Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep

In message 25 of the thread "Seashells on tops of mountains" CFO states the following; Now He does give examples from scripture that relate the translation of fountains of the deep however there are none I am aware of that speak of a vapour canopy. Now I have 2 questions. One what are the fountains of the deep and by what means do they arrive on the surface?
Number 2 what is a vapour canopy and what is the evidence for it?Any creationists including Ray are quite welcome to offer a solution to these questions if they can.

---

Cold Foreign Object Perhaps you would take the time now to answer the actual question of what evidence you have for and the nature of the vapour canopy? Now comes the fun part. How do the fountains of the deep erupt into the atmosphere from beneath the ocean?

Nemesis Juggernaut They must have a great deal of difficulty with Genesis 2:10,13 and 14 then. Since a river is dependent upon rainfall in order to exist how exactly do the creationists deal with this problem? Especially since these rivers are mentioned as occurring before Noah we are also left wondering at the notion creationists have of there being no rainbow before the flood as well.It seems that there is very little input from the creationist side concerning these statements. Am I too take it then that they have no real arguement that holds water? {pun intended}

---

Nemesis_Juggernaut Well then, why do they not settle the issue and check out those rivers mentioned in Genesis to locate these "fountains of the deep" and thereby have some actual evidence for their position? Well ICR has these pages still available at their website http://www.icr.org/...Aig is disputing a vapour canopy of any significant size though they are touting the fountains of the deep angle now. So, if we are to find that the fountains of the deep are a similarly useless theory, do you think that the creationists will admit that they are wrong? I doubt it since the likelihood is that they will claim it a miracle by dint of the fact that it has been shown that the event cannot have occurred and therefore they were right all along anyway.The beauty of having a God is that you do not really need to explain a damn thing eh?Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.Edited by AdminAsgara, : shortened link fixed page width

---

Are there no creationists on the sidelines that care to play this contact sport over the vapour canopy issue?Perhaps someone from ICR would care to debate this? I would hate to think that someone has a viable hypothesis that can be checked for compatibility with the laws of physics including the symmetry laws yet withholds making their claim known.
Since the law of the conservation of energy also implies that the laws of physics do not change over time then to say that they do one must also explain how the symmetry laws can change to accommodate this.
In doing so please remember that a change in the symmetry laws also changes all other phenomena dependent upon it.Tread carefully.

---

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."Albert Einstein