• 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?

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The Bible gives a clear indication that half of the water was above the crust that was spread out, and the other half was below it:
That's the assumption that the "expanse" that divided the waters was only the crust.
I don't see anything in the text that sets that in stone, as the "expanse" God created didn't have to be of one substance, but could be an "expanse" that consisted partially of crust and atmosphere together.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It's the best explanation based on what we do know.
And there is a lot we don't know.
So just being "the best we have so far" is still just an assumption.



Assumption. Why can't it be explained based on the Biblical starting point and then the laws of physics?
Because we have other events in scripture that defy laws of physics.
So we don't have to assume the flood was due to laws of physics only.


Why not? It has far too many problems.
It is an explanation of why such vast age differences occur before and after the flood.
Just because it may have some problems doesn't make the whole thing illegitimate.



The waters "above" were not held up over the sky. They were ejected from below the earth. Most of which fell back down to earth. Some left earth along with other materials. Those formed comets, asteroids, meteors and TNO's.
Or it happened some other way.
 
Last edited:

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
How do we know that it cannot happen again?

Two reasons:
  1. We know because God said that He would not do it again. Gen 9:8-17
  2. But also, the physical properties of the earth (due to all of the events of the flood) will not allow it to happen again. There is no longer a huge highly pressurized "deep" with a containing crust above it.
#2 makes no sense since God made a covenant that He is the one that would not let it happen again.
No need for God to make that covenant if it were not even possible for it to happen again.
So #1 is the answer to rely upon.
 

Right Divider

Body part
And there is a lot we don't know.
So just being "the best we have so far" is still just an assumption.
Again, you seem to think that any starting assumption invalidates a theory.

The HPT is "the best we have so far" and is far better than any other theory.
Because we have other events in scripture that defy laws of physics.
That does not mean that everything has to be supernatural.
So we don't have to assume the flood was due to laws of physics only.
Why do we need to assume a supernatural cause/effect?

The flood can easily be explained by the laws of physics.
It is an explanation of why such vast age differences occur before and after the flood.
How so? It does a poor job of explaining life before the flood.

The flood itself explains the shortening of life on earth post-flood.
Just because it may have some problems doesn't make the whole thing illegitimate.
It might.
 
Last edited:

Right Divider

Body part
#2 makes no sense since God made a covenant that He is the one that would not let it happen again.
That does not invalidate the fact that the conditions that caused the flood are long gone.
No need for God to make that covenant if it were not even possible for it to happen again.
So #1 is the answer to rely upon.
Both are perfectly valid. Of course we know that God does not lie.
 

Tambora

Get your armor ready!
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Genesis 7:19 " And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. 20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered."

The Flood covered the highest mountains and it doesn't make sense that a mountain was only 15 cubits high, so I take this to mean the highest mountains were covered by 15 cubits of water. Mt. Everest is like 9km high. And if we take the world's ocean and make the earth's surface completely flat it would be 2km deep all around the earth. So if all the water from the Flood is still here in the ocean, it couldn't have risen to 9km high, but only at most 2km high, with a perfectly flat surface, so since 15 cubits is a negligible fraction of a km, then the highest mountains then must have been only about 2km high.

At least, if I'm thinking clearly lol.
Yeah, we have no idea how tall hills were before the flood.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Nah, just that it is only an assumption of a possibility.
Assumptions can turn out to be true or false.
Please investigate the actual assumptions that the HPT is based on. They are quite reasonable.

Major Assumption: Subterranean Water. About half the
water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers,
60 miles below the entire earth’s surface. At thousands
of locations, the chamber’s sagging ceiling pressed against
the chamber’s floor. These solid contacts will be called
pillars. The average thickness of the subterranean water was
at least 1 mile. Above the subterranean water was a granite
crust; beneath that water was earth’s mantle. [See Figure 55.]
Minor Assumption 1: A Global Continent. The earth’s
preflood crust encircled the globe. On the crust were deep
and shallow seas, and mountains, generally smaller than
those of today, but some perhaps 5,000 feet high.
Minor Assumption 2: An Initial Crack. A small initial
crack occurred in the earth’s crust. (Several ways this
crack could have started will soon be mentioned.) Once a
deep crack formed, the high pressures in the chambers
would have quickly propagated the crack around the earth.

The first two assumptions are Biblically based.

The third assumption is quite reasonable and is confirmed by the evidence shown throughout the book.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I don't completely discard the canopy theory (at least in part).
Mainly because of the vast age differences before and after the flood, and that scripture seems to indicate the flood waters came from below and above.
I think there was a water canopy of some sort as well. But be careful about saying "canopy theory" because that has, in general, a meaning that the flood waters came in large part from said canopy.

I think there was a canopy of some sort because of the passage that touches on the windows of heaven, and from the problems a canopy can solve. But since it was not a significant source of water that contributed to the flood, I can't say I agree with the canopy theory without qualifiers.

One of the problems with a canopy is that it would be very fragile. There is not hope the fountains of the deep wouldn't bring it down by tearing through it. However, it is also true a water layer under the crust of the earth would be fragile (in fact this is part of Dr. Brown's theory), although not as fragile. The fragility of the fountains of the deep is a question that some creationists, who like HPT in general, find to be such a vexing problem that they won't promote HPT until there are better answers. Of course those that have that opinion feel the same way about a water canopy.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I think there was a canopy of some sort because of the passage that touches on the windows of heaven, and from the problems a canopy can solve.
As JR has pointed out, God called the crust of the earth (the firmament between the waters) "Heaven" in Genesis 1:8
So the "windows of heaven" is just the crust cracking and exploding.
But since it was not a significant source of water that contributed to the flood, I can't say I agree with the canopy theory without qualifiers.

One of the problems with a canopy is that it would be very fragile. There is not hope the fountains of the deep wouldn't bring it down by tearing through it. However, it is also true a water layer under the crust of the earth would be fragile (in fact this is part of Dr. Brown's theory), although not as fragile. The fragility of the fountains of the deep is a question that some creationists, who like HPT in general, find to be such a vexing problem that they won't promote HPT until there are better answers. Of course those that have that opinion feel the same way about a water canopy.
I don't understand what the "problem" is with the water under the crust.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
As JR has pointed out, God called the crust of the earth (the firmament between the waters) "Heaven" in Genesis 1:8
So the "windows of heaven" is just the crust cracking and exploding.
Ok. I'd say if it were the crust opening like a window (not a modern window but a small opening in a structure that would let light or air through) that would somehow be different than the walls of heaven?

What I'm trying to say is that God knew what a window was and would not have described the splitting of the crust as a window opening. A canopy, on the other hand, was a big window.
I don't understand what the "problem" is with the water under the crust.
It makes the crust fragile, prone to breaking and letting the water out.
 

Right Divider

Body part
It makes the crust fragile, prone to breaking and letting the water out.
What makes the crust fragile, prone to breaking and letting the water out? Just water?

60 miles of granite is pretty tough. Though its compressive strength is far greater than its tensile strength. That's why it gave out eventually.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What makes the crust fragile, prone to breaking and letting the water out? Just water?

60 miles of granite is pretty tough. Though its compressive strength is far greater than its tensile strength. That's why it gave out eventually.
I mean fragile relative to no water under the crust. Had it not been for the water under the crust, it would not have broken
 

Right Divider

Body part
I mean fragile relative to no water under the crust. Had it not been for the water under the crust, it would not have broken
None of that does anything to diminish the HPT. The Bible does say that God created water under the crust (water divided by the crust). The crust is called "firmament". The "firmament of the heaven" is clearly something else.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Thanks.
It could be that it did happened that way, but we just don't know for sure.
I don't find it necessary to align laws of nature to the biblical flood, as it could have been a completely supernatural event apart from what we view as a natural phenomenon.
Playing with fire there. It'll burn you one day.
Rejecting Genesis as history has logical consequences that you won't like. You're only inches away from theistic evolution and from there the denial that Jesus was the Creator. Sounds like hyperbole but it isn't, I promise. It's best to put your trust in God's word, as written, and let the chips fall where they may.

(Not saying you do find it necessary, just stating a general observation.)
But it is interesting to consider all the possibilities.

I don't completely discard the canopy theory (at least in part).
The canopy theory has been falsified for something like twenty years. You should drop it entirely. No way human beings survive the atmospheric pressure that would be created, for one thing. That alone is sufficient to falsify it but there are quite a lot of problems with it. It's a relic from the 80's (maybe earlier) that I wish people would just forget about.

Mainly because of the vast age differences before and after the flood, and that scripture seems to indicate the flood waters came from below and above.
The bible does indicate that and the hydroplate theory explains this quite well. It also accounts for the changes in human lifespan. If you thought the canopy theory was good, you need to read up on the hydroplate theory. It is superior in every possible way.


From "Vapor Canopy and the Hydroplate Theory"...
Chart showing exponential decay of lifespan after the Flood * Decrease in Human (and other) Lifespans: Another major argument for the vapor canopy has been the longer lifespans of the antediluvians, of people and of other organisms. Hydroplate Theory events may explain even better than the Canopy Theory why people, plants, animals, and insects may not live as long today as they did prior to the flood. Since the flood the Earth's crust has been loaded with radioactive (unstable) elements. Radioactive decay is dangerous to biological organisms for it not only harms the individual but degrades the functionality of the overall genome of an entire species. Today, multiple mutations occur with every single cell division, trillions of times over within, for example, a human body. See rsr.org/radioactivity and rsr.org/uranium for an introduction to the Hydroplate Theory's explanation for the origin of Earth's radioactivity. If the reduction of atmospheric pressure and reduced oxygen content were the primary reason for decreased health and lifespan, the consequences might have been seen in a more immediate drop (to current levels). Instead, charting the reduced lifespans shows an exponential decay over a few centuries which seems to fit better with the gradual deterioration of the genome that took the edge off the extraordinary precision biology that had continued to function in the post-Fall world. (See rsr.org/genetic-entropy, rsr.org/evidence#abrahams-marriage, and consider that relatively great longevity persisted till the flood even without the help of the leaves and fruit of the Tree of Life). So rather than a decrease in atmospheric pressure, the flood's origin of Earth's radioactivity explains better mankind's decreasing biological lifespan.​

Clete
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Playing with fire there. It'll burn you one day.
Rejecting Genesis as history has logical consequences that you won't like. You're only inches away from theistic evolution and from there the denial that Jesus was the Creator. Sounds like hyperbole but it isn't, I promise. It's best to put your trust in God's word, as written, and let the chips fall where they may.


The canopy theory has been falsified for something like twenty years. You should drop it entirely. No way human beings survive the atmospheric pressure that would be created, for one thing. That alone is sufficient to falsify it but there are quite a lot of problems with it. It's a relic from the 80's (maybe earlier) that I wish people would just forget about.


The bible does indicate that and the hydroplate theory explains this quite well. It also accounts for the changes in human lifespan. If you thought the canopy theory was good, you need to read up on the hydroplate theory. It is superior in every possible way.


From "Vapor Canopy and the Hydroplate Theory"...
Chart showing exponential decay of lifespan after the Flood * Decrease in Human (and other) Lifespans: Another major argument for the vapor canopy has been the longer lifespans of the antediluvians, of people and of other organisms. Hydroplate Theory events may explain even better than the Canopy Theory why people, plants, animals, and insects may not live as long today as they did prior to the flood. Since the flood the Earth's crust has been loaded with radioactive (unstable) elements. Radioactive decay is dangerous to biological organisms for it not only harms the individual but degrades the functionality of the overall genome of an entire species. Today, multiple mutations occur with every single cell division, trillions of times over within, for example, a human body. See rsr.org/radioactivity and rsr.org/uranium for an introduction to the Hydroplate Theory's explanation for the origin of Earth's radioactivity. If the reduction of atmospheric pressure and reduced oxygen content were the primary reason for decreased health and lifespan, the consequences might have been seen in a more immediate drop (to current levels). Instead, charting the reduced lifespans shows an exponential decay over a few centuries which seems to fit better with the gradual deterioration of the genome that took the edge off the extraordinary precision biology that had continued to function in the post-Fall world. (See rsr.org/genetic-entropy, rsr.org/evidence#abrahams-marriage, and consider that relatively great longevity persisted till the flood even without the help of the leaves and fruit of the Tree of Life). So rather than a decrease in atmospheric pressure, the flood's origin of Earth's radioactivity explains better mankind's decreasing biological lifespan.​

Clete
I would tend to say that the water canopy (I'm not saying Canopy Theory since that evokes ideas that the canopy was the main driver of the flood when it was just a footnote on the water it provided) could also contribute to the solutions that were attributed to it.

So it doesn't need to be abandoned, except as a main driver of the flood.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
What's the canopy?

Is it a hollow sphere of water stably orbiting the planet above the atmosphere that during the Flood lost its momentum and so collapsed to earth?

I'm just unfamiliar.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I would tend to say that the water canopy (I'm not saying Canopy Theory since that evokes ideas that the canopy was the main driver of the flood when it was just a footnote on the water it provided) could also contribute to the solutions that were attributed to it.

So it doesn't need to be abandoned, except as a main driver of the flood.
As Clete said, the atmospheric pressure would not support life. So it does need to be abandoned completely.
 
Top