Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,888 Year: 4,145/9,624 Month: 1,016/974 Week: 343/286 Day: 64/40 Hour: 5/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Vapour canopy and fountains of the deep
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 144 (426311)
10-06-2007 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sidelined
10-03-2007 10:06 PM


The Vapor Canopy theory
what is a vapour canopy and what is the evidence for it?
The Vapor Canopy theory is seldom used in creationist circles these days. In fact, I think AiG posted an official retraction of their support based on mathematical models that explain how ambient temperatures inside such a canopy would have boiled all of life.
Where the VC theory came from was from Genesis, where it talks about the firmament as the "water above the waters." They took this to mean that it might be possible that it used to never rain in the antediluvian world because the vapor canopy, which is supposedly much like the ozone layer, trapped all moisture earth's atmosphere.
Accordingly, God caused the canopy to rupture, along with the fountains of the deep, where it subsequently flooded the earth.
Edited by Nemesis Juggernaut, : No reason given.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sidelined, posted 10-03-2007 10:06 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 10-06-2007 2:55 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 10-06-2007 2:36 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 17 by obvious Child, posted 10-06-2007 5:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 144 (426450)
10-06-2007 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by sidelined
10-06-2007 2:36 PM


Re: The Vapor Canopy theory
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?
They believed that the fountains of the deep, such as huge, cavernous springs, fed the tributaries.
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}
Probably because no one ascribes to it within our resident creationists. You have to remember that the VC theory has been antiquated now for a number of years. Anyone who subscribes with AiG or ICR probably dropped the theory at their behest.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by sidelined, posted 10-06-2007 2:36 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by DrJones*, posted 10-06-2007 8:00 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 20 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-07-2007 12:56 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 21 by Damouse, posted 10-08-2007 6:17 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 36 by sidelined, posted 10-12-2007 5:22 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 144 (426800)
10-08-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by obvious Child
10-06-2007 5:33 PM


Re: The Vapor Canopy theory
Thank you, I always love creationists just admitting Goddidit.
A magic being, leaving no evidence, overcame a senario which kill most life and left no evidence of its act.
Oblivious Child,
I'm simply telling you what some creationists have believed. There's no need to reprimand me, thanks.

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by obvious Child, posted 10-06-2007 5:33 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by obvious Child, posted 10-08-2007 10:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 144 (426860)
10-08-2007 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by obvious Child
10-08-2007 10:00 PM


Re: The Vapor Canopy theory
I'm not the one oblivious to the fact that heat has a way of killing life.
I've been very candid in explaining all of the problems with the theory. Cripes, I'm the one who posted information on how the heat would have been so intense so as to not allow for life in the first place. For some odd reason, you took this to mean the exact opposite and decided to be a total jackass to me. I'm left wondering what exactly it was that caused your outburst.
That has been a issue in several threads for the past 4 days and not a single creationist has dealt with it.
Probably because they don't ascribe to it.... Why would they chime in to defend it if they didn't agree with it?
If I started a thread on recapitulation, would I expect any evolutionist on the forum to try and defend it? No, I wouldn't. Why would I expect it?

"It is better to shun the bait, than struggle in the snare." -Ravi Zacharias

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by obvious Child, posted 10-08-2007 10:00 PM obvious Child has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by obvious Child, posted 10-08-2007 10:49 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024