Right Divider
Body part
The "canopy" that we are talking about does not match those. We are talking about a spherical layer of water/water vapor surrounding the entire earth. Something that supposedly collapsed during the flood.
-
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?
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
Derf
Well-known member
Yes, a canopy that was supposedly impossible. I'm suggesting that if you pick parameters that make it impossible, then if course it will be impossible. But if what we currently have could be called a canopy, and the world doesn't come to an end, then a canopy might have existed prior to the flood that was different from today's, one that provided enough water for SOME of the flood waters but not one that was impossible.
Right Divider
Body part
It is impossible.
Obviously true statement.
You can "call" things anything that you like. That's what evolutionists do all the time.
We do not have a water canopy at the present time.
Since one does not exist now...
If you'd like to start providing the missing evidence, feel free.
Have you ever watched Forensic Files? It's a TV show that shows murder cases, frequently cold cases, and how forensic evidence solves the case. So often a cold case is re-opened because new technology allows for new evidence they can use to crack a case. And so often they originally speculated at least two possibilities, based on the evidence they had at the time. Are their speculations not based on evidence? It's true that they did, in fact, base their speculations on evidence. And because of their speculations they had their eyes open for evidence related to what they were guessing, and when the new technology gave them the additional evidence, they solved the case.
Since you've ignored this example twice, I realize you don't understand it. Evidence does not always lead to a single conclusion. Sometimes, like in Forensic Files, contradictory guesses are both valid.
In one show, the investigator said one of the crewmen on a boat hit the victim on the head with a large slicing object. The prosecutor thought the victim was hit by the prop. There was no way to tell without more evidence. One thing for sure though, the victim didn't die from being shot.
Last edited:
I'm not sure that the poetic use of "tent" in the Bible is quite the same thing as proponents of a canopy theory would espouse.
I'm not sure that the poetic use of "tent" in the Bible is quite the same thing as proponents of a canopy theory would espouse.
Afaik, there are three words that mean "canopy" in Hebrew.
None of them were used in Genesis 7.
I have an interesting theory on this theory on this.
Back in the 80s there was a theory floating around that God broke up the canopy with His voice. We have advanced in knowledge enough since then to prove that sound has some very specific properties that could very well break up the canopy.
Now the point of this is that with the right frequency and power sound can become destructive as well as constructive. This has already been proven with music. Certain types of music create beautiful patterns. Others destroy all beauty and generate completely patternless shapes. It's also proven that sound travels much faster through water and solids than air. The speed of travel through water would create a much more powerful force.
Back in the 80s there was a theory floating around that God broke up the canopy with His voice. We have advanced in knowledge enough since then to prove that sound has some very specific properties that could very well break up the canopy.
Now the point of this is that with the right frequency and power sound can become destructive as well as constructive. This has already been proven with music. Certain types of music create beautiful patterns. Others destroy all beauty and generate completely patternless shapes. It's also proven that sound travels much faster through water and solids than air. The speed of travel through water would create a much more powerful force.
Interesting.
Derf
Well-known member
But you believe we can claim knowledge about the creation from the prophetical books. If we're only going to allow genesis from others, then let's all just use genesis.
Last edited:
Right Divider
Body part
You have given NO evidence for a canopy.
You made claims about the ancient atmosphere, but without evidence. Much like the evolutionists claim a grossly different atmosphere in the "early earth" so that "life could start".
Last edited:
Derf
Well-known member
Have we just circled back about 500 posts?
Have you ever watched Forensic Files? It's a TV show that shows murder cases, frequently cold cases, and how forensic evidence solves the case. So often a cold case is re-opened because new technology allows for new evidence they can use to crack a case. And so often they originally speculated at least two possibilities, based on the evidence they had at the time. Are their speculations not based on evidence? It's true that they did, in fact, base their speculations on evidence. And because of their speculations they had their eyes open for evidence related to what they were guessing, and when the new technology gave them the additional evidence, they solved the case.
Since you've ignored this example thrice, I realize you don't understand it. Evidence does not always lead to a single conclusion. Sometimes, like in Forensic Files, contradictory guesses are both valid.
In one show, the investigator said one of the crewmen on a boat hit the victim on the head with a large slicing object. The prosecutor thought the victim was hit by the prop. There was no way to tell without more evidence. One thing for sure though, the victim didn't die from being shot.
The point we are at, if we compare a Forensic Files episode to the canopy debate, is where two different conclusions are drawn from the evidence available, and no one will be prosecuted until we have more forensic evidence.
So you are now disagreeing that the air before the flood was different than today?
Right Divider
Body part
No, I am not. I believe that the atmosphere was somewhat different than today. But that is NOT evidence for a canopy.
Here is your line of reasoning:
- I believe that the atmosphere was different before the flood (based on scant evidence).
- A different atmosphere could have allowed for the existence pink elephants.
- Therefore, pink elephants once existed.
Right Divider
Body part
If you would like to provide the missing evidence for a canopy. Please do.
Ah. I see your problem. You think the evidence of a differing air mix before the flood means anyone else's speculation (outside your own) that can be dreamed of, related or not to... anything... is being claimed as valid.
This is patently wrong. A differing air mixture, plus the other evidence I've listed, has a set of reasonable possible causes. One is a canopy. Pink elephants are not.
To take your syllogism the way it is without stating my position correctly, it is saying that because something is a possibility it is necessary. In this, you are simply being illogical. I'll state your syllogism again to make clear the vague statements:
- I believe that the atmosphere was different before the flood (based on scant evidence).
- A different atmosphere could have allowed for the possible existence pink elephants
- Therefore, pink elephants definitely existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a tangent (and this is the benefit of continuing with this discussion), trying to create a syllogism to find the logic of a hunch usually ends up to be worthless unless the context is the logic of hunches themselves.
Right Divider
Body part
I have already agreed that a canopy is a possibility. But that the evidence does not support it.
I believe that you have many of the same issues as the "goo to you" evolutionists (just to be clear, I'm not saying that you are one of those). What little evidence you do have is equivocal. It does not support only a canopy. I've seen you present no unambiguous evidence that a canopy once existed.
The evidence against a canopy far out-weights the equivocal evidence for it.
Last edited:
I think you have to stop talking about a "canopy" and debate a proposed physical model of what was lost in the flood that was capping the atmosphere — preferably a proposal that someone ascribes to.
Right Divider
Body part
If someone would like to "propose a physical model of what was lost in the flood that was capping the atmosphere", we could debate that.
What has been "proposed" so far (that I know of) is a water/vapor canopy, which I simply refer to as "the canopy".
I'm going to get to other posts when I can, but I'd like to point out quickly that I'm not proposing a water/vapor canopy. I've been clear that whatever was at the top of the atmosphere, if there was anything there beyond a thinning atmosphere, may have had little or no water - although it may have been made entirely of water, too. All it had to do was provide a mechanism for pressure, temperature, and UV regulation.