[_ Old Earth _] "...a canopy of water in the air, before the flood..."

[Vic C.]

That and the the floodgates of the deep. But see if you can point out any verses about stars before the flood.

They are stated to give light upon the earth when God first created them (Gen. i.17). That didn't happen until after the 'water canopy' fell?

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Stars are mentioned in context of God creating them and them being there for signs, seasons, days and years. The thing is, Genesis was written post-flood. Any thoughts of whether or not the stars were visible pre-flood is speculation. Scripture isn't clear on this.

 

[wavy]

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

One verse later:

17.God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, (NASB)

Stars are mentioned in context of God creating them and them being there for signs, seasons, days and years. The thing is, Genesis was written post-flood. Any thoughts of whether or not the stars were visible pre-flood is speculation. Scripture isn't clear on this.

The author is narrating what he believes to be a historical event. The events recorded to take place in v.16-17 are supposed to have happened exactly when the author says they do.

Regardless, the bible is very clear, in spite of your assertion. There was a primeval ocean (v.2). God interpolated a firmament (v.6) in the ocean. Above the firmament is water and below it is water. God then made the sun, moon, and stars (vv.14,16) and placed them in the firmament (vv.14,17), clearly demonstrating that the sun, moon, and stars are beneath the upper waters (since the firmament is beneath the upper waters). Therefore they are visible.

 

[Vic C.]

Whoa wavy! You just took the topic, held it upside down and shook all the change out of it's pockets. :-D

I don't quite get your point. No one has argued the stars were created post flood, only the possibility that they weren't visible pre flood. NOW you are suggesting that the moon, some 250,000 miles away, the sun, which is 91-93 million miles from earth and the stars, light years from earth, were all BELOW this canopy?

You need to brush up on same basic physics. 8-) Honestly, I can't grasp how, in one topic a while back, you beat up on literalists like Heidi and AloneVoice, who believed Genesis word for word; now you are doing the same just to support your view.

You can have your cake, but don't be surprised if someone pushes the slice in your face. :-D

 

[wavy]

I don't quite get your point. No one has argued the stars were created post flood, only the possibility that they weren't visible pre flood.

Taking the author of this priestly portion of Genesis for what he says, it is clear that the stars were visible pre-flood.

NOW you are suggesting that the moon, some 250,000 miles away, the sun, which is 91-93 million miles from earth and the stars, light years from earth, were all BELOW this canopy?

No, of course I do not believe there ever was any 'upper waters' or 'water canopy'. The ancient Hebrews, on the hand, certainly did since they were ignorant of the facts you have here given.

You need to brush up on same basic physics. 8-) Honestly, I can't grasp how, in one topic a while back, you beat up on literalists like Heidi and AloneVoice, who believed Genesis word for word; now you are doing the same just to support your view.

Obviously you have mistaken my position for making absurd scientific claims in light of Genesis. The biblical cosmology as it is written in Genesis contradicts science and therefore is false, which is my point. Therefore speculations about whether stars were visible or what happened to the 'water canopy' are fruitless endeavors because they are based upon beliefs that the Genesis cosmology is valid...and it isn't. It's an etiology of how the universe came to be and the origin of the Sabbath based upon the primitive assumptions of the Hebrews and their surrounding cultures about the universe

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[2Pillars]

The outward expansion of our Universe is some 15 Billion light years from it's beginning. The 1st Universe, which was destroyed by water, is beyond our Cosmos, which would make it more than 15 Billion light years away.

Today's feeble scientists know of No matter which exists beyond the 15 Billion light years they can "see", today. Their Biblical ignorance is surpassed only by their hypocritical nature.

 

[jwu]

Their Biblical ignorance is surpassed only by their hypocritical nature.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

If such a canopy did exist, life would not be able to exist on earth (far too hot), and the pressure would multiple by 64 times. Yes, 64. I believe Hovind says it's 2, but we all know how credible he is.

HINT: Not very.

Two problems with this issue. The first is you are parroting back information that you have not given any evidence to support it with. Someone could have just made that up just to try and discredit the theory. Another problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the encompassing body was a certain distance from the Earth. If you put it at the right distance then you could get it to two times the pressure and it no longer becomes an issue.

 

[jwu]

Two problems with this issue. The first is you are parroting back information that you have not given any evidence to support it with. Someone could have just made that up just to try and discredit the theory.

Let's do the math right here then.

What do you propose was the mass of the canopy? If it were liquid water on the ground, to what depth would it cover an area as large as the surface of the earth?

Another problem with this statement is that you are assuming that the encompassing body was a certain distance from the Earth. If you put it at the right distance then you could get it to two times the pressure and it no longer becomes an issue.

What would keep it up there? Pressure, be it 2 times or 64 times the current one, implies that it's within the grip of gravity.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

Let's do the math right here then.

What do you propose was the mass of the canopy? If it were liquid water on the ground, to what depth would it cover an area as large as the surface of the earth?

Well, the problem is that it isn't stated exactly how thick it was or whether it was water or ice. It's a theory. That being said there is absolutely no way you could calculate the pressure to being 64 times if you don't know the distance it was from the earth, the material (ice or water), or the density of the layer.

What would keep it up there? Pressure, be it 2 times or 64 times the current one, implies that it's within the grip of gravity.

Actually, that's a false assumption on your part. If you traveled to the magnetic north pole and looked straight up with a telescope you would see ice floating in the air. It just hangs there and won't come down. It breaks off from space shuttle during reentry and gets caught in the earth's magnetic field. All scientists will tell you that the Earth's magnetic field is weaking, which means in the past it was stronger.

It has been calculated that if you go back six thousand years (how ironic) that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field would have been at it's peak. This is calculated by scientists who don't believe in creation! The theory states that at that time the field would have been strong enough to hold the layer just like we can levitate bullet trains in Japan, same premise. And when the field weakened to the point where it could no longer hold it, it collapsed. Most likely four thousand years ago.

 

[wavy]

^^ You see, vic, how useless such speculation about a 'water/ice canopy' becomes when one fails to realize that their pinning their speculations about this 'water/ice canopy' on a false and non-existent cosmology. A complete waste of time.

Kind regards,
Eric.

 

[Dunzo]

Well, the problem is that it isn't stated exactly how thick it was or whether it was water or ice. It's a theory.

No it isn't. A theory requires evidence.

It has been calculated that if you go back six thousand years (how ironic) that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field would have been at it's peak. This is calculated by scientists who don't believe in creation!

Wow! They calculated that, and still don't believe in creationism?

What does that tell you?

 

[jwu]

Well, the problem is that it isn't stated exactly how thick it was or whether it was water or ice. It's a theory.

As Dunzo mentioned, "theories" in the scientific meaning of the word make very specific claims. What you describe there wouldn't even qualify as a hypothesis (something waaaaay less than a theory) in scientific terms, as it's unfalsifiable.

Can you at least give a rough idea about what it might have been? Where did Hovind get his figure of two?

That being said there is absolutely no way you could calculate the pressure to being 64 times if you don't know the distance it was from the earth, the material (ice or water), or the density of the layer.

Then it's up to the creationist side to figure out these things. Else they have nothing.

Actually, that's a false assumption on your part. If you traveled to the magnetic north pole and looked straight up with a telescope you would see ice floating in the air. It just hangs there and won't come down. It breaks off from space shuttle during reentry and gets caught in the earth's magnetic field.

Interesting, i didn't know that there is ice floating on top of the north pole. Do you have a reference for that?

And besides, even if that were the case, the canopy is supposed to have surrounded the entire earth, not just floated above the north pole.

All scientists will tell you that the Earth's magnetic field is weaking, which means in the past it was stronger.

It has been calculated that if you go back six thousand years (how ironic) that the strength of the Earth's magnetic field would have been at it's peak. This is calculated by scientists who don't believe in creation! The theory states that at that time the field would have been strong enough to hold the layer just like we can levitate bullet trains in Japan, same premise. And when the field weakened to the point where it could no longer hold it, it collapsed. Most likely four thousand years ago.

As far as i know the current theory is that the strength of the magnetic field fluctuates, and that its polarity reverses. This is evidenced e.g. by the magnetic orientation on the sea floor.
However, before i get into detail i would like to see a reference for your claim; specifically the premises and what data they are based on, and who made the calculations about levitating stuff.

 

[Barbarian]

In fact, if there were enough water to cover the highest mountains, all sunlight would have been blocked out. Even a mile of water will do that sufficiently to make it darker than night.

There is no way to put a solid layer of ice in orbit above the Earth. That would simply collapse.

Unless you prop it up with all sorts of unscriptural miracles. But then, anything is possible if you do that.

 

[jwu]

I want to remind YehwehPaladin of my request for sources for his claims, most importantly the ice floating above the north pole one.

 

[YehwehPaladin]

Wow! They calculated that, and still don't believe in creationism?

What does that tell you?

That they'll ignore facts as long as it supports their theories.

As to the request for evidence of what I said. I am going to do something most of you "nay-sayers" refuse to do. I will apologize for bringing that issue to light without proper supporting evidence. I do remember learning about it in science class but I wasn't able to find anything on it at this time. My apologies.

 

[jwu]

That they'll ignore facts as long as it supports their theories.

Or the evidence does not actually point another way. Why would a Christian geologist not embrace evidence for creationism?

However, in regards to the strength of the earth's magnetic field, this graph shows its development in the past few thousand years:

The dots are measurements of samples of the respective age. I don't see anything that points to a young earth on that graph.

 

[Orion]

jwu, perhaps it would be a good idea if you would post how they know that the magentic field HAS fluctuated as they have stated. How did they conclude it's strength thousands of years ago?

Thanks!

 

[jwu]

This can be derived from the intensity of the magnetic field of cooled down lava; it maintains the orientation of the magnetic field as it existed when it cooled down; the strength of the field can be determined from the strength of the field in the rocks; with their age being accounted for.

A nice example are oceanic ridges. The changes of polarity of the magnetic field is recorded on the sea floor.
Take a look here: http://www.serg.unicam.it/images/Fig10.gif
Each line represents one change of polarity along a seafloor ridge.