Isaac Vail and Canopy Theory of 1874

[church mouse guy]

"In 1874, a Quaker schoolteacher by the name of Isaac Vail proposed a novel scientific idea—that following the last ice age, a canopy of ice clouds covered the Earth for thousands of years. 1 This canopy theory was picked up and refined within the last few decades by modern creation scientists who saw in it possible answers to some puzzlements mentioned in the first few chapters of Genesis as well as some discoveries by scientists about the early Earth. But more recently, the idea of a canopy of water, water vapor, or ice around the primeval Earth is being seriously questioned by some creationists who think they have found major flaws in the theory."

http://www.lutheranscience.org/home...180153808/Journal 2003-VaporCanopyTheory1.pdf

The very conservative Wisconsin Synod of the Lutheran Church members who publish the Luther Science Institute also list the scientific reasons that the canopy theory has been discarded, but I am not going to deal with those at this time.

Isaac Vail's book is available to be read for free online. It was published in 1886 I think and it was called:

The earth's annular system, or The waters above the firmament, the world record scientifically explained

It is available for free here:

The earth's annular system, or The waters above the firmament, the world record scientifically explained : Vail, Isaac N : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

In conclusion, we are dealing with a scientific theory that is a little over one hundred forty years old. It does not seem to be essential to Creationism that this theory is valid because everyone agrees that the water for Noah's Flood came mostly from the Fountains of the Deep.
Hydroplate Theory summarizes how Noah's Flood happened without any mention or use of the Canopy Theory in the eleven-minute following video, which I also posted in the thread about Hydoplate Theory, or the idea that the globe was all land above water:

 

[AwesomeMachine]

Old theories usually die only because better evidence is provided to form new theories, If there is no new theory, then we might as well just keep the old ones. The problem with certain older theories is that they depend on literal biblical interpretations, such as water above the firmament.

Other accounts written around the time of biblical manuscripts demonstrate that most of the world believed the sky is blue because it is a dome with water above it. But now we know it's just space. So all theories that rely on the sky being a dome with water above it can safely be discarded.

The same goes for the "water above the earth". Cosmic understanding of ancient people dictated that there was water above the sky. Those are the same ancient people who believed ships could sail off the edge of the world, and that stars were actually very small lights attached to the dome of the sky. We don't believe that anymore. So, scientific theories based on ancient understanding are hokey at best.

Fountains of the deep is rooted in the story of creation that there was originally a fountain where all water came from. But now we know the earth isn't filled with water. NASA scientists have observed ice meteor clouds in the Milky Way Galaxy. And 45 billion tons of water per year enters earth's atmosphere from space.

Slightly more than that is blown off by solar wind. So, the earth loses a bit of water over time. Theories that rest purely on biblical evidence, while ignoring scientific evidence, are the reason so many people believe Christians aren't very smart.

The solar system passing through a galactic ice meteor cloud would account perfectly for the great flood, and there is actual scientific evidence to prove it.

 

[church mouse guy]

No, there still is water underground in large amounts. And how do you prove that there is water in the Milky Way?

 

[Deacon]

From one of my early foundational books on the topic of creationism, The Christian View of Science and Scripture by Bernard Ramm, (Pasternoster Press, 1955).

"Another theory is that the earth from at least the time of man’s creation till the flood was surrounded by a canopy.* We have had difficulty getting back to the original sources of this theory even though we have been after it for years. Whether broached for the first time by {John Newton} Vail or not, we are not sure, but the trail usually leads to him. He has written The Earth’s Annular System (date ?), and The Deluge and its Cause (date ?). Available is H. W. Kellogg, The Coming Kingdom and the Re-Canopied Earth (1936) which apparently follows Vail closely. Kellogg has also published The Canopied Earth (n.d.). Another version of it will be found in C. T. Schwarze, The Harmony of Science and the Bible (1947). Schwarze accepts the gap theory and believes that God exploded the surface of the earth. The first thing to go up was the water and it formed an ice-lens mile think. Schwarze writes:

It [the canopy theory] claims that water on the earth was the first to feel the effect of that prehistory explosion and was shot out into or beyond the stratosphere where it solidified into hard ice miles in thickness, forming an oblate spherical canopy around the earth.​

Snip

… Its belief nowadays must be considered an oddity."


*Supposedly first advocated by Jerome* who got it from Ezekiel (“the crystal stretched above the Cherubim,” reference?). c.f. A. D. White, I, 324.

For Jerome, see his Epistola, lxix, cap. 6 (Migne, Patrologia Latina., vol. xxii, p.659).​

Rob

 

[church mouse guy]

And Dr. Brown (the video above on Hydroplate Theory) has listed some objections to the canopy theory from a scientific viewpoint as outlined by the Lutheran Science Institute (also quoted above)


"1. The Pressure Problem. A canopy holding 40 or more feet of liquid water or its equivalent in vapor or ice would increase the atmospheric pressure all right, but this would make the increased oxygen and nitrogen toxic to many animals including humans. Most canopy theories now limit the thickness of water in the canopy to less than 40 feet.

2. The Heat Problem. If the water from a vapor canopy were to fall, enough to form a 40-foot layer upon the Earth, the temperature would rise about 810 degrees! Just as a spacecraft generates tremendous heat upon reentering the atmosphere, molecules of water or ice falling from orbit would do the same. Also, due to the greenhouse effect, heat would be trapped under a canopy, more water would evaporate, and the greenhouse effect would accelerate, thus leading to a “runaway greenhouse effect.” This runaway greenhouse effect can be seen on the cloud-covered planet Venus which is about 700 degrees hotter than one would expect for a planet that distance from to the Sun.

3. The Light Problem. A canopy having only 40 feet of water would reflect, refract, absorb, or scatter most light trying to pass through it. Under such conditions, a person could only see stars if he looked straight up as through a keyhole. Yet, it would seem necessary for early man to have seen entire constellations and note their movements from season to season if the stars were to serve as markers.

4. The Nucleation Problem. To form raindrops, microscopic particles called “condensation nuclei” must be present for condensation to occur. However, falling rain tends to sweep away these nuclei, clean the atmosphere, and reduce further condensation. This argument says that rainfall from a canopy could not long be maintained.

5. The Support Problem. What kept the canopy from falling? A vapor or liquid canopy would mix with the atmosphere just as steam does and diffuse throughout the atmosphere. An ice canopy would vaporize into the vacuum of space just as dry ice does at atmospheric temperature and pressure.

6. The Ultraviolet Light Problem. While ozone in the earth’s upper atmosphere blocks the sun’s destructive ultraviolet light, a canopy surrounding the atmosphere would be exposed. Water in the canopy would dissociate into hydrogen and oxygen, destroying the canopy."

http://www.lutheranscience.org/home...180153808/Journal 2003-VaporCanopyTheory1.pdf

 

[AwesomeMachine]

No, there still is water underground in large amounts. And how do you prove that there is water in the Milky Way?

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.

 

[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.

There was a lot of water underground before the flood. What is left of the flood is the oceans. I am not so sure that there is just a thin layer of water underground nowadays--what proof do you have for that?

 

[AwesomeMachine]

There was a lot of water underground before the flood. What is left of the flood is the oceans. I am not so sure that there is just a thin layer of water underground nowadays--what proof do you have for that?

Bore core samples have been taken for various purposes all over the world. There exists what is referred to as a water table, which is a layer of water about 20 feet thick under most land masses, even under the Sahara desert. And if the water from the great flood came from inside the earth, where did it all go? Back inside the earth? Then what caused it gather on top of the earth for a time, and then go back under the earth?

 

[church mouse guy]

Bore core samples have been taken for various purposes all over the world. There exists what is referred to as a water table, which is a layer of water about 20 feet thick under most land masses, even under the Sahara desert. And if the water from the great flood came from inside the earth, where did it all go? Back inside the earth? Then what caused it gather on top of the earth for a time, and then go back under the earth?

I think that God has reserved vast areas of water underground still. As I understand it, the land was thrust up as a result of the fountains of the deep exploding open and thus the water from the flood drained from the land into the oceans, which did not exist before the flood.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

That theory stems from an ancient belief that land masses were actually floating on water, and that the seas had no bottom. It was also held that the sea remained in its place, because the gods (angels) of the sky were continuously victorious over the demons of the deep.

From that perspective it is possible that the sea just came up onto the land. But now we understand that gravity keeps the oceans from flooding the land, and land masses are not floating on water. And that the earth is mostly iron, not water. But I'll admit there are things unknown about the world.

It is possible we just haven't discovered large underground reservoirs of water.

 

[church mouse guy]

That theory stems from an ancient belief that land masses were actually floating on water, and that the seas had no bottom. It was also held that the sea remained in its place, because the gods (angels) of the sky were continuously victorious over the demons of the deep.

From that perspective it is possible that the sea just came up onto the land. But now we understand that gravity keeps the oceans from flooding the land, and land masses are not floating on water. And that the earth is mostly iron, not water. But I'll admit there are things unknown about the world.

It is possible we just haven't discovered large underground reservoirs of water.

I don't know about ancient theory at all. I am alluding to Hydroplate Theory, which said that the earth was founded upon the waters and that land covered the entire globe. When the earth ripped open, due to God-designed pressures caused by gravitational pull from the sun and moon, then the land masses started moving at 45 miles per hour until they struck something that forced a sudden halt and pushed up the mountains. When the flood ended, the waters remained as a reminder of God's judgement so that all can see the results of a worldwide catastrophic flood that destroyed all except those on Noah's Ark.

Revelation 21:1 (KJV) And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

I've read some introductory material on Hydroplate Theory. The problem with all creation and flood theories is that they attempt to justify the total duration of existence of the Universe as much shorter than scientific evidence seems to show. I believe creation scientists have tried tried to lay out a literal interpretation of scripture, and then worked the scientific evidence around that.

I don't think that will work. Ignoring scientific evidence in favor of literal biblical interpretations is at least as bad as ignoring biblical teaching in favor of scientific discovery. Since the creationists are unwilling to yield on the fact that everything was created at approximately the same time in the recent past, the theories produced are flawed beyond repair.

I understand that people gain some security from a literal interpretation of scripture. But they lose a lot more, because nothing rational makes sense when you do that. For all we know, the Grand Canyon could spontaneously vaporize at any moment, because God wanted it to.

If I were God, and I was going to create a Universe, I would make my Universe so my ultimate plan would be accomplished without further interference from me. That is, I wouldn't need to violate the physical laws that I myself imposed upon my creation in order to accomplish my ultimate plan for my creation.

So, it is possible that the earth is older than 10,000 years. But it is at the same time compatible to that that the world will last only 10,000 years. How can that be? The earth is so old that many worlds could have been, demarcated by global cataclysms that wiped out everything.

A flood isn't the only thing that can wipe out all terrestrial life. The Universe is a dangerous place! But I still encourage everyone to explore, in order to find truth. Truth, like gold, is where you find it!

 

[church mouse guy]

Let me understand what you are saying. Are you saying that scientific evidence shows the earth to be older than 6,000 years?

 

[AwesomeMachine]

Yes, that is correct. But creation took place in 6734 B.C. I know, it's tough to reconcile, but that seems to be the case.

 

[church mouse guy]

Yeah, that makes no sense whatsoever from either theology or science.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

It makes sense from the perspective that the planet earth might have existed much longer than what the Bible refers to as the world. We think in terms of the Universe. But ancient people had no concept of the Universe. They believed they could see the whole world, and beyond that was the edge.

Most ancient people never traveled more than twenty miles. There's conclusive evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. It's curious that creation scientists do zero analysis of the data concerning that figure. They simply say "the secular age of the earth."

If they're not even going to discuss the science behind the 4.5-biliion-year age of the earth, they're guilty of intentional ignorance. If they can refute the scientific evidence, then maybe they have a case. But if they can't, they have to accept it. Just saying something is wrong doesn't make it so.

Violation of nature is a sin. So, we can be sure God didn't violate nature. Unless God violated His Own Creation, we can be confident that by employing the physical laws of nature, the approximate age of the earth can be determined by experimental observations.

The best observations man is capable of making dictate the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. It's not in God's plan for mankind for us to remain ignorant in the face of discovery. God wants people to understand their world. If we know better we can do better! My view permits both the Bible and science to be correct.

 

[church mouse guy]

This is way off the subject of a canopy, but what conclusive evidence do you have concerning the age of the earth?

 

[AwesomeMachine]

Radiometric dating is a scientifically valid means to date the earth. If you google that term, I'm sure you'll find plenty of evidence. The creation science refutations of radiometric dating are nothing less than comical, relying on literal interpretations of the book of Genesis, rather than on scientific proof.

I believe in the Bible 100%. But I think it's taking things too far to believe the Bible is literally scientifically valid.

 

[church mouse guy]

Radiometric dating is a scientifically valid means to date the earth. If you google that term, I'm sure you'll find plenty of evidence. The creation science refutations of radiometric dating are nothing less than comical, relying on literal interpretations of the book of Genesis, rather than on scientific proof.

I believe in the Bible 100%. But I think it's taking things too far to believe the Bible is literally scientifically valid.

Sounds like you believe the evolutionists. There are scientific problems with radiometric dating, as you know. You should look at Walt Brown--he graduated from West Point and M.I.T. and taught at the Air Force Academy.

 

[AwesomeMachine]

I looked at Walt Brown. I find it difficult to believe he spent so much time on his project. First of all, before radiometric dating, the estimated age of the earth was calculated by independent criteria. It just so happens that radiometric dating confirmed the previous estimates are correct.

And, it isn't important to God or man that the story of creation to be literally correct. That story is to teach mankind who we are, not exactly how long the Universe has been here. Within the creation story lies the key to a scientific explanation that will allow mankind to become immortal again.

The story is a time capsule, that when viewed through a modern lens, will permit the biological defeat of original sin. Jesus is the bridge to the Father. But Jesus' sacrifice is only necessary to free mankind of guilt just long enough to open his mind to the knowledge of immortality and absolute power.

Focusing on how a literal translation of Genesis can be scientifically valid is Satan's diversion to throw mankind off the path to all truth. It really doesn't matter how long the world has been in existence. What matters is that God's children regain the former glory that existed before original sin, and return to Him in bodily form.

I have received my eternal inheritance from the Father while I still have the breath of life in me. Mankind requires this knowledge to avert global nuclear annihilation. But I've been resentful due to some things that have happened recently. So, I said to God, "Eternal Father, the people have been unjust to me. Either I want to die, or I want everyone else to die."

So God said, "I have placed man's inheritance in your hand. You be the judge of all mankind. If you hold it guilty and worthy of complete annihilation, keep quiet. If, on the other hand, you're heart should soften, then give My inheritance to the people."

I said to God, "You're positioning me to believe that I can leverage You! I'm not falling for it! You've given me just enough rope to hang myself."

I've been almost bedridden for the majority of the past 12 months, probably so I would reconsider. Now I'm starting to feel better, so I'll get back to my project soon. It's basically done. I just have to publish it.