quote:
Even if there were "visible evidence" of the flood, you have not established that the flood requires a vapor canopy. Therefore, even if Noah's flood were an established reality, it provides no evidence for a vapor canopy.
The "windows of heaven" being opened suggests it as well as the amount of water needed to cover even a relatively smooth earth. I Just dont think it all came from underground. The text plainly says it came from both.
Yes, and I described other Creationists as believing precisely this later on. But I asked how the great flood (for which, by the way, you have no evidence) provides any imperative for a vapor canopy (for which you also have no evidence. You responded with a Biblical passage, but the question was about evidence. Do you have any evidence for either? In other words, do you have any scientific basis for your opinion?
1. The sun and moon, at least likely could've been seen dimly.
Could you explain how you arrived at this conclusion? After all, the vapor canopy would have had to contain enough water to submerge even the highest mountains. This is more than a million times the water currently in our atmosphere, and the modern clouds have no problem completely blocking the sun. If you could somehow suspend all the water vapor for the vapor canopy in the atmosphere without violating the laws of physics and without steam cooking everything on the planet, no clear image of anything would be able to penetrate through the miles of steam.
2. No mention in Genesis for the purpose of navigation and the seasons, days and years would be determined by the dim sun and moon.
So it's your opinion that pre-flood man only did things specifically mentioned in pre-flood Genesis? That he therefore didn't excrete and didn't use fire? He didn't whistle, sing or compose poetry? He shepherded sheep but didn't eat them or make clothes from their fur, he just kept them around so he could make fat offerings to the Lord?
Lack of mention of an activity in pre-flood Genesis is obviously scant justification for concluding the activity never took place. Plus there's the evidence of man's observation of stars well over 10,000 years ago and therefore well before your postulated flood.
Apples and oranges. They would get enough filtered sunlight to grow, imo, and with a perfect year round climate.
You're not a gardener, I guess. First, many plants require direct sunlight. Deprive them of it and they die. And second, the amount of vapor required in your canopy, in essence miles and miles of steam, renders the earth completely without light, and completely uninhabitable anyway.
quote:
buzsaw writes:
5. The tropical animals found frozen in the Arctic ices indicate the poles were likely warm before the flood. The canopy seems to be the best explanation of this.
Since there's no land under the Arctic ice, did you perhaps mean Antarctica? Perhaps you could elaborate on this. My understanding is that the tropical climate of Antarctica occurred maybe 250 million years ago, which puts it somewhat outside the era of the great flood.
As with the Black Sea, much of what's under water would've been land surface before the flood. Likely much smaller and more shallow oceans then.
How is this an answer? You said that part of your evidence for a vapor canopy was "the tropical animals found frozen in the Arctic ices." Where is this evidence?
--Percy
™ Version 4.2