Isaac Vail and Canopy Theory of 1874

[church mouse guy]

Okay. I think that humans can study Scripture and try to understand it without it being demonic so I disagree with you. Also, there are great difficulties with the current methods of scientific dating so I disagree with you on that point also. But neither point has anything to do with the canopy theory of the 19th century.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

The Bible is not demonic. But it is in the plan of Satan to throw people into impossible puzzles and endless disputes over trivial matters that divert attention away from truly important issues. Everyone has their own diversion.

After doing more research I have determined that the young earth theories are possible. But the canopy theory is not likely. However, because I debated with you in this thread, I realized that the debate over the book of Genesis is a bottomless pit.

The further you get into it the deeper it gets. But thank you for the opportunity to learn.

 

[church mouse guy]

Well, I agree that in a sense the young earth premise is peripheral theology but I have been listening to Ken Ham and others now and then since I am going to Kentucky at the end of October to visit the replica of Noah's Ark. To tell you the truth, I only recently began to consider the necessity of believing the idea that the earth is only a few thousand years old and I am looking forward to learning more in Kentucky. As for the canopy theory, I wonder about it? I think that you are right that it is not likely. My scientific education is sketchy and when the debate turns to advanced geological points, I have to rely on the experts but who to trust?

It is a pleasure to discuss these subjects with you!

 

[AwesomeMachine]

It seems to be that both the old and young earth theories are equally filled with voids. I would say that both are equally plausible from a scientific standpoint.

 

[church mouse guy]

It seems to be that both the old and young earth theories are equally filled with voids. I would say that both are equally plausible from a scientific standpoint.

How can two theories that contradict each other both be plausible?

 

[AwesomeMachine]

How can two theories that contradict each other both be plausible?

I wrote "from a scientific standpoint". Both theories have some credibility, although both are so riddle with problems that there very well could be some third solution that has not yet been discovered. I don't think the Bible is a literal scientific explanation. And it doesn't have to be. The story of creation tells of things much more important than the creation of the physical Universe.

However the Universe actually came to be, it doesn't affect people now. In ancient times, atheists agreed that there were doors in the dome of the sky, and that rain fell when they opened, but they claimed the doors opened by themselves; that God had nothing to do with it.

God is more concerned with ones lack of faith than any scientific explanation of nature one subscribes to.

I guess since it doesn't matter to God whether people believe the Universe is 6,000 years old or 15 billion years old, everyone can just pick the version they like. That assumes of course that everyone accepts Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, repents from sin, and observes biblical principles in the way they live their lives.

 

[church mouse guy]

There is a lot of water underground, but the earth is not filled with water. The water table is a thin layer of water under the ground fed by rainfall and natural springs. But there isn't enough to cover the earth miles thick.

As to the existence of ice meteor clouds, NASA scientists have identified the existence of such massive clouds within the Milky Way galaxy.

I accidentally ran across the latest science about the amount of water left underground. Science now thinks that the amount of water underground is as much as in all the oceans, lakes and rivers on the surface of the earth.

There are many sources on this point, including NASA, Northwestern University, etc. Here is just one:

"After decades of searching scientists have discovered that a vast reservoir of water, enough to fill the Earth’s oceans three times over, may be trapped hundreds of miles beneath the surface, potentially transforming our understanding of how the planet was formed."

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

 

[AwesomeMachine]

I accidentally ran across the latest science about the amount of water left underground. Science now thinks that the amount of water underground is as much as in all the oceans, lakes and rivers on the surface of the earth.

There are many sources on this point, including NASA, Northwestern University, etc. Here is just one:

"After decades of searching scientists have discovered that a vast reservoir of water, enough to fill the Earth’s oceans three times over, may be trapped hundreds of miles beneath the surface, potentially transforming our understanding of how the planet was formed."

Earth may have underground 'ocean' three times that on surface

Thanks for posting that link. I've been searching for something like that for years. I bookmarked it. Maybe the holy Bible will turn out to be literally true after all!

 

[church mouse guy]

You're welcome! I had no idea either--there are many other sources. Yes, Scripture seems to be correct. In Genesis 7:11, God mentions the fountains of the great deep,