• 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?

Right Divider

Body part
@Right Divider, @Yorzhik
Check out Job 36:29 in th NKJV. It talks about a canopy even after the flood.
Job 36:29 NKJV — Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?


And this one describes it:
Psalm 18:11 NKJV — He made darkness His secret place;
His canopy around Him was dark waters
And thick clouds of the skies.
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.
 

Derf

Well-known member
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.
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
Yes, a canopy that was supposedly impossible.
It is impossible.
I'm suggesting that if you pick parameters that make it impossible, then if course it will be impossible.
Obviously true statement.
But if what we currently have could be called a canopy,
You can "call" things anything that you like. That's what evolutionists do all the time.
and the world doesn't come to an end,
We do not have a water canopy at the present time.
then a canopy might have existed prior to the flood that was different from today's,
Since one does not exist now...
one that provided enough water for SOME of the flood waters but not one that was impossible.
If you'd like to start providing the missing evidence, feel free.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The "great deal more plant life" grew over many, many years. It did not happen all at once.
If you have actual evidence of the composition of the earth's atmosphere before the flood, go ahead and present it.

I'm sorry, I've made a language mistake again.

This is true because there is actually evidence in the fossil record. That does nothing to support the canopy.

I believe that it was probably true. But this is an assumption without any direct support. Just like everything else regarding the canopy.

We know humans lived longer, but that does not mean "canopy".

I disagree. I don't think that a canopy is a reasonable guess.

You gave evidence (larger animals), but nothing supporting a canopy.
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:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
@Right Divider, @Yorzhik
Check out Job 36:29 in th NKJV. It talks about a canopy even after the flood.
Job 36:29 NKJV — Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?


And this one describes it:
Psalm 18:11 NKJV — He made darkness His secret place;
His canopy around Him was dark waters
And thick clouds of the skies.
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. :)
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
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.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
@Right Divider, @Yorzhik
Check out Job 36:29 in th NKJV. It talks about a canopy even after the flood.
Job 36:29 NKJV — Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?


And this one describes it:
Psalm 18:11 NKJV — He made darkness His secret place;
His canopy around Him was dark waters
And thick clouds of the skies.
Interesting.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Afaik, there are three words that mean "canopy" in Hebrew.

None of them were used in Genesis 7.
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
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.
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
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".
Have we just circled back about 500 posts?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
You have given NO evidence for a canopy.
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.
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".
So you are now disagreeing that the air before the flood was different than today?
 

Right Divider

Body part
So you are now disagreeing that the air before the flood was different than today?
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
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.

  • Therefore, pink elephants once existed.
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
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.
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:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
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
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.
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".
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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".
Yeah.

I'm not sure even that much. Lol.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
 
Top