The biggest evidence of the Flood? The world ocean.

[Right Divider]

Isn't it like 7-10 km thick though?

What is "it"?

If you're referring to the granite crust, Dr. Brown's latest estimate is that the original crust was about 60 miles thick.
The mantle below the crust is approximately 1800 miles thick.

 

[Right Divider]

That's true, but that's more of a 'bulk density' reasoning, and what I'm reading is that the continental crust is not just 'bunched up' rock that has a lower bulk density as a result of the 'bunching up', but that it is inherently less dense.

Yes, granite is inherently less dense than basalt.

It's constituted differently from oceanic crust, microscopically, the internal crystal structures make it more or less dense, and all the continental crust is less dense and all the oceanic crust is more dense.

There really is no "oceanic crust". The ocean floor is the exposed mantle on the Atlantic side. The Pacific side is a little strange because some of the liquid core spilled out onto it when the Pacific crust was pulled down by the Atlantic rising up.

 

[Derf]

That's true, but that's more of a 'bulk density' reasoning, and what I'm reading is that the continental crust is not just 'bunched up' rock that has a lower bulk density as a result of the 'bunching up', but that it is inherently less dense. It's constituted differently from oceanic crust, microscopically, the internal crystal structures make it more or less dense, and all the continental crust is less dense and all the oceanic crust is more dense.

Yep. I'm purely talking about the scrunched material analogy.

 

[Derf]

I conceded your point about the word used being singular or plural. Then I pointed out that it is a distinction without a difference, and pointed out that it doesn't change the fact that regardless of number, one firmament is called "heavens," the other firmament is "of the heavens."



Except that it's not "further described with both words."

The first five are simply "firmament."
The second four are "firmament of the heavens." There are no more uses of just "firmament" after the fifth use.

Moses was making a clear distinction between the two.



Correct.

And from the beginning of Day 2, to partway through Day 3, God was creating the firmament and establishing where it belonged. Then He called it good, and started working on something else, grasses, herbs, and fruit trees. Moses didn't even mention a firmament again until Day 4, when God started working on the sun, moon, and stars, and placed them in "the firmament of the heavens."

In other words, there's not just a usage distinction between "firmament" and "firmament of the heavens," but the grammatical presentation of what happened during the creation week clearly delineates between what God created and worked on, and when He finished working on it.

Day 1, God creates the heavens and the earth, and light, and hovers over the face of the waters, with darkness over the face of the deep, both of which are on the earth. And God saw that it was good.
Day 2, God creates a firmament to divide the waters above from the waters below, and calls the firmament heaven.
Day 3, God causes the waters above the firmament to form "Seas, and calls the dry firmament "Earth. And God saw that it was good. He then creates grasses, herbs, and fruit trees. And God saw that it was good.
Day 4, God creates stars, sets them for signs (Consider watching this: ) and for seasons, and days and years, then He created the Sun and the Moon, and set the Sun for day and the Moon for night. And God saw that it was good.
Day 5, God creates aquatic creatures and birds that fly. And God saw that it was good.
Day 6, God created the creatures that dwell on land. And God saw that it was good. And finally, He created man and gave him dominion over the creatures of the earth. And God saw that it was very good.
Day 7, God rested (ceased from making).

The phrase, "And God saw it was good" (and even the phrase "And God saw that it was very good") tells us that God finished what he was making, and that He moved onto something else.

This CRUCIAL detail, which you can only get by getting the big picture of the creation week, is the key in determining what the firmament of Day 2 is.

Again, I point out, that God did not finish what He had started on day 2, until partway through day 3. And then, as indicated by Moses' writing of "And God saw that it was good," He was finished with what he started on day three, and began on working on something else, and it wasn't until day 4 when He started working on what Moses called "the firmament of the heavens."

So if God started working on the firmament on day 2 and finished working on it on day 3, and then called it good, the question you and anyone else who says that the firmament of day 2 and day 4 are the same thing have to answer is this:

Why did God start working on something He already saw was good?



What structure? You and I both know (and correct me if I'm wrong) that stars do move and are, like the earth, "hung on nothing" far from the earth and from each other.

Which brings me to my second point, that the first "firmament" is literal, while the second "firmament of the heavens" is a figurative usage of "firmament" describing, as you call it, "the surface of the heavens," and cannot therefore be the same thing due to that.

It's called the "firmament of the heavens" because, from our perspective here on earth, it's as if the stars are set firmly like jewels into an inky black surface. And certainly, they don't appear to move much to the casual observer, which adds to that illusion of lack of movement, that "firmness." (And no, 1M1S, I'm not calling the sky an illusion.)

However, what is described on day 2, while certainly a "firm" object, is not what is described on day 4, but rather the firm ground beneath our feet, that "firmness" being used figuratively to describe the "setting" (like something is set in stone) of the stars in the sky.



Again, it raises the question, if it's the same firmament, "why did God start working on something He already saw was good?"

Grammatically, they're different, one is called Heaven, the other is "of the heavens."
Literal-ly, they're different, as in, the story places them in different sections of the creation week. God finished the first one (called Heaven) at least a few hours more than an evening and morning before He started working on the second.



Which is mostly irrelevant to this discussion, as far as I can tell.



Did you read the stuff on the page I linked to?

Yes, some of it is made as an argument against the vapor and ice canopy theories. But it's also FOR the HPT:

Waters (mayim). This word means a liquid water, not a vapor or solid.15 Had the water in Genesis 1: 6-8 been a vapor, cloud, mist, or ice, other Hebrew words would have been more appropriate. For example, ancient Hebrew had six words for “cloud.” II Peter 3:5–6 also implies that this is liquid water. Peter used the same Greek word ( u#dwr) to describe both the liquid water that flooded the Earth and the water out of which the Earth formed, an obvious reference to Genesis 1: 6-7. Liquid water was both above and below the expanse, which contradicts the vapor or ice canopy ideas but is consistent with the “expanse = crust” interpretation. Separate (badal). This word implies a sharp division. Furthermore, the generally untranslated preposition “ben,” associated with “badal,” means “between.” It suggests an ordering (water, expanse, water) with no overlapping or gaps. Interfaces are also implied on each side of the expanse.16 These meanings oppose a vapor, liquid, or ice particle canopy lying above the atmosphere, because atmospheric gases would mix with the canopy. In the Midst of (tavek). This word means between, within, among, inside, etc. Sometimes it means “to bisect” or “in the center of.” The respected Jewish scholar, Cassuto, in commenting on Genesis 1: 6–7, stated, “It is true that in the Pentateuch, too, reference is made to the division of the primeval world-ocean into two halves, situated one above the other, ...” 17 [See also Genesis 15:10.] Rabbi Solomon Yitzchaki, in his famous eleventh century Rashi Commentary, stated that the expanse was “in the exact center of the waters.”18 As we have seen, canopy theories place less than one-half of 1% of the Earth’s water above the expanse and the rest below. (This is necessary to reduce the problems associated with heat, light, and pressure mentioned earlier.) Would it not seem strange to say that your scalp is “in the midst of” your body? According to the hydroplate theory, the crust of the preflood Earth approximately bisects Earth’s liquid waters. Heaven (shamayim). “Heaven” had a variety of meanings in ancient Hebrew, as it does in modern languages. Moses used shamayim to describe outer space (Genesis 26:4), the atmosphere (Genesis 27:28), where God dwells (Deuteronomy 26:15), where angels dwell (Genesis 28:12), and the source of blessings (Genesis 49:25). The context in which shamayim is used is important to understanding its specific meaning. Expanse or Firmament (raqia). The key Hebrew word in Genesis 1: 6–8a is raqia ((ayqirf). It is translated “firmament” in the King James Version and “expanse” in most Hebrew dictionaries and modern translations. While its original meaning is uncertain, its root, raqa ((qarf), means to spread out, beat out, or hammer as one would a malleable metal. It can also mean “plate.” This may explain why the Greek Septuagint translated raqia 16 out of 17 times with the Greek word stereoma (stere&wma), which means “a firm or solid structure.” The Latin Vulgate (A.D. 382) used the Latin term “firmamentum,” which also denotes solidness and firmness. So, the King James translators in A.D. 1611 coined the word “firmament.” Today, “firmament” is usually used poetically to mean sky, atmosphere, or heavens. In modern Hebrew, raqia means sky or heavens. However, originally it probably meant something solid or firm that was spread out. Indeed, Isaiah 42:5 says the earth was “spread out.”

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Key Hebrew Words

The above highlighted sections are directly relevant to this conversation.

I'm on my phone typing this, so I'm not going to be able to hit every point. I haven't read through every part of the HPT, but if it requires such a re-writing of scripture, it can't be a good model. You say the wording calling earth "heaven" is used in Gen 1, but if so, it is never used that way again, even before the fall...and even before the flood changed things. I'm not as committed to HPT as you, but I don't have any animosity toward it--it seems to have some useful things to add to the conversation. However, if you have to squint too hard in order to be able to get the right words out of the biblical text, we shouldn't put all of our eggs in that basket. That's why the comparison to flat earthers is apropos--they twist the scriptures to support their view, and they go cultish with it.

IMO, HPT doesn't need the weird reading of "firmament=
heaven=earth/=firmament of heaven". You can have water below the earth still, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly say there's water there, as long as it doesn't explicitly say it's not there.

On the structure topic, you're again starting to sound like 1m1s when you say there's no structure in space. Of course there's structure, based on gravity and motion. That's why we call ours the "solar SYSTEM", which is in the Milky Way GALAXY. That's how God can hang the earth on "nothing".

 

[Stripe]

I meant more dense--thanks for asking for clarification. Remember we're talking about the amount of material covering a particular area of the mantel. If a carpet is a laid flat, it's about 3/4 inches in thickness, and it covers some amount of subfloor, let's say 10 square feet. If you crinkle it up, it's the same amount of material (10 sf x 3/4 in), squished into a smaller area of subfloor (let's say into 5 sf). The density is defined as the mass per unit area (area in the denominator), and it rises as the denominator decreases.

I should quit with the analogies. They suck.

 

[Stripe]

Assuming all the continental crust is basically uniform top-to-bottom (from the mountains all the way down to the mantle, iow assuming the continental crust isn't 'on top of' oceanic crust, like in 'layers'), and because it is on average about 1 km above sea level, it is much thicker than the oceanic crust. The average depth of the oceans is about 4 km, so the continental crust is at least 4 km thicker than oceanic crust. If oceanic crust is 7-10 km thick, continental crust is 11-14 km thick. That's like 50% thicker!

We should make a deal about what we are allowed to mean when we say "crust."

Are we going to use it the way an evolutionist would, a Hydroplate theorist or develop a generic understanding?

 

[Tambora]

You'll understand the more you hear from 1m1s.

But I agree a warning would be more appropriate for now.

I've heard his viewpoint for years.
I just don't have a problem with him voicing his opinion about the earth.
Let him talk if he wants to; nobody has to engage him.

 

[Stripe]

Anyway this kind of alternative theory comes from 'playing devil's advocate'. And it really makes people think, whether or not they're already Christians, it basically 'makes it real' for them, to really 'get into the headspace' of what we're all really talking about really happening.

I find it extremely difficult to engage with that process. Not that I think it's an inherently bad method, but because it fails the test of "what would it imply were it true?"

I find devil's advocate arguments are only useful in refining an argument that I actually believe and that I can achieve the same goal in other ways. Moreover, it takes too much effort to develop an internally coherent alternative to make the effort worthwhile.

However, if someone else has already written the alternative story, that effort is eradicated.

As far as this thread's concerned, either the Flood really happened or it didn't. So if it did happen (if we are to take the Bible literally, like how we all take the Bible literally when it reports that Jesus is risen) then how? We already have the 'majority report' that it never happened and that party's own 'alternative theory' to the global Flood, which is akin to my Resurrection alternative theory 'suicide pact' set out above.

The details of how Christ was raised escape us, we only know that He was eventually recognized, and that His body was now 'glorified' and 'spiritual', which doesn't mean His scars were absent----they are still there in His glorified and spiritual body.

Basically we only have an earth that hopefully still retains its own 'scars' from the Flood. If we can identify them positively as 'scars', then I think we'll have achieved what I'm hoping we can do here.

Yes! The "scars" investigation is a brilliant insight. Go to Google Maps, turn on satellite view and zoom out. Look at the scars that run through the middle of the oceans and follow their path around the planet.

That is the most compelling evidence that whatever happened was global and a "single event."

I'm level zero geology. Alluding to Kung Fu Panda, when Shifu tells Po, "There is now a 'level zero'". That's me in geology.

"You will never be the dragon warrior."

So what you're saying here with "zero-width cracks" sounds like 'faults' and has to do with 'tectonic plates'?

Yeah. And it's utterly wrong.

More later.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I haven't read through every part of the HPT, but if it requires such a re-writing of scripture, it can't be a good model.

No one is rewriting scripture.

I was paraphrasing to emphasize certain aspects of what was said relevant to my points.

You say the wording calling earth "heaven" is used in Gen 1, but if so, it is never used that way again, even before the fall...

I'm afraid I don't follow your argument here...

The point is that the first "firmament" is called "Heaven" (for clarification purposes, I'm sticking to calling it "Heaven," even if it's just to make things more clear), and was in the midst of the waters above and below it, and God caused the waters below the heavens (and above the firmament) to gather into seas, and the dry land of the now uncovered "firmament called Heaven" He called "Earth," and God saw that it was good, because He was done with it, and that the second "firmament of the heavens" was where God placed the Sun, Moon, and stars.

The first firmament was on earth, the second in the sky. That alone should be enough to convince you that they are two different things.

and even before the flood changed things. I'm not as committed to HPT as you, but I don't have any animosity toward it--it seems to have some useful things to add to the conversation. However, if you have to squint too hard in order to be able to get the right words out of the biblical text, we shouldn't put all of our eggs in that basket. That's why the comparison to flat earthers is apropos--they twist the scriptures to support their view, and they go cultish with it.

IMO, HPT doesn't need the weird reading of "firmament=
heaven=earth/=firmament of heaven". You can have water below the earth still, even if the Bible doesn't explicitly say there's water there, as long as it doesn't explicitly say it's not there.

The Bible DOES say that there was and is water below the firmament (the crust), and rather explicitly, too. It IS necessary to recognize what Scripture says, and to not ignore it in favor of a belief.

On the structure topic, you're again starting to sound like 1m1s when you say there's no structure in space. Of course there's structure, based on gravity and motion. That's why we call ours the "solar SYSTEM", which is in the Milky Way GALAXY. That's how God can hang the earth on "nothing".

My point was that it was not a glass (or what have you) dome that God put the stars into, like the FE-ers believe.

 

[marke]

We should make a deal about what we are allowed to mean when we say "crust."

Are we going to use it the way an evolutionist would, a Hydroplate theorist or develop a generic understanding?

The earth's crust, according to God-rejecting science theorists:

That barrier below the sea floor that was breached by the basement rocks of the Grand Canyon while it was forming the Kaibab.

 

[Right Divider]

The earth's crust, according to God-rejecting science theorists:

That barrier below the sea floor that was breached by the basement rocks of the Grand Canyon while it was forming the Kaibab.

Where did you get that bizarre "definition"?

 

[marke]

Where did you get that bizarre "definition"?

I mock secularists who promote the false idea that the rock formations of the Grand Canyon were formed under the sea and then uplifted more than 7,000 feet to where the Kaibab is today. If the top of the 8,000' high rock formation was once under seawater at sea level, then the basement rocks of the Grand Canyon must have been 8,000' below the earth's crust that supported the rock formation.

How was the Grand Canyon Formed – Grand Canyon Geology

Learn the basics of how the Grand Canyon was formed. The Grand Canyon is a great classroom to study geology and how the canyon was made.

grandcanyonguru.com

At 250 million years old the Kaibab limestone is the youngest geologic layer found in the Grand Canyon. Although it is now 7,000 feet above sea level this layer was formed due to deposition from an ocean full of fish, brachiopods, and other marine life. It was the geologic uplift of the Colorado Plateau that moved this layer to its current elevation. The oldest geologic layer in the Grand Canyon is the Vishnu Complex, comprised primarily of Vishnu Schist, ancient formations metamorphosed into the black schist we see today, which is some of the oldest exposed rocks on earth.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I mock secularists who promote the false idea that the rock formations of the Grand Canyon were formed under the sea and then uplifted more than 7,000 feet to where the Kaibab is today. If the top of the 8,000' high rock formation was once under seawater at sea level, then the basement rocks of the Grand Canyon must have been 8,000' below the earth's crust that supported the rock formation.

How was the Grand Canyon Formed – Grand Canyon Geology

Learn the basics of how the Grand Canyon was formed. The Grand Canyon is a great classroom to study geology and how the canyon was made.

grandcanyonguru.com

At 250 million years old the Kaibab limestone is the youngest geologic layer found in the Grand Canyon. Although it is now 7,000 feet above sea level this layer was formed due to deposition from an ocean full of fish, brachiopods, and other marine life. It was the geologic uplift of the Colorado Plateau that moved this layer to its current elevation. The oldest geologic layer in the Grand Canyon is the Vishnu Complex, comprised primarily of Vishnu Schist, ancient formations metamorphosed into the black schist we see today, which is some of the oldest exposed rocks on earth.

I think you need to just watch this:

 

[marke]

I think you need to just watch this:

Excellent video. The facts presented in the video can hardly be denied or disproven, especially by simple-minded secular theorists who are stuck on incorrect uniformitarian theories of superposition deposition for sedimentary rock formations. If the Tapeats Sandstone, for example, was formed below sea level millions of years before the other sedimentary formations above it then hydroplate lift cannot explain how the Kaibab was formed, also below sea level, yet thousands of feet above the Tapeats.

Secularist theory of superposition deposition assumes the Tapeats (not the lowest rock formation but just a starting point for our discussion here) first formed, then sank so the Bright Angel Shale layer could be formed, then sank again so the next layer could be formed, and so forth, until the bottom of the sedimentary rock formation had sunk thousands of feet, pressing the original basement rock supporting the Tapeats thousands of feet into or below the earth's crust.

 

[Stripe]

Evolutionists don't have a working theory on how rocks form.

 

[Right Divider]

Evolutionists don't have a working theory on how rocks form.

Particularly... granite.

 

[marke]

Evolutionists don't have a working theory on how rocks form.

Evolutionists also have no scientifically valid theory on how the universe and life on earth were formed because they have cast out God as a point of secular faith underlying secular science.

 

[Derf]

Evolutionists don't have a working theory on how rocks form.

Particularly... granite.

It's too hard for them.

 

[Gary K]

It's too hard for them.

Do you think you will ever be able to disentangle your tongue and your cheek after that comment?

 

[Stripe]

It's too hard for them.

That's not gniess.