Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discussion thread for Stripe and Genuineoriginal's 1 on 1

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Discussion thread for Stripe and Genuineoriginal's 1 on 1

    I'm really looking forward to this one. I am a big fan of Walt Brown's book therefore it will be fun to see it debated.

    One on One: Stripe & genuineoriginal - The Hydroplate Theory
    Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
    TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

  • #2
    Looks like we're the only ones.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      Looks like we're the only ones.
      You never know who might be watching, though...

      Hope all's well these days

      Comment


      • #4
        WA!!! GSweet!

        Where is the evidence for a global flood?
        E≈mc2
        "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

        "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
        -Bob B.

        Comment


        • #5
          The strongest argument for Dr. Brown's theory is what Stripe is covering now which is that the Canopy Theory doesn't hold water.

          The instant I read Dr. Brown's theory it clicked in my head and sounded so much more logical and believable. The entire canopy theory always sounded so contrived and unbelievable. Dr. Brown's theory is realistic, believable and understandable.
          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm not sure anyone holds to the canopy theory any longer, do they?
            Where is the evidence for a global flood?
            E≈mc2
            "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

            "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
            -Bob B.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by gsweet View Post

              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
              Looks like we're the only ones.
              You never know who might be watching, though...
              Yep.
              I've been following the conversation also.

              We don't tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters exist.
              They already know monsters exist.
              We tell our children fairy tales so that they will know that monsters can be killed.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                I'm not sure anyone holds to the canopy theory any longer, do they?
                Yes.

                Interesting discussion.

                Are there Scriptural aspects for favoring one theory over the other? Anybody?
                My New Years Resolution: 1 Peter 3:15
                Omniscient without man's qualification. John 1:3 "Nothing"
                Colossians 1:17 "Nothing" John 15:5 "Nothing"
                Mighty, ALL mighty (omnipotent). Revelation 1:8
                No possible limitation Isaiah 40:25 Joshua 24:15
                Infinite (Omnipresent) Psalm 145:3 Hebrews 4:13

                ? Yep

                Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think... Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21

                ... when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. Titus 3:10 Ephesians 4:29-32; 5:11

                Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

                Comment


                • #9
                  I have known about the hydroplate theory for a while. I have Walt Brown's book. It makes more sense then the cloud canopy model.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm not so sure there wasn't a canopy also. It does solve a few problems of the antediluvian world. And there may have been enough energy to send the fountains of the deep high enough to break it.

                    Just like the crust, the canopy would have been fragile, with one crack bringing the whole thing down.

                    Alternatively, the canopy might have gone first because a meteor is what initiated the crack in the crust of the earth. But I don't think it would have mattered much.
                    Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                    Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The best thing about the canopy theory is that it explained the greenhouse temperatures, high oxegen content, protection from harmful cosmic radiation, and the ice age. It wasn't quite able to explain how a massive bubble of water surrounding the atmosphhere managed to stay intact before the flood.
                      Learn to read what is written.

                      _____
                      The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
                      ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by genuineoriginal View Post
                        It wasn't quite able to explain how a massive bubble of water surrounding the atmosphhere managed to stay intact before the flood.
                        I know, right. I mean, how do satellites stay in orbit above the Earth?
                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Canopy theory is a distraction. There is no need to look for a source of water other than the 'fountains'.
                          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                          E≈mc2
                          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                          -Bob B.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                            Canopy theory is a distraction. There is no need to look for a source of water other than the 'fountains'.
                            I don't think it could have been a significant source of water for the flood. It does explain a few pre-flood features, though.
                            Good things come to those who shoot straight.

                            Did you only want evidence you are not going to call "wrong"? -Stripe

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                              I know, right. I mean, how do satellites stay in orbit above the Earth?



                              For that much water to be as cloud cover, the cloud would have to be hundreds of miles thick, if not a thousand or two miles thick. There would have been storms that man has never experienced to this day, and there could not have been ANY light under the cloud. - That would demand a perpetual darkness during all the time before the flood. – NEVER HAPPENED THAT WAY GENIUSES!!!

                              Paul – 052012
                              ---Gal. 4:16.
                              ---"Am I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth"???

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X