You made a fine effort.Eh, like I said I tried
You made a fine effort.Eh, like I said I tried
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
I think that depends on the mix of gases. Humans can stay in barometric chambers indefinitely.
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 don't know why, as your OP wasn't an argument for the hydroplate theory per se, and this section is for hydroplate theory.
I know, I have the book. I have been referring to it for years. The section on radio carbon dating is excellent and I think some other ideas complete what he says in that part.Dr. Brown explains some of the radiocarbon dating issues in In The Beginning.
The windows of heaven were opened. That's pretty much it for scripture. And I think there are some forensic claims that are consistent with the idea of a canopy. Large organisms would benefit from a different mix of gases and higher pressures. A temperate worldwide climate is another.So what leads you to an idea of a water canopy?
I think "instantly" is a bit dramatic.What am I even thinking. Water above the atmosphere is in vacuum. It'd vaporize instantly or freeze solid or both.
The pre flood atmosphere could very well have had other factors that counteracted the greenhouse effect. We just don't know what it was like..It doesn't matter. If there was even 4 inches of water (nowhere near enough to flood it) above the atmosphere, ALL LIFE ON EARTH would LITERALLY BOIL from the heat.
According to the Biblical timeline, it took from about day 6 to the start of the flood. So about 2,200 years.Question about the pressure build up that caused the waters to burst forth .....How long would it take to build up that kind of pressure?
I went back a reread your post. I misread it the first time. I, for some reason, took it to mean you didn't necessarily think that the flood actually happened. That isn't what you said so I don't know why I would have thought that.Don't be ridiculous.
I have not rejected the flood as history.
It wouldn't need to build up. If the water were contained under a layer of the Earth's surface then it would be under pressure due to the weight of the earth above it. So long as the Earth was stable, so would the pressure be. To start the flood, all God had to do was uncork the bottle sort of speak, or, perhaps more accurately, allow the bottle to be uncorked.Question about the pressure build up that caused the waters to burst forth .....
How long would it take to build up that kind of pressure?
I doubt that God created the subterranean water super-critical. Any water would certainly be under some pressure, but not super heated, etc. According to the HPT, tidal pumping was the cause of that. It would take some time for the erosion of the crust ceiling and the mantle floor that lead to many other aspects of the floods results (vast amounts of limestone precursors, etc).It wouldn't need to build up. If the water were contained under a layer of the Earth's surface then it would be under pressure due to the weight of the earth above it. So long as the Earth was stable, so would the pressure be. To start the flood, all God had to do was uncork the bottle sort of speak, or, perhaps more accurately, allow the bottle to be uncorked.
Even without the unbiblical and unscientific canopy, the pre-flood atmosphere was likely far different than today.I know, I have the book. I have been referring to it for years. The section on radio carbon dating is excellent and I think some other ideas complete what he says in that part.
The windows of heaven were opened. That's pretty much it for scripture. And I think there are some forensic claims that are consistent with the idea of a canopy. Large organisms would benefit from a different mix of gases and higher pressures. A temperate worldwide climate is another.
Even so, if it turns out there was no canopy there was definitely something very different about the pre flood atmosphere.
If the pressure had remained stable, it would not have breached the crust.It wouldn't need to build up. If the water were contained under a layer of the Earth's surface then it would be under pressure due to the weight of the earth above it. So long as the Earth was stable, so would the pressure be. To start the flood, all God had to do was uncork the bottle sort of speak, or, perhaps more accurately, allow the bottle to be uncorked.
Ps 104 is thought by some to be speaking of the flood:Assumption.
It could have been that way, or it could of been some other way.
We just don't know.
I probably won't get around to reading the book any time soon.
I've watched the video you posted, and also others of Dr. Brown's theory. And it says right up front that it is based on assumption.
So I take it as just one more theory of how things might have happened.
The idea of a canopy is neither unbiblical nor unscientific. Biblically, the canopy could be what the windows of heaven refers to. There is room for different interpretations of that phrase. And scientifically, there should be answers for some of the anomalies we see from the preflood world. A canopy could answer some of those. And beyond that, the feasibility of a canopy, with the small amount of data we have, can not be ruled out.Even without the unbiblical and unscientific canopy, the pre-flood atmosphere was likely far different than today.
It wouldn't need to build up. If the water were contained under a layer of the Earth's surface then it would be under pressure due to the weight of the earth above it. So long as the Earth was stable, so would the pressure be. To start the flood, all God had to do was uncork the bottle sort of speak, or, perhaps more accurately, allow the bottle to be uncorked.
If the pressure had remained stable, it would not have breached the crust.
It would have been an earth capable of the Flood. It would still take divine providence to bring it about, whether through indirect means and permission, or through direct intervention, @Clete 's "cork" popping. This anyway is the theory we're working with, rather than God more miraculously intervening, creating fresh water ex nihilo to bring about the Flood, which isn't out of the question, but we're focused on the fountains of the very deep, and what that might signify.These two replies now brings up the question of whether God created the firmament (the crust) in a manner that it would eventually break under the pressure and flood the earth by natural means.
Calvinists might say He did since they believe He already planned out future events to happen at appointed times.
Did it happen because God created it be flooded by natural means, or did God have to do something extra (beyond natural means) to make it happen?
This can get mind boggling!
Agreed. Water that's underneath say 10 km of rock, at about 3x the density of water, is easily at supercritical pressure, and plus there is still some natural supercritical water today under the seas. Black smokersIt wouldn't need to build up. If the water were contained under a layer of the Earth's surface then it would be under pressure due to the weight of the earth above it. So long as the Earth was stable, so would the pressure be. To start the flood, all God had to do was uncork the bottle sort of speak, or, perhaps more accurately, allow the bottle to be uncorked.
No I don't think so. Pressure is pressure, if you have pressurized gas cylinders they can just sit there indefinitely and all that stable pressure (omnidirectional force, iow a scalar quantity, meaning all outward vectors) will remain in the cylinder, but at any time if you drive a nail into the side of it, all that pressure fairly immediately releases, and if it causes enough structural compromise of the container to puncture it relative to its inner pressure then the whole thing could just fragment out in an explosion. That's what might have happened during the Flood, writ large.If the pressure had remained stable, it would not have breached the crust.