Right Divider
Body part
You are being extremely vague then. What is the point of trying to support something so vague that you cannot even describe it?
None of those support your completely vague and ambiguous "canopy of some sort".
-
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
When the evidence doesn't point to a clear cause, that is different than evidence against a cause. The evidence we have is vague and my guesses based on it are entirely reasonable.
This is entirely misleading in that people that evangelize common descent don't make it clear that their guesses are pure speculation and have no place being considered a theory. And furthermore, the evidence against common descent is ignored while evidence against a canopy is accepted and understood to be a deal breaker if future evidence does not overcome the problems.
What are you talking about? I've been saying this since I've started. Equivocal, vague, scant, and 'little to go on' are all synonymous when it comes to the evidence in this case. I've even said, repeatedly, that no canopy is also perfectly valid according to the evidence.
That depends on what weight you give to each piece of evidence. The weight you give to evidence against a canopy isn't wrong.
LOL. This is why it is called a hunch! A suspicion! A guess!
Right Divider
Body part
So some people have proposed a water/vapor canopy theory, but you have a canopy hunch? A canopy suspicion? A canopy guess?
I'm sorry to say that this sounds pretty lame to me.
It's only lame if you had considered it to be more than speculation from the start. The idea was never more than I claimed it to be.
So what's the difference between what was 'capping the atmosphere' and a 'canopy'? Isn't the one just a simple way to say the other?
Also, BTW, I haven't proposed a water/vapor canopy, because it may not have had water to speak of, if any. So is what we've been discussing this whole thread not something you know of?
Right Divider
Body part
You are making your "support" of a "canopy" so vague as to be comical.
I cannot tell anymore since you've hedged your story into nonexistence.
I haven't changed what I've said about the canopy for a number of years. In fact I remember having this conversation twice before on TOL, and I think either you or JR, or both, were involved in at least one of them. I remember having to remind whoever it was , repeatedly just like this conversation, that I'm not talking about VCT. Since I've had to do that over and over in this conversation as well, I'm guessing you think I started this conversation defending VCT and have hedged back to a 'mere curiosity canopy' version you think I'm talking about now. You are so geared up to smack down VCT that any mention of 'something capping the atmosphere', or 'canopy' for short, that you don't actually read what I've written.
Last edited:
That's why I wondered at all the kerfuffle... lol.
I think Kent Hovind holds to a canopy of sorts.
I'm not sure what's going on in the Hovind world. I only followed them casually, and that was years ago.
So I just looked up Hovind's understanding of the "cap on the atmosphere". Although he says things similar to me, he bases some of his ideas on KJB-onlyism. It causes him to have to twist what the bible has to say about the flood. I didn't know he was a KJVo guy, but for all he gets right (and he gives a lot of credit to the correct views of Dr. Walt Brown), he never seemed like someone I was interested in and now I see why. Still, it's an interesting read!
Right Divider
Body part
What is the nature of this canopy of yours? What does your "hunch" tell you about this?
Note that more CO2 does not require more pressure, hence this does not lead to the need for canopy of any kind. Also note that extreme CO2 concentrations are deadly to humans and animals.
Do you have any details, at all, about this "canopy that could have been"?
Last edited:
Yeah. From the little I saw about it, there seemed no reason to propose it.
Hunches aren't made to say much about the nature of the thing hunched about, except in general terms which have already been stated.
I know. But when CO2 is higher, higher pressure makes it easier to breath.
Not beyond the general idea that has already been presented. As I said before, the thing that capped the atmosphere (since "canopy" seems to trigger you) is a curiosity and not a theory. Why you have gotten into an argument about it is the real interesting thing.
His problem isn't the canopy per se, but using the canopy as a device to promote KJVo, and berating other people because they didn't agree with KJVo. But outside the KJVo reasons, the reasoning he uses to believe in a canopy isn't all bad.
I'm curious if you've looked into the difference between the document theory and the tablet theory?
Right Divider
Body part
I just wanted to address this idea. It is completely impossible.
Orbiting means traveling at a high rate of speed to balance the effects of gravity. This cannot be done for a "shell of water" above the atmosphere. Satellites work because they follow a single line trajectory at ~17,000 miles per hour. There is no way for an entire "sphere of water" to "orbit" the earth. It's simply physically impossible.
I bought a book in the late 70's written by a guy by the name of Rene Noorbergeen. He was an author who had written several books and a reporter for the US Army for several decades. This book was titled Secrets of the Lost Races. In it he documents what he calls ooparts: out of place artifacts. He documented the story of the Piri Ries map. A copy of it was used by Columbus when he found the new world. The US havy examined the map back in the 60s and found it be very accurate. It showed Antaratica before it was covered with ice and showed two bays that modern maps using sonar hadn't found. So the army cartologist asked the people who had done the sonar mapping to recheck their work, They discovered they had missed the bays due to mathematical errors.
He also documents evidence of nuclear war sometime after the flood as stone castles in Scotland have been found that have one side of them turned to glass. There were also very large patches of sand tuned to glass in the Sinai dessert.
The book can be purchased at thriftbooks.com. So if you're interested in ancient history this is a very interesting read.
He also documents evidence of nuclear war sometime after the flood as stone castles in Scotland have been found that have one side of them turned to glass. There were also very large patches of sand tuned to glass in the Sinai dessert.
The book can be purchased at thriftbooks.com. So if you're interested in ancient history this is a very interesting read.
Right Divider
Body part
This sounds pretty dubious to me. How long after the flood is this supposed "sometime after the flood"? Nuclear weapons require advanced laboratories and material handling. Where are the "ancient labs" located?
Perhaps put this in its own thread...
How am I supposed to put this in another thread?
So, 3000 year old labs are still supposed to exist? All that remains is the evidence the explosions left.
I'd recommend that you buy the book as I can't explain an entire book to you in this format. I figured you would be pretty skeptical so it's not a surprise to me.