• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Rain drops

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Interesting.

Let me see if I get this straight.

The reason religion was not taught in the schools was to prevent a dominant belief from preventing alternate theories from being taught.
No. You can teach religion till the cows come home. What you can't do is teach it as science, because, well, it's not.

Now you have a dominant belief but it is wrong to give alternate ideas.
If they're unscientific, yes. You wouldn't want to replace modern physical theories of gravity with "Intelligent Falling" (the idea that there's no gravity, no force between masses; rather, God literally and divinely pulls people down to the Earth) because it's utter nonsense. Why, then, would you want Creationism taught alongside, or even in place of, evolution?

Oh, you think Intelligent Falling is something I made up? There really are elements in the Religious Right that truly believe that God holds subatomic particles together - that it's not well-established natural phenomena, but God, all the way down.

You also think people who want alternate ideas to be presented want more GYM classes and look like the mean evil school board guy.
What?

If you are sure your ideas are the only correct interpretation of the evidence then why act like you are afraid of some competition?
In a rational debate, all competing ideas are welcome. In a school, they're not. See below.

Let both be taught so the students can make up their own minds.
Let's go through all the reasons why this is a very bad approach to education.

First, kids are kids, they're not life-long experts in the field. They don't have the luxury of decades of study, or millions of man-hours of experimentation and careful observation. Schools are there to disseminate the best information we as a species have accrued. The vast majority of kids simply aren't equipped to process the raw information - simply teaching the how to read it would use up valuable time. Thus, we give them the finished result.

Second, let 'both' be taught implies that all alternatives should be taught. OK.

Instead of astronomy, let's teach astrology.
Instead of chemistry, let's teach alchemy.
Instead of physics, let's teach witchcraft.
Instead of psychology, let's teach phrenology.
Instead of social studies, let's teach the values of Sharia law.
Instead of history, let's teach Holocaust denialism.
Instead of medicine, let's teach homoeopathy and humoralism.
Instead of... you get the idea.

Obviously that isn't what you meant. You don't want alternatives taught, you want your alternatives taught. If state-funded schools started teaching Islam as fact, you'd be up in arms alongside us. If state-funded schools started teaching Christianity as fact, I daresay you'd be more quiet.

So, tell me. If you want to teach the alternatives and let kids decide, would you be happy if Holocaust denalism, or witchcraft, or Sharia law, were taught as factual?
 
Upvote 0

duordi

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,107
11
✟1,320.00
Faith
Non-Denom
For all- Please feel free to page down to your name for the response to your individual post.
I wanted to get you all back to the main thread so I can find your response.

For RickG
It might be helpful to quote the posts to which you are responding. That would help a lot with context.
Good thought, I will attempt to do so after I get us back on the main thread where I can find it.
Nevertheless, I think it is fine to have a course in religion taught in the classroom. Please understand that I am specifically referring to religion and not the distorted science that is presented in creationist literature. Creationist literature is not another perspective, it is deceitful and deliberate misrepresentation of legitimate scientific literature. The fact is, there is no absolutely original research presented in any of the creationist science literature. But then again, their audience is not the scientific community nor intended for any scientific advancement.
So you would be fine with Mary Schweitzer discovery of blood residue being found in a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone as an indication that life on Earth is not millions and millions of years old?

Would you would also be good with the evidence that carbon 14 has been found in diamonds and the strata they are in indicating they are less than 80,000 years old?

For Mzungu
In order for alternative theories to be taught in science class they have to be "scientific theories" and not religious beliefs. How would you feel if science insisted that ToE be taught in Church alongside the Bible? Why are you so afraid of science that you dismiss it outright? Is your faith so weak?
I am fine with only allowing scientific based theories if creationists are not exclude from having alternate base assumptions.

You are trying to use science to prove the supernatural and the only way you can do that is to use cartoon physics. When science is taught in schools and or universities it is done by using the rules of science and the rules exclude the unfalsifiable.
Actually the supernatural can be defined to exist using logic
but it may not turn out to be what you expected.
Would you like a demonstration?

For Wiccan-Child
I did not copy your post here because I must assume you were talking about a preconceived notion of creationists as a whole and not me myself.

Did I say I wanted to replace science with religion?
Open science is what I am asking for.
I just want the freedom to start with alternate base assumptions.

Duordi
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Did I say I wanted to replace science with religion?
No - I was pre-empting what most Creationists ask for, which is Creationism to be taught as science.

Open science is what I am asking for.
Which could mean anything at all, hence my examples with astrology and phrenology. What, specifically, would you like to be taught?

I just want the freedom to start with alternate base assumptions.
Like, "atoms are made of marshmallow"? You need to be more specific (unless you really would be happy with 'marshmallow atoms' being taught as scientific truth ;)).
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Would you would also be good with the evidence that carbon 14 has been found in diamonds and the strata they are in indicating they are less than 80,000 years old?

I have no problem at all with a minute amount of C14 being found in diamonds, knowing how diamonds are formed and where the C14 contamination comes about. I'll be glad to fill you in, just ask.

Diamonds come from kimberlites and lamproites formed in the earths mantel under high pressure and temperature. It would not be uncommon to be found in such strata of that age. Nevertheless, most diamonds are much much older as their contaminants (inclusions) can be dated.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[*]Floods leave very specific and recognizable physical evidence. If a global flood occurred we would expect to see a layer of flood debris and deposits in the same place in the geologic column of the same age world-wide.


Evidence suggests that this was not a natural flood. Actually the Bible is clear this was not a natural event.
When your premise is wrong, the conclusions follow suit.
Water has unusual properties in scripture. Very, very unusual properties.
Check the source. Write down what water can do from this list below. THEN consider the flood story.
If you argue from the human perspective, you end up all wet. (P.I.)
Bible Search: water
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Evidence suggests that this was not a natural flood. Actually the Bible is clear this was not a natural event.
Tell that to those Creationists who assert that it was a natural event - giant ice sheets in the sky, water canopies, underground vats, Noah's ark being filled with juvenile forms so they would all fit, the grand canyon being caved in minutes, hydrological sorting being the cause of sedimentary layers...

When your premise is wrong, the conclusions follow suit.
Argumenta ad logicam are fallacious. Just because a logical argument is invalid, doesn't mean its conclusion is false.
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Evidence suggests that this was not a natural flood. Actually the Bible is clear this was not a natural event.
When your premise is wrong, the conclusions follow suit.
Water has unusual properties in scripture. Very, very unusual properties.
Check the source. Write down what water can do from this list below. THEN consider the flood story.
If you argue from the human perspective, you end up all wet. (P.I.)
Bible Search: water

All floods leave a very recognizable layer of sediment. Please point out this global layer of flood sediments in the geologic column.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
All floods leave a very recognizable layer of sediment. Please point out this global layer of flood sediments in the geologic column.
Hypothetical query: if a Creationist cited the K-T boundary, what would your response be? What physical evidence refutes that layer as being that laid down by Noah's Flood (radiometric dating notwithstanding - that's too easy ;))?
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I am fine with only allowing scientific based theories if creationists are not exclude from having alternate base assumptions.
Duordi

Creationists have never been excluded from submitting research to scientific journals for publication. The fact is, no creationist has ever performed a single bit of original research pertaining to what we find in the creationist literature. Sure there are a few creationist who have reputable scientific credentials and have published in the peer review literature. However, nothing they have published or even submitted for publication in the peer review literature contradicts mainstream science. Nothing.

The closest thing I can recall any creationist trying to submit creation science to the scientific community was Robert Gentry, who once submitted a paper at a geophysical conference on "Polonium Haloes". His claim was that they proved a young earth. Needless to say, that didn't go anywhere. Not because of his young earth ideas, but because his data was heavily flawed. What is so puzzling about Gentry, to me anyway, is that he actually served as a team member at the Oak Ridge Tennessee nuclear research center that had the task to trying to make radioactive materials decay faster. In other words speed up decay rates. They failed. That experience in itself negates the Polonium Haloe idea.
 
Upvote 0

duordi

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,107
11
✟1,320.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Oh yes, please do explain it to me.

Here is a web site with an article and some criticisms and responses.

Feel free to comment on any of it you wish to or use any other source you wish however if I can not verify the truthfulness of a source I may not accept it.

http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friendilcle
There are references at the bottom.

Here is another site that may be more to your liking.
Measurable C14 in Fossilized Organic Materials - The Age of the Earth

This is my understanding of the process.
Diamonds were taken from several sources to assure it was a consistent condition.
The Diamonds were taken from strata at different locations which were dated by "other means" which indicated strata formation dates that should have caused the elimination of all carbon 14 from the sample.
A blank was tested first to determine what minimum error could be expected due to contamination and other causing conditions.

Diamonds were chosen because they are extremely impenetrable by water to avoid leaching. They also contain a high carbon content. To be sure leaching did not occur some samples were fractured to test the surface and progressively inwards to detect any variation in the carbon 14 indicating leaching had occurred. The test came back consistent through the material.

Radioactive contamination is considered however radioactivity will deplete in any strata with the half life of the radioactive material and if the material has a sufficiently long half life to remain after millions of years it must remain to some extent when the sample was extracted. Tests were taken to be sure the surrounding strata provided no unusual source radioactivity.

I do not expect you will be making a career out of this, so if there is something specific I mentioned that you can not find I will try to find the source. My opinion formed after reading many different articles on the subject so some portion of my opinion may not be supported in the specific information referenced.

I apologize if this is more more depth than you wish to consider.
I have a love for science and sometimes I can get to enthusiastic.

Duordi
 
Upvote 0

duordi

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,107
11
✟1,320.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Creationists have never been excluded from submitting research to scientific journals for publication. The fact is, no creationist has ever performed a single bit of original research pertaining to what we find in the creationist literature. Sure there are a few creationist who have reputable scientific credentials and have published in the peer review literature. However, nothing they have published or even submitted for publication in the peer review literature contradicts mainstream science. Nothing.

The closest thing I can recall any creationist trying to submit creation science to the scientific community was Robert Gentry, who once submitted a paper at a geophysical conference on "Polonium Haloes". His claim was that they proved a young earth. Needless to say, that didn't go anywhere. Not because of his young earth ideas, but because his data was heavily flawed. What is so puzzling about Gentry, to me anyway, is that he actually served as a team member at the Oak Ridge Tennessee nuclear research center that had the task to trying to make radioactive materials decay faster. In other words speed up decay rates. They failed. That experience in itself negates the Polonium Haloe idea.

Well I can't agree with your opinion of the scientific community being willing to allow a creationist participate after watching what happened to Mary Schweitzer, and she was not even a creationist.

I do have some evidence that indicates radioactive dating methods yield random results if your interested.

Duordi
 
Upvote 0

duordi

Senior Member
Feb 4, 2005
1,107
11
✟1,320.00
Faith
Non-Denom
No - I was pre-empting what most Creationists ask for, which is Creationism to be taught as science.


Which could mean anything at all, hence my examples with astrology and phrenology. What, specifically, would you like to be taught?


Like, "atoms are made of marshmallow"? You need to be more specific (unless you really would be happy with 'marshmallow atoms' being taught as scientific truth ;)).

How about these items?

Mary Schweitzer discovery of blood residue being found in a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone suggest that life on Earth is not millions and millions of years old.

Would you would also be good with carbon 14 found in diamonds indicating they are less than 80,000 years old when the strata they are found in is dated as hundreds of millions of years old as an indication that the current dating methods are incorrect.

Duordi
 
Upvote 0

KimberlyAA

Well-Known Member
Jul 16, 2012
742
51
30
Caribbean
✟1,392.00
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Single
Interesting. I understand the concept though I suck at math.

The ‘fountains of the great deep’ are mentioned before the ‘windows of heaven’, indicating either relative importance or the order of events.
The phrase, ‘fountains of the great deep’ is used only in Genesis 7:11. ‘Fountains of the deep’ is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. ‘The great deep’ is used three other times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean, Amos 7:4, where God’s fire of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans, and Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/judgment. ‘The deep’ is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g. Gen. 1:2, Job 38:30, 41:32, Psalm 42:7, 104:6, Isa. 51:10, 63:13, Eze. 26:19, Jon. 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Eze. 31:4,15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated ‘fountains’ means ‘fountain, spring, well’ (Strong’s Concordance).

So, the ‘fountains of the great deep’ are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it could mean both.

If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters,then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the Earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land.

Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a ‘breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences.

There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record—layers that were obviously deposited during Noah’s Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70% or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.

In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 2,000 metres (6,500 feet) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated. This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’.

Genesis 7:12 says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights
continuously.

Genesis 2:5 tells us that there was no rain before man was created. Some have suggested that there was no rainfall anywhere on the Earth until the time of the Flood. However, the Bible does not actually say this, so we should not be dogmatic.

Some have argued that God’s use of the rainbow as the sign of His covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:12–17) suggests that there were no rainbows, and therefore no clouds or rain, before the Flood. However, if rainbows (and clouds) existed before the Flood, this would not be the only time God used an existing thing as a special ‘new’ sign of a covenant (e.g., bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper).

It is difficult to envisage a pre-Flood water cycle without clouds and rain, as the sun’s heat, even in that era, must have evaporated large volumes of surface waters which would have to have eventually condensed back into liquid water. And droplets of liquid water form clouds from which we get rain.

The expression ‘windows of heaven’ is used twice in reference to the Flood (Gen. 7:11, 8:2). It is used only three times elsewhere in the Old Testament: in 2 Kings 7:2,19 and in Malachi 3:10. In all three cases, it refers to God intervening in an extraordinary way to pour out blessings on his people. ‘Windows of heaven’ is not a term applied to ordinary events. Clearly, in Genesis the expression suggests the extraordinary nature of the rainfall attending the Flood. It is not a term applied to ordinary rainfall.

We are told in Genesis 1:6–8 that on the second day of creation God divided the waters that were on the Earth from the waters that He placed above the Earth when He made a ‘firmament’ (Hebrew, raqiya, meaning ‘expanse’) between those waters. Many have concluded that this ‘expanse’ was the atmosphere, because God placed the birds in the expanse, suggesting that the expanse includes the atmosphere where the birds fly.This would put these waters above the atmosphere.

However, Gen. 1:20, speaking of the creation of the birds, says (literally) ‘let birds fly above the ground across the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ This at least allows that ‘the expanse’ may include the space beyond the atmosphere.

Dr Russell Humphreys has argued that since Genesis 1:17 tells us that God put the sun, moon and stars also ‘in the expanse of the heaven’ then the expanse must at least include interstellar space, and thus the waters above the expanse of Genesis 1:7 would be beyond the stars at
the edge of the universe.

However, prepositions (in, under, above, etc.) are somewhat flexible in Hebrew, as well as English. A submarine can be spoken of as both under the sea and in the sea. Likewise, the waters could be above the expanse and in the expanse, so we should perhaps be careful not to draw too much from these expressions.

So what were these ‘waters above’? Some have said that they are simply the clouds. Others thought of them as a ‘water vapour canopy’, implying a blanket of water vapour surrounding the Earth.

Dr Joseph Dillow did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapour surrounding the Earth before the Flood. In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr Larry Vardiman suggested that much of the ‘waters above’ could have been stored in small ice particles distributed in equatorial rings around the Earth similar to those around Venus.

The Genesis 7:11 reference to the windows of heaven being opened has been interpreted as the collapse of such a water vapour canopy, which somehow became unstable and fell as rain. Volcanic eruptions associated with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep could have thrown dust into the water vapour canopy, causing the water vapour to nucleate on the dust particles and make rain.

Dillow, Vardiman and others have suggested that the vapour canopy caused a greenhouse effect before the Flood with a pleasant subtropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles where today there is ice. This would have caused the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, was taken as support for these ideas.

A vapour canopy would also affect the global wind systems. Also, the mountains were almost certainly not as high before the Flood as they are today. In today’s world, the major winds and high mountain ranges are a very important part of the water cycle that brings rain to the continents. Before the Flood, however, these factors would have caused the weather systems to be different.

Vardiman recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the Earth.

Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution, but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapour in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 12 m (40 ft) to only 0.5 m (20 in.). Further modelling suggested that a maximum of 2 m of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best
possible values to maximize the amount of water stored. Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the Flood.

Many scientists are now either abandoning the water vapour canopy model or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain. For example, in the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, volcanic activity associated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall)

of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.

Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of global torrential rain.​
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
All floods leave a very recognizable layer of sediment. Please point out this global layer of flood sediments in the geologic column.

The water that Peter walked on left a sediment layer? His shoes maybe?

I don't see that you checked the list first. But you are steadfast.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Tell that to those Creationists who assert that it was a natural event - giant ice sheets in the sky, water canopies, underground vats, Noah's ark being filled with juvenile forms so they would all fit, the grand canyon being caved in minutes, hydrological sorting being the cause of sedimentary layers...

Anybody is free to read my posts. You may not notice, but I do discuss such matters with Y.E. Creationists.

Argumenta ad logicam are fallacious. Just because a logical argument is invalid, doesn't mean its conclusion is false.

I don't think it was a logical argument issue.
If you're saying "Garbage Can In = Gourmet Meal Out" then I object.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Originally Posted by KimberlyAA
Interesting. I understand the concept though I suck at math.

The ‘fountains of the great deep’ are mentioned before the ‘windows of heaven’, indicating either relative importance or the order of events.
The phrase, ‘fountains of the great deep’ is used only in Genesis 7:11. ‘Fountains of the deep’ is used in Genesis 8:2, where it clearly refers to the same thing, and Proverbs 8:28, where the precise meaning is not clear. ‘The great deep’ is used three other times: Isaiah 51:10, where it clearly refers to the ocean, Amos 7:4, where God’s fire of judgment is said to dry up the great deep, probably the oceans, and Psalm 36:6 where it is used metaphorically of the depth of God’s justice/judgment. ‘The deep’ is used more often, and usually refers to the oceans (e.g. Gen. 1:2, Job 38:30, 41:32, Psalm 42:7, 104:6, Isa. 51:10, 63:13, Eze. 26:19, Jon. 2:3), but sometimes to subterranean sources of water (Eze. 31:4,15). The Hebrew word (mayan) translated ‘fountains’ means ‘fountain, spring, well’ (Strong’s Concordance).So, the ‘fountains of the great deep’ are probably oceanic or possibly subterranean sources of water. In the context of the Flood account, it could mean both.If the fountains of the great deep were the major source of the waters,then they must have been a huge source of water. Some have suggested that when God made the dry land appear from under the waters on the third day of creation, some of the water that covered the Earth became trapped underneath and within the dry land.Genesis 7:11 says that on the day the Flood began, there was a ‘breaking up’ of the fountains, which implies a release of the water, possibly through large fissures in the ground or in the sea floor. The waters that had been held back burst forth with catastrophic consequences.There are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in the rock record—layers that were obviously deposited during Noah’s Flood. So it is quite plausible that these fountains of the great deep involved a series of volcanic eruptions with prodigious amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70% or more of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam.In their catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, Austin et al. have proposed that at the onset of the Flood, the ocean floor rapidly lifted up to 2,000 metres (6,500 feet) due to an increase in temperature as horizontal movement of the tectonic plates accelerated. This would spill the seawater onto the land and cause massive flooding—perhaps what is aptly described as the breaking up of the ‘fountains of the great deep’.Genesis 7:12 says that it rained for 40 days and 40 nights continuously. Genesis 2:5 tells us that there was no rain before man was created. Some have suggested that there was no rainfall anywhere on the Earth until the time of the Flood. However, the Bible does not actually say this, so we should not be dogmatic.Some have argued that God’s use of the rainbow as the sign of His covenant with Noah (Gen. 9:12–17) suggests that there were no rainbows, and therefore no clouds or rain, before the Flood. However, if rainbows (and clouds) existed before the Flood, this would not be the only time God used an existing thing as a special ‘new’ sign of a covenant (e.g., bread and wine in the Lord’s Supper).It is difficult to envisage a pre-Flood water cycle without clouds and rain, as the sun’s heat, even in that era, must have evaporated large volumes of surface waters which would have to have eventually condensed back into liquid water. And droplets of liquid water form clouds from which we get rain.The expression ‘windows of heaven’ is used twice in reference to the Flood (Gen. 7:11, 8:2). It is used only three times elsewhere in the Old Testament: in 2 Kings 7:2,19 and in Malachi 3:10. In all three cases, it refers to God intervening in an extraordinary way to pour out blessings on his people. ‘Windows of heaven’ is not a term applied to ordinary events. Clearly, in Genesis the expression suggests the extraordinary nature of the rainfall attending the Flood. It is not a term applied to ordinary rainfall.We are told in Genesis 1:6–8 that on the second day of creation God divided the waters that were on the Earth from the waters that He placed above the Earth when He made a ‘firmament’ (Hebrew, raqiya, meaning ‘expanse’) between those waters. Many have concluded that this ‘expanse’ was the atmosphere, because God placed the birds in the expanse, suggesting that the expanse includes the atmosphere where the birds fly.This would put these waters above the atmosphere.However, Gen. 1:20, speaking of the creation of the birds, says (literally) ‘let birds fly above the ground across the face of the expanse of the heavens.’ This at least allows that ‘the expanse’ may include the space beyond the atmosphere.Dr Russell Humphreys has argued that since Genesis 1:17 tells us that God put the sun, moon and stars also ‘in the expanse of the heaven’ then the expanse must at least include interstellar space, and thus the waters above the expanse of Genesis 1:7 would be beyond the stars athe edge of the universe.However, prepositions (in, under, above, etc.) are somewhat flexible in Hebrew, as well as English. A submarine can be spoken of as both under the sea and in the sea. Likewise, the waters could be above the expanse and in the expanse, so we should perhaps be careful not to draw too much from these expressions.So what were these ‘waters above’? Some have said that they are simply the clouds. Others thought of them as a ‘water vapour canopy’, implying a blanket of water vapour surrounding the Earth.
Dr Joseph Dillow did much research into the idea of a blanket of water vapour surrounding the Earth before the Flood. In a modification of the canopy theory, Dr Larry Vardiman suggested that much of the ‘waters above’ could have been stored in small ice particles distributed in equatorial rings around the Earth similar to those around Venus.The Genesis 7:11 reference to the windows of heaven being opened has been interpreted as the collapse of such a water vapour canopy, which somehow became unstable and fell as rain. Volcanic eruptions associated with the breaking up of the fountains of the great deep could have thrown dust into the water vapour canopy, causing the water vapour to nucleate on the dust particles and make rain.Dillow, Vardiman and others have suggested that the vapour canopy caused a greenhouse effect before the Flood with a pleasant subtropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles where today there is ice. This would have caused the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, was taken as support for these ideas.A vapour canopy would also affect the global wind systems. Also, the mountains were almost certainly not as high before the Flood as they are today. In today’s world, the major winds and high mountain ranges are a very important part of the water cycle that brings rain to the continents. Before the Flood, however, these factors would have caused the weather systems to be different.Vardiman recognized a major difficulty with the canopy theory. The best canopy model still gives an intolerably high temperature at the surface of the Earth.Rush and Vardiman have attempted a solution,but found that they had to drastically reduce the amount of water vapour in the canopy from a rain equivalent of 12 m (40 ft) to only 0.5 m (20 in.). Further modelling suggested that a maximum of 2 m of water could be held in such a canopy, even if all relevant factors were adjusted to the best possible values to maximize the amount of water stored. Such a reduced canopy would not significantly contribute to the 40 days and nights of rain at the beginning of the Flood.Many scientists are now either abandoning the water vapour canopy model or no longer see any need for such a concept, particularly if other reasonable mechanisms could have supplied the rain. For example, in the catastrophic plate tectonics model for the Flood, volcanic activity ssociated with the breaking up of the pre-Flood ocean floor would have created a linear geyser (like a wall)of superheated steam from the ocean, causing intense global rain.Nevertheless, whatever the source or mechanism, the scriptural statement about the windows of heaven opening is an apt description of global torrential rain.


The earth was formed out of water.
2 Peter 3:5

Water turned into wine
John 2:9

Water came out of a rock.
Isaiah 48:21

Peter walked on water.
Matthew 14:29


So we don't have to invent natural sources for God-water.
This is not likely to be natural flood water.
We don't have to pander to "literalists" who don't believe in divine intervention.
We don't need a natural explanation for every action God has had written about.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Site Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,281
8,501
Milwaukee
✟411,038.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
In order for alternative theories to be taught in science class they have to be "scientific theories" and not religious beliefs.

Information theory is valid. Information doesn't grow on trees.
And it tends toward decay and disorder.
 
Upvote 0

Jamin4422

Member
Jul 5, 2012
2,957
17
✟3,349.00
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
In Relationship
All floods leave a very recognizable layer of sediment. Please point out this global layer of flood sediments in the geologic column.
Civilization began on flood plans because of the rich deposit of the river silt. Not only in the Euphrates river valley, but also in the Nile River Delta. Civilization really began to grow when they began to irrigate the crops. Only then were they able to have a surplus of food. There was a story about Joseph where he took the extra grain from the abundant years and stored it. Then when the years were lean he sold the crops from storage and made a lot of money. He got a good promotion for that. They still tell stories about Joseph and his multi colored coat today.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
How about these items?
Interesting curios, if true, but I don't see how they qualify as 'alternate base assumptions'.

Mary Schweitzer discovery of blood residue being found in a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone suggest that life on Earth is not millions and millions of years old.
I disagree - why would that discovery indicate that the bond is not millions of years old?

Would you would also be good with carbon 14 found in diamonds indicating they are less than 80,000 years old when the strata they are found in is dated as hundreds of millions of years old as an indication that the current dating methods are incorrect.
No, as carbon-14 is detected by measuring its radioactive decay, which, broadly speaking, is signified by beta radiation above the background level. Once a sample is older than 50,000 years, it has very little C-14 left, and the decay of that remaining C-14 gives off beta radiation below the background level. Thus, inferring the amount of C-14 from beta radiation will give you a yield that, when worked backwards to give you a date, gives you an age of 50-100 thousand years. Not because of genuine C-14 decay, but because of errors from background radiation.

Further, diamond is not a closed system: it usually contains trace amounts of nitrogen, which is what creates C-14 from C-12 in the first place in the upper atmosphere.

Without a source for these measurements, I can't comment further. The general point, though, is that carbon dating isn't universally applicable - we understand the mechanism well, and thus also understand the situations when it doesn't apply (such as the Reservoir effect). Show me the source for this data, and we can see if such a situation applies - or, indeed, if it doesn't (they may have measured C-14 through mass spectrometry, for instance). If you're referring to the RATE measurements, then that's not the case, but I'll stop here for now :)
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Civilization began on flood plans because of the rich deposit of the river silt. Not only in the Euphrates river valley, but also in the Nile River Delta. Civilization really began to grow when they began to irrigate the crops. Only then were they able to have a surplus of food. There was a story about Joseph where he took the extra grain from the abundant years and stored it. Then when the years were lean he sold the crops from storage and made a lot of money. He got a good promotion for that. They still tell stories about Joseph and his multi colored coat today.
A fascinating story, but how does that in any way answer RickG's question?

"All floods leave a very recognizable layer of sediment. Please point out this global layer of flood sediments in the geologic column."

We're all waiting with bated breath.
 
Upvote 0