea of "no known means." You have to test ideas that have been proposed.

The magnetic field we have is generated by the melted inner Earth. The Earth's interior was probably rocky before the flood. If this was the case, something else would have been needed to block out harmful radiation.

I simply don't know. It is certainly interesting to think about.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You can't test an idea of "no known means." You have to test ideas that have been proposed.

The magnetic field we have is generated by the melted inner Earth. The Earth's interior was probably rocky before the flood. If this was the case, something else would have been needed to block out harmful radiation.

The Origin of Earth's Magnetic Field
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Trenches6.html#wp30201683

 

[Stripe]

I simply don't know. It is certainly interesting to think about.

You don't know what?

 

[Jacob]

You don't know what?

I don't know where harmful radiation comes from, actually.

 

[jamesdyson]

Because it doesn't fit the evidence, nor does it fit the Bible.

What doesn't fit the evidence of the bible is claiming that the bible was referring to a "global" flood. The term "global" was not yet a word back then and using it in this discussion distorts the biblical intent.

It was a great flood, huge flood, extensive flood; but it was never referred to as a "global" flood.

 

[ok doser]

What doesn't fit the evidence of the bible is claiming that the bible was referring to a "global" flood. The term "global" was not yet a word back then and using it in this discussion distorts the biblical intent.

It was a great flood, huge flood, extensive flood; but it was never referred to as a "global" flood.

That's because "global" is an English word, and the OT wasn't written in English:duh:

 

[Stripe]

I don't know where harmful radiation comes from, actually.

The sun.

 

[Stripe]

What doesn't fit the evidence of the bible is claiming that the bible was referring to a "global" flood. The term "global" was not yet a word back then and using it in this discussion distorts the biblical intent.

It was a great flood, huge flood, extensive flood; but it was never referred to as a "global" flood.

Did God create the whole world?

 

[Jacob]

The sun.

Why say rocks then?

 

[Stripe]

The inside of the Earth was rocky. The flood saw the interior melted. The new, melted interior allows the generation of an electromagnetic field. This field blocks harmful radiation from the sun.

In the pre-flood world, the lack of an electromagnetic field would have been a problem. I think a vastly different atmosphere might have played the role that the electromagnetic field does today.

 

[ok doser]

It was a great flood, huge flood, extensive flood; but it was never referred to as a "global" flood.

it was never referred to as a "great" flood either

or a "huge" flood

or an "extensive" flood

what does scripture say?

"The end of all flesh is come before me;"

"17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die."

"4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth."

"21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man:

22 All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that was in the dry land, died.

23 And every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark."

"the waters were on the face of the whole earth"

 

[JudgeRightly]

I don't know where harmful radiation comes from, actually.

The sun.

The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html

 

[Yorzhik]

This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground;but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground. - Genesis 2:4-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:4-6&version=NKJV

There was lush vegetation because of the mist that went up from the ground every morning.

That doesn't explain it in total. A canopy would help.

Except that that's not referring to a canopy.

It could. It best fits a canopy of some kind.

Start here:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ3.html#wp1147115

(P.S. Don't forget to click to the next page a few times, as there's more than one page on that topic...)

I already read it long ago. I bought hard copies because I support Walt Brown. But he's wrong in a couple places. I think a canopy is more likely than not, but I'm still not 100% sold on the idea myself. At least there was something radical in the atmosphere that broke at the flood. Seems a canopy is most likely, even if it isn't a structure we have correctly imagined as of yet.

Still, the topic should be given as much attention as the bible gave it - about 1 part of a single sentence. The changes in Walt's model because of it are negligible.

The bigger place Walt is wrong about is the frozen mammoths. There are water laid sediment layers under the frozen tundra, also gas/coal/oil, and the preserved animals are not in layered water lain sediments but in wind blown sediments. Mike Oard is right that mammoths were after the flood, and that changes Walt's model just a little.

 

[Jacob]

The inside of the Earth was rocky. The flood saw the interior melted. The new, melted interior allows the generation of an electromagnetic field. This field blocks harmful radiation from the sun.

In the pre-flood world, the lack of an electromagnetic field would have been a problem. I think a vastly different atmosphere might have played the role that the electromagnetic field does today.

Interesting thoughts. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Jacob]

The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity.html

Billions of years?