• 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
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.
You are being extremely vague then. What is the point of trying to support something so vague that you cannot even describe it?
All it had to do was provide a mechanism for pressure, temperature, and UV regulation.
None of those support your completely vague and ambiguous "canopy of some sort".
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I have already agreed that a canopy is a possibility. But that the evidence does not support it.
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.

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).
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 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.
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.

The evidence against a canopy far out-weights the equivocal evidence for it.
That depends on what weight you give to each piece of evidence. The weight you give to evidence against a canopy isn't wrong.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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".
LOL. This is why it is called a hunch! A suspicion! A guess!
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
 

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".
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?
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That's why I wondered at all the kerfuffle... lol.

I think Kent Hovind holds to a canopy of sorts.
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
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.
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:

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
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!
Yeah. From the little I saw about it, there seemed no reason to propose it.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What is the nature of this canopy of yours? What does your "hunch" tell you about this?
Hunches aren't made to say much about the nature of the thing hunched about, except in general terms which have already been stated.

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.
I know. But when CO2 is higher, higher pressure makes it easier to breath.

Do you have any details, at all, about this "canopy that could have been"?
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.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yeah. From the little I saw about it, there seemed no reason to propose it.
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.
 

Right Divider

Body part
If the water canopy is orbiting stably it is completely over the atmosphere and there is no downward force on the atmosphere. So I don't understand how the atmospheric pressure is affected at all by such a structure. But I could see perhaps having all sunlight pass through a depth of liquid water before reaching the surface, maybe that filters the ionizing radiation? And now that's gone? So sunlight is more dangerous? idk.
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.
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
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.
 

Right Divider

Body part
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.
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...
 

Gary K

New member
Banned
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.
 
Top