Where Did The Water Come From?

[Dr. John Nay]

If I am in error I apologize, but I perceived your response to Scott as a little caustic, i.e. attacking Scott rather than his argumentation. I most certainly do agree that we are to use the intellect that God gave us. It is my personal view that a portion of what it means to be created in the image of God (Gen 1:26ff.) is intellect. But eventually we, as humans that are finite in knowledge, come down to the tap root of faith. As you may well be aware, there is an entire branch of philosophy referred to as epistemology, i.e. how do we know that we know. I don?t believe that God left us in the conundrum of not being able to differentiate between something true and something pseudo, thus His inspired Word. ?Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path.? (Psalm 119:105, NIV)

[Dr. John Nay]

Skeptic Que,

I believe that Jukia?s post of June 30, ?04, 4:54 am, moved from creation science to argumentum ad hominem (argument to the man), which I believe to be a logical fallacy.

[Jukia]

If it came across as an ad hominem, I apologize, that is not what I meant. But Scott's post made a comment about looking with the eyes of a child, and your later post seemed to support that. All I was trying to suggest was that perhaps looking at Brown's absurd theory through the eyes of an adult made more sense.

I meant to attack Brown's theory, not Scott, not you. There is no geologic, oceanographic, physics or any other evidence for Brown's theory. It is a great made up fairy tale, made up to "explain" what he things happened.

[Nickolaus]

Months ago my Old Testament class was discussing the Flood. As we discussed the vapor canopy, i begun to think how impossible it would be to live under a canopy of water. I do think the Bible is absolute truth, so i do beleive that there was people living under the vapor canopy. But, the thing that really bothers me is wouldn't the vapor canopy create venus like conditions on earth.

When i went swimming as a kid, i always burnt faster in the pool then i did anywhere else. Water has a magnification property. From what i've read and heard of the vapor canopy, i imagine it much like a sheet of water enveloping the earth. If this is so, then would the people of Earth fry from the instensified rays of the sun. The canopy would also create much more pressure then there is on a modern day Earth. I really don't think that with the increased pressure and intesity of the suns rays, could any life live on earth.

I really want to beleive, so somebody prove me wrong.
Nickolaus J McKee

[Dr. John Nay]

Nickolaus,

Working from the same premise, i.e. ?the Bible is absolute truth,? we KNOW there was a canopy of water surrounding Earth. We do not know the function of the water molecule, i.e. solid, liquid, or vapor. Not being a scientist, I must rely on those that do have the scientific knowledge for the viability of a global canopy relative to its? composition, specific location, magnitude, etceteras. The following site addresses the composition of the canopy in some detail:

http://www.icr.org/cgibin/search/search ... rms=canopy

In reference to increased atmospheric pressure, I suggest visiting www.creationevidence.org Dr. Carl Baugh has done extensive research in this area and has even built an operational hyperbaric biosphere. As of the date of this post, I have not been able to connect to Dr. Baugh?s site --- possibly problems with his server --- ??

As far as the magnification properties of water, I certainly agree. One can start a fire with a glass of water being used as a magnifying glass with user-friendly kindling. When I walked the beaches south of San Francisco fishing for bass as a teenager I was the recipient of more than one terrible sun burn on a cloudy day. Again, I must refer you to those with the scientific knowledge; I will again suggest ICR.

Please keep us ?posted? : ) as to what you find.

[Skepti Que]

Here ia a link to a fascinating site showing photography from Mars. Some from the planet and some from the Mars orbiter. Take a look at this site. Somewhere there are some pictures showing mass erosion by great quantities of water. More water than is now tied up in the martian polar ice caps. Where do you suppose the water came from and what happened to it?
Did it end up on earth? This site is worth more than a cursory look. Spend some time here.
http://mars3.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/

On a somewhat related note. The more we explore the planets of our solar system the more we know about them. They appear old. What do you young earth creationists have to say about the appearant ancientness of the planets of the Solar system? Is there a vast conspiracy among astronomers, geologists, space explorers and image technologists to convince us that things and places are older than they really are? Is God trying to fool us?

[Jukia]

Those Mars pictures are great.

Your comment about God trying to fool us is one that really bothers me when I come across Genesis literalists/creationists, etc. All the scientific evidence points to an old universe, an old earth and the process of evolution. So either Genesis is not to be interpreted literally or God is just setting us up to use our intellects to interpret His creation in an improper manner. The latter makes no sense to me.

[Scott]

Wow, I don't even really know how to respond. Maybe I shouldn't. Good-bye.

[Skepti Que]

The Bible can be read in two ways:
One can read it like a poet
or
One can read it like a lawyer.

If you read it like a lawyer you take each and every word literally and give each and every word exactly the meaning you want it to have.
If you read it like a poet you become aware of figures of speech like simile, metaphor, hyperbole, metonomy, and synecdoche to name a few major ones. Language is used in all its variety and fulness.
The Hebrew writers were more poets than lawyers, though legal imagery certainly appears in some shorter prophets.

If you asked a Greek to explain something he would give a well reasoned, logical argument.
If you asked a Jew he would respond, "Let me tell you a story."

Nowdays we call the former rhetoricians and logicians. We call the latter preachers. There are also hybids today.

I submit that the early Genesis account is "preacher talk" to explain to a group of wondering, wandering Hebrews how they got where they were.

I do not doubt for a moment that Jehovah created the universe. I also think that He used a lot of what we know as time to do it. I think He put into place certain natural laws not yet fully understood by man that work according to His will but in ways we cannot or do not understand; and that sometimes the crowing glory of His creation gets caught in the middle of the works.
The creation groans and suffers and that groaning sometimes elicits groanings and sufferings in man as earthquakes breed tsunami waves and that claim a hundred thousand lives in minutes and brings suffering untold to hundreds of thousands more who mourn the loss and survive the destruction. The insurance and legal industries call events such as these "acts of God". I think God did not act in this catastrophe. Had He acted the catastrophe would not have happened. But on second thought maybe He did act. Maybe if we knew the story of every survivor and if we understood natural laws better we would hear of countless ways He acted with individuals and small groups to preserve many more lives that could have been lost.
When God intervenes in His creation we call it a miracle. How many miracles occur every day that we don't recognize? I don't know. Maybe many, maybe few.

I don't rule out a spiritual battle waged in unseen places that sometimes breaks out in the cosmos. But about this I say no more.

Scientists can explain the physics.
Philosphers will try to explain the morality.
In the mean time we do what we can from where we are to help the needy?

I don't know where this fits in this discussion other than both the topic of the forum and these thoughts involve a lot of water.

FWIW, SQ

[Dr. John Nay]

A Reasonable Faith

For me to conceive of the Creator leaving man without a way (canon/standard) to determine what is or is not true is unreasonable. The Bible does contain both literal and figurative language within it, however, for the most part one can determine whether a passage is to be taken literally or figuratively from the immediate context in light of parallel passages.

It is my personal view that if one does not accept the Bible as inspired (God-breathed), they have entered into a hopeless state of not being able to determine what is or is not true. Absolutes rest on the foundation of omniscience. Since I am not omniscient I choose to place my faith in what (beyond a reasonable doubt --- at least mine) appears to be a standard from an omniscient source.

[Dr. John Nay]

This post is in reponse to SQ's post of December 12, 2004.

We read in Genesis 1:11, Then God said, ?Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.? (NIV) Vegetation was created on the third day of the Creation Week. Trees were created with an appearance of age, as was mankind (Adam & Eve).

The problem isn?t that God is trying to fool man, the problem is with some men?s interpretation of what he sees. If one accepts the flood of Genesis, chapters 6-9 as a global flood, then what man sees when he looks at the topography of Earth makes perfect sense. It?s interesting to me that so many point to the topography of Mars being the result of hydraulic activity, although it is highly questionable as to whether there is any water on Mars, and choose not to accept the global flood account of the Bible when more that 3/4th of Earth is covered with water.

We read in 1 Corinthians 15:41, The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. (NIV) If one accepts God?s Word as inspired he knows that the Universe is not ?old?, but that it was created on the fourth day of the Creation Week (Genesis 1:14-19).

The bottom line is whether one accepts the Bible as the inspired Word of God or not.

[Jukia]

For purposes of this discussion the issue does not seem to be whether on accepts the Bible as the inspired word of God. But rather does one accept Genesis as a literal account of creation. All the evidence points otherwise yet some are willing to ignore the evidence and look at Genesis as literal even though most will agree that at least portions of the Bible are not literal accounts.

The water did not come from anywhere, there was no global flood 4000 +/- years ago. There is no evidence for such a global flood, the story of Noah and the ark is totally unbelievable as a true story. There is substantial evidence that the earth is 4.5 billion +/- years old, and that all living things have descended from a common ancestor