Is there any obvious evidence today for the biblical global Flood?

[Right Divider]

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.

More or less... it's got problems from the start. Both Biblical and scientific.

 

[Idolater]

More or less... it's got problems from the start. Both Biblical and scientific.

Well where does the increased atmospheric pressure come from then? Is that from a different canopy model?

 

[Right Divider]

Well where does the increased atmospheric pressure come from then? Is that from a different canopy model?

Water has weight. Weight pushing down on the atmosphere creates pressure.

The water canopy is a silly idea based on misinterpreting the two firmaments in Genesis as one firmament.

 

[Yorzhik]

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.

That's it

 

[Yorzhik]

Water has weight. Weight pushing down on the atmosphere creates pressure.

The water canopy is a silly idea based on misinterpreting the two firmaments in Genesis as one firmament.

I think that depends on the mix of gases. Humans can stay in barometric chambers indefinitely.

 

[Right Divider]

I think that depends on the mix of gases. Humans can stay in barometric chambers indefinitely.

Do you think that the atmosphere was significantly different then?
There is no doubt that the atmosphere did change a lot during and after the flood.

Again I will say, that the water canopy idea/theory is based on misinterpreting scripture.

 

[Yorzhik]

Water has weight. Weight pushing down on the atmosphere creates pressure.

The water canopy is a silly idea based on misinterpreting the two firmaments in Genesis as one firmament.

I had never known people interpreted those passages that way until I heard it here on TOL. So that's not it is always based on.

 

[Yorzhik]

Do you think that the atmosphere was significantly different then?

It had to be if there was a canopy. It might be the reason carbon dates for pre-flood material are off.

There is no doubt that the atmosphere did change a lot during and after the flood.

Again I will said, that the water canopy idea/theory is based on misinterpreting scripture.

Ok. I don't think that applies to me, though.

 

[Right Divider]

It had to be if there was a canopy. It might be the reason carbon dates for pre-flood material are off.

Dr. Brown explains some of the radiocarbon dating issues in In The Beginning.

Ok. I don't think that applies to me, though.

So what leads you to an idea of a water canopy?

 

[Idolater]

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.

 

[JudgeRightly]

As JR has pointed out, God called the crust of the earth (the firmament between the waters) "Heaven" in Genesis 1:8

Yup.

So the "windows of heaven" is just the crust cracking and exploding.

I don't think so.

"Windows of the heavens" is phrased the same way as "firmament of the heavens."

I think it's just a way of saying there was a huge downpour, and Dr. Brown makes the point that it's a sequence of events: Rain didn't fall until after the fountains of the great deep broke forth.

Genesis 7:11–12. A lot of rain fell from somewhere. Genesis 7:11–12 states that “the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell ...” Doesn’t this imply a canopy? Response: If it did, similar canopy interpretations should predate Vail’s in 1874. Where are they? Quite often it is hard to see alternatives once we have learned “the accepted explanation.” Actually, Genesis 7:11–12 says that “all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened. And the rain fell ...” Later, Genesis 8:2 states “the fountains of the deep and the floodgates of the sky were closed, and the rain from the sky was restrained.” These events were probably in cause-and-effect order. That is, the fountains of the great deep caused extreme, torrential rain. Once the fountains stopped, this violent rain ended. Then milder, more normal, rain fell. In other words, “the rain from the sky was restrained.” A cause and effect sequence is also given in Proverbs 3:19–20: “The Lord by wisdom founded the Earth; by understanding He established the heavens. By His knowledge the deeps were broken up, and the skies dripped with dew.” The same Hebrew word, baqa ((qab@f), is used for “broken up” and “burst open” in Proverbs 3:20 and Genesis 7:11. Baqa describes a violent and complete splitting, sometimes of the Earth’s crust (Numbers 16:31, Micah 1:4, Zechariah 14:4). Isaiah 34:15 and 59:5 use baqa to describe the breaking of an egg shell by internal pressure as a baby bird exits. This aptly describes events of the hydroplate theory—the globe encircling rupture splitting the Earth’s crust by internal pressure and releasing fountains of water. The Hebrew word, matar, means normal rain. Violent rain is geshem (used in Genesis 7:11 and 8:2). It is sometimes accompanied by high winds and huge hailstones that can destroy mortared walls (Ezekiel 13:11–13). The hydroplate theory (pages 118– 157) explains this sequence in more detailed, physical terms. We have failed to appreciate the explosiveness, magnitude, and power of “the fountains of the great deep.” [See “The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity” on pages 391– 429.]

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Arguments for a Canopy—and Brief Responses

 

[Idolater]

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.

What am I even thinking. Water above the atmosphere is in vacuum. It'd vaporize instantly or freeze solid or both.

 

[Right Divider]

"Windows of the heavens" is phrased the same way as "firmament of the heavens."

Gen 7:11 (AKJV/PCE)
(7:11) ¶ In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

This did cause a huge rain.

I think it's just a way of saying there was a huge downpour, and Dr. Brown makes the point that it's a sequence of events: Rain didn't fall until after the fountains of the great deep broke forth.

I agree.

 

[Tambora]

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.

Don't be ridiculous.
I have not rejected the flood as history.

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 hydroplate theory may become a relic after a while also.
But it makes for interesting discussion, and I like conversations that explore varying possibilities.
I'm liking this thread.

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"...

​

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

Always nice to have differing possibilities to explore.
I'm just not ready to shut the book on the possibilities yet.

 

[Tambora]

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.

I feel certain more theories will arise as time marches on.
I look forward to hearing them.

And yeah, certain words and phrases trigger thoughts of old theories.
Akin to terms like "elect" and "dispensation" that don't mean the same to me as they do to Calvinists and Darbyists even though they are still legit terms for me to use for my viewpoints.

 

[Idolater]

The topic doesn't have to be in a science section at all.
If it's about the biblical flood then it can be in the religion section.
You could ask Sherman or JR to move it to Religion.

I tried they want it here

 

[Tambora]

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.

Right.
There could some elements of old theories that could still be used as possibility.

 

[Tambora]

I tried they want it here

I don't know why, as your OP wasn't an argument for the hydroplate theory per se, and this section is for hydroplate theory.

 

[Idolater]

I don't know why, as your OP wasn't an argument for the hydroplate theory per se, and this section is for hydroplate theory.

Eh, like I said I tried

 

[Tambora]

I think there was a canopy of some sort because of the passage that touches on the windows of heaven,

Not only does scripture mentions windows, but also storehouses of weather elements that God talks about when he approaches Job and questions if he was there when God created and knew how it was done.

Job 38 ESV
(22) Have you entered the storehouses of the snow, or have you seen the storehouses of the hail,

Psalms 135 ESV
(7) He it is who makes the clouds rise at the end of the earth, who makes lightnings for the rain and brings forth the wind from his storehouses.