I'm not sure about the canopy theory, but there definitely was a difference in the earth's atmospheric condition. This could be because the atmosphere itself was thicker and held in more oxygen and carbon or there was a canopy of some sort. I don't believe it rained before the flood or God would have stated how He formed this weather somewhere in the creation process. It says what it says and God watered the earth from the mist of the ground just like a greenhouse effect. Also, the dinosaurs couldn't breathe in today's atmospheric conditions. Neither could the large fossilized dragonflies take flight today. And God definitely wouldn't have said that He put the bow in the sky as a sign if the bow already existed. Your communion analogy is a horrible comparison. God never says that He does something that He already did when it is a condition of the earth. As I said, I'm not totally convinced of a water/ice canopy, but the conditions were totally different. There are too many evidential examples that show this. Every desert and icy region of the earth was tropical. The amount of oil and coal throughout the planet. I could go on and on, but all of this evidence could not exist if the earth's weather and atmosphere were the same as it is today. God bless.
I agree with you for the most part, but I'm not dogmatic about the weather and no rain all the way up to the flood. It was a very different world. And the way this guy is dismissing these things is disturbing. I error on the side of "if God said it in His Word , that's the truth. " I love speculating about the preflood world and can't wait to ask Adam, Noah ,and Enoch about it when I get to heaven or when Jesus returns. God bless
@Jonathan Sarfati But JS you make a good number of speculations in this video yourself. You used to be more sure and I love your books because you wrote them with that sense of confidence. Your confidence seems to have wained when I listen to you here and you gave no new answers. Please Re listen to your key points and see what I mean. God bless you for your decades of research.
Unless forming the sky was meant to include weather. It’s not like every animal he created was listed nor every type of geological formation. Come to think of it, I don’t think creation mentions him making the sky, but we can see it exists.
I don't have any arguments for or against. I just think that we need to not put too much weight on passages from Psalms. They are poems and songs that have a lot of metaphor and other figures of speech. They talk of Earth being set on its foundations and other things we know don't apply. I just don't think that we can give scientific weight to works of art. Taking those away seems to reduce arguments against canopy theory.
I wouldn't totally throw away a canopy of some kind. This garden now is open to high energy gamma rays from the universe that apparently are rampant in the interstellar spaces and make living on Mars without a magnetic field unlikely.
In dermatology, a water barrier aides in the fight against hyperpigmentation caused by UV, a water soluble product such as a moisturizer and toner creates a water barrier between the epidermis and melanocytes so that they react less to UV. You get all the benefits of the sun, vitamin D/infrared without the destruction of UVA/UVB causing cancers and mutations.
@Jonathan Sarfati Light and radiation are separate energies. Therefore, have different effects. Radiation from the sun or UV rays has a shorter pathway than light through water. This is stated in my original statement.
@Jonathan Sarfati But it’s not the light that does the damage…it’s the radiation from the Sun. If that where the case, light from any source ie, fluorescents, flashlights, bioluminescence would be harmful. A water barrier aids in protection against UV.
When flood started it says the window of heaven opened and the springs of the deep burst open, if there are springs under the sea[which there are] then there would have been windows in the sky that connected to the water canopy, I think this would make sense in the biblical view, because both origins of water are literal and existent [the springs of the deep do exist and ppl can see them]!
Why would it be tropical? Where does that idea come from? I'm not an expert but far as I know "tropical" is referring to the environmental conditions of specific places on earth. The places themselves called the Tropics. Places near the Equator. The Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer. And if I remember right includes any subsolar regions too. (And it's more complex than that but, it's general overview.) So how could apply to all the Earth even if it was one big continent?
@Jonathan Sarfati I thought God created the earth to be garden like or was that just the Garden of Eden? Genesis 2:5 says, “fort the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth …. But streams came up from the earth and wa tears the whole surface of the ground.” That just sounds tropical to me and green.
You can have a very green garden of many kinds, hardly needs to be tropical to be a garden. So, it hardly strikes me as tropical. Were some places? almost certainly, but looking at the sheer variety of plants, many kinds of plants that exist are simply completely ill-suited for tropical environments. They would need to live somewhere, and so would many animals that are not suited for tropical environments. Now one could speculate that pre-flood, all animals were created to live in tropical conditions, and that all animals that are ill suited for those conditions are ultimately a product of post-flood adaptation but such a claim is not warranted by general or special revelation. We need to be careful, not to read into verses, less we begin to confuse models about God's revelation for God's revelation. Besides, the point about no rain, applies to the earth prior to the completion of creation, not the entire pre-flood period. Given how water evaporation, and cloud formation works, it would require either that physics operated differently prior to the flood, which is certainly a grandiose notion, or that God was continuously engaging in divine intervention to prevent this natural outcome. Both ideas are completely absent from scripture, so it stands to reason that rain would eventually start occurring just as a natural product of water evaporating, and then forming clouds.
I think Dr. Walt Brown has many good points in his hydroplate theory. It accounts for where the water came from, it accounts for rapid plate movement, it accounts for how radioactive material were formed in the granite crust which could account for the decrease in life spans of the people. If there was more radioactive material after the flood this would affect those living on the continents.
In the 1990s, I was teaching creation science in area churches (Michigan, USA) and used a version of the canopy theory. Superficially, it does seem to answer some questions such as longevity before and after the Flood. After learning more, I abandoned it and the canopy theory is in my Past Embarrassments file. Two things I wonder. First, did Dr. Henry M. Morris back off from it? Second, something that cannot really be answered is whether many people who still believe it are doing so because of an emotional attachment, such as hearing it from someone they admire. By the way, "Hanging Loose" made me think of a song, "Hold on Loosely." Mayhaps we can get ApologetiX to give it some new lyrics: You see it all around you, good theories gone bad..." Dr. Sarfati pointed out something that was needed, that the canopy idea is a model, not Scripture, and we can leave it alone.
Archaix gives historical references from ancient texts and oral traditions of the Native Americans. The sun was not seen much prior to the 2239 BC Great Flood.
Canopy is real but as you've sold your soul to Satan you choose his lies. The fact you label yourself as a mythical idea of humanity shows you are no deep thinker. Satan loves deep thinks.
This discussion undermined years of my belief without adding any further / new explanations for how it all happened. Almost as if designed to ruin creation belief. At the beginning JS said update us on latest position, but did he? I didn’t learn something significantly new to ADD evidence to support my belief, but did hear many things to SUBTRACT what I thought was evidence. 😞
If your faith is so strongly tied to the canopy theory then you seem to have not been studying modern creation science very much. Visit creation.com and you will find abundant evidence provided. The Bible doesn't hang on the canopy theory.
The water came from the fountains of the deep (mid atlantic ridge) and didn't need to "go away" because the valleys sank and the mountains rose according to Genesis. This means the ocean probably wasn't as deep before the flood, and only became deep once the flood was over. This caused all the flood water to recede into the ocean. The reason it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is probably because of the vast amount of evaporation that the volcanic Mid Atlantic Ridge would cause, as it was spraying very hot water into the air and ocean.
good one. There were a few good points I hadn't heard before (the dragonflies breathing, and Noah's old age having Shem causing the huge drop off in longevity). I'm not completely convinced by a few things, but it is certainly interesting.
I've always had a pet theory that there is something about the property of how rain now reflects the sun that contains an astrophysical riddle that if solved would be evidence of the very promise that God won't flood the Earth again. I know the Bible doesn't claim that, but I feel like it's the kind of thing God does.
For me, one downside to the canopy theory is the diffusion of visible light preventing a person to clearly see the sun, moon and stars of the creation story.
The canopy could have been thousands of miles deep suspended just as other planets we see have...this would have allowed the sun moon and stars to be also visible all the time in a more subtle way but nevertheless not like today where they are often completely blocked
Jonathan is looking good these days! I was worried for a while there. I love this guy. He was my inspiration to do a Genesis Matters series at church on Wednesday nights. ( come to Australia, you might accidently get killed.) Hey Joel. Good job guys
Wouldn't a water canopy be frozen? And when it was broken is the only explanation for the ice age and the mammoths found frozen in place standing upright with tropical plants still in it's mouth?
I hear the canopy model as being ice water, not liquid or gas. Idea is this blocks the uv. Also crystals pick up the vibration of stars & accounts for the singing stars line.
The absorption spectrum of UVA and Visible light is rather similar for both liquid water and ice with slight differences. They would not shield the earth from significant UV, yet would cause extreme heat retention. So it would be the opposite of what you would want. Besides, to the extent that an ice canopy would reflect some UV, it would also reflect a lot of visible light required for plants. Ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2) would be a far more efficient way of filtering out UVB without all the extreme heat/IR and blocking of visible light. Oxygen and Ozone today absorb around 70-90% of UVB from the sun. Then again, too much O2 may cause several problems as we mentioned in this video at the 7:56 mark.
That’s good that rain existed before the flood, I always thought it was odd that there was never any rain. So I assumed the earth must’ve been created in as a dry environment.
That's right. The Bible tells us that it did not rain before the sixth day since there was no man to work the ground. So God caused a mist to go up from the land to water it. But there was no need for such a process after God created Adam. Genesis 2:5-7 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground- then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
@@Reg_The_Galah I am making the point that no rain existed BEFORE the flood as I see it. It was not required at all and rainbows would have been seen earlier if rain had existed prior.
So you are telling me that these giant humanoid skeletons had the skulls of a T-rex and some also had the skulls of sauropods, and the beaked triceratops? Any creatures with skulls such as these would not seem very humanoid. In addition, not all dinosaurs are giant, most dinosaurs are in fact smaller than sheep. Further, not all dinosaur skeletons are reconstructed. There are complete fossils. We have found this in the case of large marine reptiles, and others in which the entire animal was found as a single complete skeleton, and scaled skin was even found fossilized. Some dinosaurs have never been found as complete skeletons, but this can by no means be applied to all dinosaurs, or all large extinct reptiles.
Sometimes I just hate the lies in the textbooks so much it causes me to grasp hold of any better explanation and see it as conclusive evidence though it may only be a theory. God in his infinite wisdom let’s us know enough to believe the truth of his word, while remaining humble in not being proud and arrogant know-it-alls like the atheists. He loves humility. I want to please him when dismantling evolution theory.
Okay, I have had with the reductionist bent of Creation Ministries International. The Bible cannot be rearranged to suit what the latest batch of scholars have decided is true, any more than we rearrange our beliefs according to what the latest teachers say is true. Today we have preachers who teach that homosexuality is okay and produce twisted scriptures to supposedly prove this. It’s time you guys stopped operating from the point of view of how much intelligence and knowledge you have and start living according to what the Bible says. One text that applies particularly to this is:- 1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; Your ultra-reliance on your own intelligence is leading you away from believing what the word of God says, simply because it’s the word of God.
It wasn't a paradise under the canopy. You said it would be hot. Wouldn't that work for toil? Also, the radiation blocked would have stopped the sun from bringing vitamin D to us. We would have to eat vitamin D. We actually see this in the Neantherthal man. He had rickets. He was lacking in Vitamin D. Wouldn't that be toil?
In a live chat Q & A recently with Kent Hovind, I asked him why he still clings to the canopy theory when AiG discarded it long ago. He said that there's evidence that the Earth had a higher denser atmosphere in the past which is only possible with a canopy. I think clinging to outdated models causes unnecessary ridicule of the YEC movement.
I do not support the canopy model either because Berossus, the Babylonian astronomer/priest stated unequivocally that there were three celestial bodies in the sky which were in alignment and could be pierced by a single arrow prior to the flood. This was even called the Great conjuntion of Primeval times. Those bodies were identified as Saturn, Venus, and Mars. I have seen a Fremont style pictograph at McConkie Ranch, Utah showing this exact image which matches the image on top of chinese temple roofs. Now for the clincher, the Cassini space probe has scanned Saturn, its moons and rings and found the salinity content and even deuterium concentrations completely matches that of Earth's water. So there is historical, archeological, and even recent astronomical evidence stating that the water that came down during the flood came from Saturn. 🤔
"Now for the clincher, the Cassini space probe has scanned Saturn, its moons and rings and found the salinity content and even deuterium concentrations completely matches that of Earth's water. " Let's say that's all true, the Ocean's salinity is not static, and has been increasing over time. The water for the flood is already explained in scripture. rain for forty days and forty nights, in addition to the fountains of the deep bursting. So, rain, and underground water reservoirs. One hardly needs to look to Outerspace or other planets to find enough water.
Saturn is worshipped as god by Pagans. This is where Christmas came from "Sturnalua". Just as was stated in the NT, he is the god of this 3D world. To believe on the heliocentric model is not biblical, it is actually Satanism in disguise.
You propose a good argument by the logic you used to suggest that it actually rained before the flood. Enoch talks about rain before the flood so this is coincident with what you’re saying. However, how come there was only a rainbow after the flood? If you can explain that coherently then I will accept your proposition.
Genesis 2:5-8. Suggests one could theorize that the earths ecology behaved differently, rain came after the fall and maybe not until the flood. The volume of water we have now is significantly higher than the pre-flood days. Scripture clearly says the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep opened. Scripture also states that the garden was watered by the four rivers flowing from Eden and the land had a mist coming up from the ground to water the land... "-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land.." The theory of a massive water encasement above the earth is plausible, Id theorize the encasememt would have been frozen hence being called "the windows of heaven". I love studying Genesis, It always leaves me mesmerized and joyful for its high level of details. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Ancient scripture accuracy of the creation of time, space and matter, the three plains of our reality intersecting each other at the perfect finite point.
One more thing: The Waters above can't be clouds. The Bible says that the birds "fly on the face of the expanse". So where's the expanse between birds and clouds?
The atmosphere could have been a lot thicker before the flood without a water canopy. The explosions of the fountains of the deep may have blown both rocks, water and atmosphere away from the earth. Catastrophic plate tectonics provides a great explanation for moving continents around and flooding them. But we still have a long way to go to begin to have a picture of what earth was like before the flood.
For your interest: → Is the raqîa‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? - creation.com/is-the-raqiya-firmament-a-solid-dome → The ‘waters above’ in Genesis 1-a brief survey of competing interpretations - creation.com/waters-above-survey → Biblical heavens and the language of appearance - creation.com/heavens-phenomenological Also, see the 'related articles' sections below each of those articles. 👍
The Crystalline Canopy Theory in an article published by Creation Evidence Museum by Carl E. Baugh proposes a variety of possibilities that I would love to see CMI address...
Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter. creation.com/dont-use-arguments#baugh
Hello here. I would, if I could, correct something he teaches. The rainbow wasn't there before the flood, contrary to what he says. The reason for this statement is because (1) It is not like communion or baptism at all. Those signs are done by men. This one is done by God. Those signs remind men. This sign reminds God. So why is it right to say that it was a sign with new significance? (2) Why would the rainbow be of any promise to Noah and his sons if they had seen it from the beginning?
I think it's obvious that the entropy caused by accumulation of genetic errors is the primary culprit for our reduced lifespans. Why would we have ever thought that enviornment was the primary cause of such a logarithmic decay of lifespans? Unless the canopy theory was originally proposed before the discovery of the DNA molecule. In that case it would make sense. But what doesn't make sense is why theu would have thought the waters above were the primary cause of the flood, and not the fountains of the deep. We did know about plate tectonics. Though I suppose I am looking in hindsight which is not very fair.
No single video is going to address everything, regardless, hanging your hat on the ice canopy just because of mammoths hardly excuses all the other flaws pointed out. Further, we write about that topic on creation.com. Feel free to look it up, and you will see that one does not need to appeal to an ice canopy to explain it.
The Sudden drop in age after Shem may be a textual variant. See the Septuagint in Gen 5 and 11 compared to the Masoretic Text. Also, it’s possible that the fountains of the deep kept the earth warmer before they were unleashed in the flood.
We believe that the Masoretic text retains the correct genealogical dates. I would encourage you to search creation.com for more related articles as we have written extensively on this topic. creation.com/lxx-mt-response creation.com/smith-response creation.com/6000-years-masoretic-vs-lxx creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx creation.com/long-sojourn-response
@@creationministriesintl I've watched your video on the subject of the Septuagint and found it to be very helpful - enough to change my mind. Thank you again.
Before the "Flood" life spans were several hundred years. Afterward, the grew shorter with each generation! Untill, before the introduction of the first effective antibiotic drug (Penicillin) in 1944-45, life spans (even in Europe and America was only about 50 or so! Today? Nearly all of my own family is living well past 80 ! And the "Record" set just a few years back was nearly 122. So obviously some great amount of "genetic damage" set in right after the "Flood"! Of this there has never been any question.
I disagree that there was rain before the flood. Two simple proofs- One is Genesis 2: 5-6 which says: "Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had NOT YET SENT RAIN UPON THE EARTH, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground." If the Bible makes a note of this, it would likely make a note of when the first rains fell. And the first time after this that the Bible mentions rain on the Earth is Genesis 7:4 in which the Lord says: "For seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living thing I have made.” Verses 10-12 then say: And after seven days the floodwaters came upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights. The clear implication is there was no rain until the flood. The next proof is Genesis 9: 12-13 in which the Lord says: “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set My rainbow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth." The only way a rainbow can occur is by sunshine passing through rain and seen by an observer in between the sun and the rain. Thus the new rainbow appearance requires both at the same time-sunshine during rain. New because there was no rain prior to the flood. And during the flood itself, there was dark clouds and rain. But after the flood, there was current conditions of both for the first time.
Rainbows can be generated without rain, simple 'mist' at a waterfall is well known to produce rainbows. Genesis 2: 5-6 describes unique conditions the world faced prior to the end of creation week. Nothing in scripture suggests this continued after creation week, let alone for over a thousand years. Your argument has already been addressed on creation.com. Please visit the website and use the search engine. Rain is an inevitable product of evaporation. Water evaporates, rises into the air, and the only way for water to come down onto the earth again, is by rain (or snow). Given enough time, rain would have to fall, it is inevitable, and it certainly would be sooner than the 16 centuries separating creation week from the flood.
It's disappointing to see such dishonesty on this channel. At the very end he claims that a canopy theory is not supported by scripture. Anyone with an elementary level of knowledge of the Bible understand the word firmament was used many times Five more minutes of reading would reveal descriptors of the firmament such as sapphire, curtain, metal to name a few. So yes scripture does support the idea of a barrier of some sort. You may not believe a certain theory but please at least be honest in your arguments.
Please review your Google earth map that shows the pre-diluvian shoreline you know as the outer continental shelf. It is 120 meters below the current surface of the ocean. Understand that the tribes of the Pacific Northwest have names for not only villages sites on that ancient shoreline, but also the names for the ancient rivers readily seen on the ocean floor. Inclusive in those ancient names are the names NoaxxSha and EeSha. They also document a greater light during the day and a lesser light at night. Ask yourself where was that 120 meters before the flood? Why does the Bible not mention the sun and moon until after the flood? Did the flood event create the impact crater we know as the Gulf of Mexico, whose debris field became the Great Plains, and the pressure ridge we call the Rocky Mountains. Did the resulting atmosphere collapsing crater plume also form the Sahara Dessert stretching on to Mongolia, along with the Tsunamis debris that created the Aleutian chain, the Sea of Japan, the Sea of Okhotsk, the East China Sea, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Bismarck Sea, the Appalachian Mountains, as well as depositing ocean seals and salmon, 1,000 miles inland, into Lake Baikal that survive today? There are scores of global scars that verify the flood for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. God left His palm print for who would see.
Okay guys I'm always ready to learn. Do you have a reason or model that does explain extraordinary sizes of animals in the fossil records? I was bought up on the canopy theory and while I have some understanding of what you are saying I am searching for an explanation for these gigantic animals and insects. Can you help and do you have a theory of how and why they are found?
In Genesis 7:11 it says God broke the fountains of the deep. The book of Jubilees tells us that there were “7 mouths” at the great fountain of the deep that were broken. How many major tectonic plates does science tell us we have? 7. What are the causes of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes? The movement of tectonic plates. So natural disasters are a domino effect of God destabilising the earth when He broke the fountains of the great deep.
This video just recycles Dr. Sarfati's arguments from Creation magazine but is very unconvincing. It keeps bringing up the false belief that the decrease in the lifetimes had something to do with it. It has nothing to do with the canopy theory. Also, it keeps repeating Vardan's 30 year old research which assumes the canopy was 1.5 meters thick. It could have been just inches thick.
being a few inches thick doesn't exactly do anything to help with the radiation protection. In addition, it is relevant because most people we hear from who do promote the canopy theory do employ it as an explanation of long lifespans, and believe the canopy was very thick (thus providing a notable source of water for the flood). If you have a particular version of the theory then you are welcome to send it a ticket, or just ignore the parts that don't apply to whatever version of the model you have adopted.
Let there be light. . Nova, is extremely hot. It evaporated the ice the world was. That vapor went to the thermosphere and stayed. . Simular to Saturn with debris rings feom nova. I hope that's clear for everyone!
We gave quite clear reasons for why the vapour canopy doesn't work. Do you have a remedy for these problems, or something that suggests scientific or scriptural issues with the waters above being on the edges of the universe?
As we pointed out, Psalm 148:3-4 speak of the "waters above the heavens" still existing at the time the Psalm was written. This would not have been the case if the waters above the heavens referred to a pre-Flood water canopy. Psalm 148:3-4 Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! 4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens! Genesis 1:7-8 And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven.
Well here is a big problem that I see so far. Poking holes in a theory that does have some proof isn't any better. We know there were dragon Flys with 12 inch wing span and some of the dinosaurs size and build would make it very difficult for them to move unless there was a higher air pressure and oxygen content. We know this from ice samples as well. So it goes a long way into proving some thing was different back then. Higher air pressure also allowed bigger insects and larger birds to fly easier then they could today. We also know there were several larger flying birds that are now extinct. I don't think genetics can explain the insect difference in size today. So yeah there has to be some difference back then that allowed much larger animals to exist and its really funny we don't have near the mega fauna that was here.
What we listed was a lot more than just some holes. We have written on those other matters on creation.com, I recommend visiting there. All things considered, one must keep in mind, those features you describe in the pre-flood biosphere cannot be used as evidence specifically of a vapour canopy. Pre-flood conditions were different without a doubt, but alternative explanations for those should be explored, as the video makes clear, the vapour canopy presents numerous extreme problems, and is not a direct teaching of scripture anyways.
@@creationministriesintl well as to biosphere features why could they not be used? We know there had been higher oxygen levels and higher air pressure. Oxygen at 31% has been found deep in ice bubbles. So yes that's a fact. Some very large awkward looking things flew a higher air density and pressure would help those things fly. So there are several things that point to a very different earth.
Did I say the earth wasn't 'very different'? Did you look these things up on creation.com? You aren't bringing up talking points were aren't already aware of, and just as before "those features you describe in the pre-flood biosphere cannot be used as evidence specifically of a vapour canopy. Pre-flood conditions were different without a doubt, but alternative explanations for those should be explored, as the video makes clear, the vapour canopy presents numerous extreme problems, and is not a direct teaching of scripture anyways." Those things you bring up, even if uncontestable, do not magically erase the fatal flaws highlighted in the video, so to assume that the water canopy must be the explanation behind those unique features, is not only unverifiable but also unreasonable. It is far more reasonable to search for an explanation that accounts for those unique features without also having extreme explanatory problems (such as steam cooking all life on the planet). There is good reason that all major creationist organizations (AIG, ICR, and CMI) have abandoned the canopy theory. It is a bad explanation. There are other ways to explain these features that are far more sound.
@@creationministriesintl yeah I watched it but I don't know that I agree with all your findings. There were multiple types of insects that got very large. Way larger then any today. So yeah you have to have a repeatable method for them growing that large. Just explaining the difference in their breathing isn't going to cut it on such a level. That's what I'm trying to point out. Just because I disagree with some of your findings doesn't mean I'm trying to push evolution as I'm not. I just find some of your conclusions not fully thought out in my opinion. I may be completely wrong so it's why I brought this up to see if my thoughts or yours will hold up. Thats not me trying to be rude or insulting far from it. I'm trying to sort something out that is new and I'm trying to figure out which makes more sense.
the water canopy is so clearly written in Genesis...... how dare you try to argue it away .... ! No one knows how far out or deep it was so to presume it would not have created edenic temperatures is the hight of arrogance in the face of Our heavenly Father's knowledge and wisdom!!!!!!
Why would we? Rarely do debates change anyone's mind, and it is often a poor way to properly explain a position, let alone convince the opponent to change his or her mind. Rather than a debate, it is better for Creationists to publish their claims in Creationist peer review journals so the ideas can be examined like any other model. The model has been examined among the major creationist organizations and subjected to the peer review process, and the idea has been rightly rejected. If Kent Hovind still holds to that model someone should recommend that he examine the reasons why all the big creation groups reject it, if those don't change his mind, then he is welcome to publish a paper defending the model in one or more of the creation science journals, which is the appropriate method when it comes to scientific models. A UA-cam debate is not an appropriate medium for that.
In our experience, it is not (you can access previous debates that CMI's members have engaged in before, or attempted to organize, but when it comes to reaching people, it tends to accomplish little). When hashing out models the major creationist organizations do so in our journal publications. As said, he is welcome to examine the information published there (as that treatment will be far more comprehensive than any youtube debate), and if he wishes to defend the canopy model after that, then submitting it to the journals (where the creation community as a whole can analyze his arguments) would be the best approach. Debates may be popular for entertainment, but they are not useful for much else. creation.com/debates Journal publications are where secular scientists challenge each other, and develop their models, and it is where creationists do so too. Debates are good for armchair entertainment, but not for model building. You don't have to like the answer, but that is where the strength of a model is tested today whether it be in the secular, or creationist community. Laymen are free to read the publications as well, it is hardly something that occurs in the shadows.
@@creationministriesintl Debates go on in colleges all the time. They're great entertainment, plus another tool to make a person think. I think you're mistaken, but to each there own.
What is the sun? What is the exhaust created by burning hydrogen? How many BTUs are generated by burning hydrogen? A massive hydrogen flame burns so hot and fast it leaves a ball of ice behind in the process it also creates water and in that state with the outer atmosphere it will stay that way. The earth had a 36hr rotation, 2 days and nights in one rotation of the earth. What changed it our actions and words caused the earth to spin faster. there was water but between us and the water was ice. Of course it didn't start that way but the faster the earth spun the more water was produed by the melting ice. The ice protected us from infrared and ultraviolet rays. No wind to blow disease from one camp to another. it continued until the weight of the water burst open the windows of heaven. You want to debate it with me. I will prove what I am saying with the Bible and with science any time you are ready to challenge me. Not only this but you will see it again God promises 2 things; One the entire Earth will never be flooded with water again and two the next time earth will be destroyed by fire. The fire that will make a new Heaven and a new earth. Frozen water is ice!
Speaking of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, I placed them in the order of their accepted birth and not their order of importance and how even at the birth of Jesus it was the descendants of Shem (Jewish people) who were first to arrive followed by Ham's offspring, (the Wise men) and last, Japheth's people represented by King Herod who wanted to finish off a rival to his throne. He was a king to the Jews who purchased his kingship from the Romans. All of the way through the Old & New Testament the order represented is always Shem, Ham, and Jephthah. God has purpose to His order in everything. Also of note is what isn't written. Are we to assume that this was Noah's first wife and kids? Were there never any daughters? It doesn't matter in the slightest, because what is important for us to know is what God had His people write down for us to know.
The change in state of a large enough amount of anyrhing, techincally creates an effect that causes a ripple in our aqueous and resonant beings and interdependent atmosphere 0.o😅
Or… maybe your idea of the “universe” doesn’t exist. Maybe the Bible is right and the earth is flat, stationary and enclosed just like it says, despite the conventions of men.
We've covered flat earth in plenty of detail, e.g. creation.com/refuting-flat-earth (and see the related articles and media). So we won't be discussing these here. 👍
@@boomstand2872 His enunciation is poor by any standard, and he lives and works in America, not Singapore. His job is public speaking, so I would think he wants people to understand him. Gracious includes constructive criticism.
Would you like him to speak with a Southern accent, a New York accent, an Eskimo accent or maybe he should speak speak like a Californian. Personally I think he should train himself to speak with a Wisconsin accent or maybe Canadian. King James English would be fun too.
I'm not sure about the canopy theory, but there definitely was a difference in the earth's atmospheric condition. This could be because the atmosphere itself was thicker and held in more oxygen and carbon or there was a canopy of some sort. I don't believe it rained before the flood or God would have stated how He formed this weather somewhere in the creation process. It says what it says and God watered the earth from the mist of the ground just like a greenhouse effect. Also, the dinosaurs couldn't breathe in today's atmospheric conditions. Neither could the large fossilized dragonflies take flight today. And God definitely wouldn't have said that He put the bow in the sky as a sign if the bow already existed. Your communion analogy is a horrible comparison. God never says that He does something that He already did when it is a condition of the earth. As I said, I'm not totally convinced of a water/ice canopy, but the conditions were totally different. There are too many evidential examples that show this. Every desert and icy region of the earth was tropical. The amount of oil and coal throughout the planet. I could go on and on, but all of this evidence could not exist if the earth's weather and atmosphere were the same as it is today. God bless.
I agree with you for the most part, but I'm not dogmatic about the weather and no rain all the way up to the flood. It was a very different world. And the way this guy is dismissing these things is disturbing. I error on the side of "if God said it in His Word , that's the truth. " I love speculating about the preflood world and can't wait to ask Adam, Noah ,and Enoch about it when I get to heaven or when Jesus returns. God bless
@@patelk464 Great response, thank you
@Jonathan Sarfati I'll have to rewatch it. Thanks. I'm just not quick to dismiss it as a possibility.
@Jonathan Sarfati But JS you make a good number of speculations in this video yourself. You used to be more sure and I love your books because you wrote them with that sense of confidence. Your confidence seems to have wained when I listen to you here and you gave no new answers. Please Re listen to your key points and see what I mean. God bless you for your decades of research.
Unless forming the sky was meant to include weather. It’s not like every animal he created was listed nor every type of geological formation. Come to think of it, I don’t think creation mentions him making the sky, but we can see it exists.
I don't have any arguments for or against. I just think that we need to not put too much weight on passages from Psalms. They are poems and songs that have a lot of metaphor and other figures of speech. They talk of Earth being set on its foundations and other things we know don't apply. I just don't think that we can give scientific weight to works of art. Taking those away seems to reduce arguments against canopy theory.
I wouldn't totally throw away a canopy of some kind. This garden now is open to high energy gamma rays from the universe that apparently are rampant in the interstellar spaces and make living on Mars without a magnetic field unlikely.
I'm not sure about the canopy. It's interesting.
In dermatology, a water barrier aides in the fight against hyperpigmentation caused by UV, a water soluble product such as a moisturizer and toner creates a water barrier between the epidermis and melanocytes so that they react less to UV.
You get all the benefits of the sun, vitamin D/infrared without the destruction of UVA/UVB causing cancers and mutations.
@Jonathan Sarfati It has to be water based for it to be soluble. It’s the water that provides the barrier…
@Jonathan Sarfati ???
@Jonathan Sarfati Light and radiation are separate energies. Therefore, have different effects. Radiation from the sun or UV rays has a shorter pathway than light through water. This is stated in my original statement.
@Jonathan Sarfati But it’s not the light that does the damage…it’s the radiation from the Sun. If that where the case, light from any source ie, fluorescents, flashlights, bioluminescence would be harmful. A water barrier aids in protection against UV.
@Jonathan Sarfati …which affects the absorption because of the chemical concentration of water…
When flood started it says the window of heaven opened and the springs of the deep burst open, if there are springs under the sea[which there are] then there would have been windows in the sky that connected to the water canopy, I think this would make sense in the biblical view, because both origins of water are literal and existent [the springs of the deep do exist and ppl can see them]!
Perhaps the drop in Shem's age was both Noah's age and the change in environment.
Maybe genetics, too.
But wasn’t the entire earth tropical before the flood? What kept it that way?
Why would it be tropical? Where does that idea come from?
I'm not an expert but far as I know "tropical" is referring to the environmental conditions of specific places on earth.
The places themselves called the Tropics.
Places near the Equator. The Tropic of Capricorn or the Tropic of Cancer. And if I remember right includes any subsolar regions too. (And it's more complex than that but, it's general overview.)
So how could apply to all the Earth even if it was one big continent?
@Jonathan Sarfati I thought God created the earth to be garden like or was that just the Garden of Eden? Genesis 2:5 says, “fort the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth …. But streams came up from the earth and wa tears the whole surface of the ground.” That just sounds tropical to me and green.
You can have a very green garden of many kinds, hardly needs to be tropical to be a garden. So, it hardly strikes me as tropical. Were some places? almost certainly, but looking at the sheer variety of plants, many kinds of plants that exist are simply completely ill-suited for tropical environments. They would need to live somewhere, and so would many animals that are not suited for tropical environments. Now one could speculate that pre-flood, all animals were created to live in tropical conditions, and that all animals that are ill suited for those conditions are ultimately a product of post-flood adaptation but such a claim is not warranted by general or special revelation.
We need to be careful, not to read into verses, less we begin to confuse models about God's revelation for God's revelation.
Besides, the point about no rain, applies to the earth prior to the completion of creation, not the entire pre-flood period. Given how water evaporation, and cloud formation works, it would require either that physics operated differently prior to the flood, which is certainly a grandiose notion, or that God was continuously engaging in divine intervention to prevent this natural outcome. Both ideas are completely absent from scripture, so it stands to reason that rain would eventually start occurring just as a natural product of water evaporating, and then forming clouds.
probably because the art wasn't tilted on its axis back then
there is satan here, defying canopy, deceiving...the poles DID have tropical climate... pls do not waste ur time on these enemies
I think Dr. Walt Brown has many good points in his hydroplate theory. It accounts for where the water came from, it accounts for rapid plate movement, it accounts for how radioactive material were formed in the granite crust which could account for the decrease in life spans of the people. If there was more radioactive material after the flood this would affect those living on the continents.
In the 1990s, I was teaching creation science in area churches (Michigan, USA) and used a version of the canopy theory. Superficially, it does seem to answer some questions such as longevity before and after the Flood. After learning more, I abandoned it and the canopy theory is in my Past Embarrassments file. Two things I wonder. First, did Dr. Henry M. Morris back off from it? Second, something that cannot really be answered is whether many people who still believe it are doing so because of an emotional attachment, such as hearing it from someone they admire. By the way, "Hanging Loose" made me think of a song, "Hold on Loosely." Mayhaps we can get ApologetiX to give it some new lyrics: You see it all around you, good theories gone bad..." Dr. Sarfati pointed out something that was needed, that the canopy idea is a model, not Scripture, and we can leave it alone.
Archaix gives historical references from ancient texts and oral traditions of the Native Americans. The sun was not seen much prior to the 2239 BC Great Flood.
Canopy is real but as you've sold your soul to Satan you choose his lies.
The fact you label yourself as a mythical idea of humanity shows you are no deep thinker.
Satan loves deep thinks.
This discussion undermined years of my belief without adding any further / new explanations for how it all happened. Almost as if designed to ruin creation belief. At the beginning JS said update us on latest position, but did he? I didn’t learn something significantly new to ADD evidence to support my belief, but did hear many things to SUBTRACT what I thought was evidence. 😞
If your faith is so strongly tied to the canopy theory then you seem to have not been studying modern creation science very much. Visit creation.com and you will find abundant evidence provided.
The Bible doesn't hang on the canopy theory.
Congrats on 20k 👍 thanks for the video brothers
The water came from the fountains of the deep (mid atlantic ridge) and didn't need to "go away" because the valleys sank and the mountains rose according to Genesis. This means the ocean probably wasn't as deep before the flood, and only became deep once the flood was over. This caused all the flood water to recede into the ocean. The reason it rained for 40 days and 40 nights is probably because of the vast amount of evaporation that the volcanic Mid Atlantic Ridge would cause, as it was spraying very hot water into the air and ocean.
good one. There were a few good points I hadn't heard before (the dragonflies breathing, and Noah's old age having Shem causing the huge drop off in longevity). I'm not completely convinced by a few things, but it is certainly interesting.
I've always had a pet theory that there is something about the property of how rain now reflects the sun that contains an astrophysical riddle that if solved would be evidence of the very promise that God won't flood the Earth again. I know the Bible doesn't claim that, but I feel like it's the kind of thing God does.
Thanks for these videos CMI. Glad I found your channel.
For me, one downside to the canopy theory is the diffusion of visible light preventing a person to clearly see the sun, moon and stars of the creation story.
I was taught it would magnify them
The canopy could have been thousands of miles deep suspended just as other planets we see have...this would have allowed the sun moon and stars to be also visible all the time in a more subtle way but nevertheless not like today where they are often completely blocked
Jonathan is looking good these days! I was worried for a while there. I love this guy. He was my inspiration to do a Genesis Matters series at church on Wednesday nights. ( come to Australia, you might accidently get killed.) Hey Joel. Good job guys
Why would he accidentally get killed if he cane to Australia? 🤪😀
You guys need to look more at chronological order of buried sites! It’s now undeniable! The phoenix event is well known now
Never heard of it. Video?
Wouldn't a water canopy be frozen? And when it was broken is the only explanation for the ice age and the mammoths found frozen in place standing upright with tropical plants still in it's mouth?
There are articles on creation.com explaining the cause of the ice age, and 'snap frozen' mammoths.
Yes, super cold ice is also flexible and magnetic, the hyperbaric pressure would also explain how giant insects could breathe and fly.
I hear the canopy model as being ice water, not liquid or gas. Idea is this blocks the uv. Also crystals pick up the vibration of stars & accounts for the singing stars line.
The absorption spectrum of UVA and Visible light is rather similar for both liquid water and ice with slight differences. They would not shield the earth from significant UV, yet would cause extreme heat retention. So it would be the opposite of what you would want. Besides, to the extent that an ice canopy would reflect some UV, it would also reflect a lot of visible light required for plants. Ozone (O3) and oxygen (O2) would be a far more efficient way of filtering out UVB without all the extreme heat/IR and blocking of visible light. Oxygen and Ozone today absorb around 70-90% of UVB from the sun. Then again, too much O2 may cause several problems as we mentioned in this video at the 7:56 mark.
That’s good that rain existed before the flood, I always thought it was odd that there was never any rain. So I assumed the earth must’ve been created in as a dry environment.
That's right. The Bible tells us that it did not rain before the sixth day since there was no man to work the ground. So God caused a mist to go up from the land to water it. But there was no need for such a process after God created Adam.
Genesis 2:5-7
When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground- then the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.
@@creationministriesintl thank you
In a green house moist environment do you need rain? NO.
@@mrtracyut you need to settle down there. You probably forgot to watch the video
@@Reg_The_Galah I am making the point that no rain existed BEFORE the flood as I see it. It was not required at all and rainbows would have been seen earlier if rain had existed prior.
Great podcast! I ordered your guy's book on dinosaurs. Can't wait to read it. 🐲🦕🦖
@Jonathan Sarfati thanks Jono!
So you are telling me that these giant humanoid skeletons had the skulls of a T-rex and some also had the skulls of sauropods, and the beaked triceratops? Any creatures with skulls such as these would not seem very humanoid.
In addition, not all dinosaurs are giant, most dinosaurs are in fact smaller than sheep. Further, not all dinosaur skeletons are reconstructed. There are complete fossils. We have found this in the case of large marine reptiles, and others in which the entire animal was found as a single complete skeleton, and scaled skin was even found fossilized.
Some dinosaurs have never been found as complete skeletons, but this can by no means be applied to all dinosaurs, or all large extinct reptiles.
Dinosaurs are dragons.
Could the change in age be caused by lifestyle changes instead of environment
Sometimes I just hate the lies in the textbooks so much it causes me to grasp hold of any better explanation and see it as conclusive evidence though it may only be a theory.
God in his infinite wisdom let’s us know enough to believe the truth of his word, while remaining humble in not being proud and arrogant know-it-alls like the atheists. He loves humility. I want to please him when dismantling evolution theory.
Okay, I have had with the reductionist bent of Creation Ministries International.
The Bible cannot be rearranged to suit what the latest batch of scholars have decided is true, any more than we rearrange our beliefs according to what the latest teachers say is true.
Today we have preachers who teach that homosexuality is okay and produce twisted scriptures to supposedly prove this.
It’s time you guys stopped operating from the point of view of how much intelligence and knowledge you have and start living according to what the Bible says.
One text that applies particularly to this is:-
1 Corinthians 1:27 KJV
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Your ultra-reliance on your own intelligence is leading you away from believing what the word of God says, simply because it’s the word of God.
A very interesting conversation.
Not convince about the "no rain" and no canopy when it is actually in Genesis 1:7
It wasn't a paradise under the canopy. You said it would be hot. Wouldn't that work for toil? Also, the radiation blocked would have stopped the sun from bringing vitamin D to us. We would have to eat vitamin D.
We actually see this in the Neantherthal man. He had rickets. He was lacking in Vitamin D. Wouldn't that be toil?
In a live chat Q & A recently with Kent Hovind, I asked him why he still clings to the canopy theory when AiG discarded it long ago.
He said that there's evidence that the Earth had a higher denser atmosphere in the past which is only possible with a canopy.
I think clinging to outdated models causes unnecessary ridicule of the YEC movement.
I do not support the canopy model either because Berossus, the Babylonian astronomer/priest stated unequivocally that there were three celestial bodies in the sky which were in alignment and could be pierced by a single arrow prior to the flood. This was even called the Great conjuntion of Primeval times. Those bodies were identified as Saturn, Venus, and Mars. I have seen a Fremont style pictograph at McConkie Ranch, Utah showing this exact image which matches the image on top of chinese temple roofs. Now for the clincher, the Cassini space probe has scanned Saturn, its moons and rings and found the salinity content and even deuterium concentrations completely matches that of Earth's water. So there is historical, archeological, and even recent astronomical evidence stating that the water that came down during the flood came from Saturn. 🤔
"Now for the clincher, the Cassini space probe has scanned Saturn, its moons and rings and found the salinity content and even deuterium concentrations completely matches that of Earth's water. "
Let's say that's all true, the Ocean's salinity is not static, and has been increasing over time.
The water for the flood is already explained in scripture. rain for forty days and forty nights, in addition to the fountains of the deep bursting. So, rain, and underground water reservoirs. One hardly needs to look to Outerspace or other planets to find enough water.
Saturn is worshipped as god by Pagans. This is where Christmas came from "Sturnalua". Just as was stated in the NT, he is the god of this 3D world. To believe on the heliocentric model is not biblical, it is actually Satanism in disguise.
You propose a good argument by the logic you used to suggest that it actually rained before the flood. Enoch talks about rain before the flood so this is coincident with what you’re saying.
However, how come there was only a rainbow after the flood? If you can explain that coherently then I will accept your proposition.
Genesis 2:5-8. Suggests one could theorize that the earths ecology behaved differently, rain came after the fall and maybe not until the flood. The volume of water we have now is significantly higher than the pre-flood days. Scripture clearly says the windows of heaven and the fountains of the deep opened.
Scripture also states that the garden was watered by the four rivers flowing from Eden and the land had a mist coming up from the ground to water the land... "-for the Lord God had not caused it to rain on the land.."
The theory of a massive water encasement above the earth is plausible, Id theorize the encasememt would have been frozen hence being called "the windows of heaven".
I love studying Genesis, It always leaves me mesmerized and joyful for its high level of details.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Ancient scripture accuracy of the creation of time, space and matter, the three plains of our reality intersecting each other at the perfect finite point.
One more thing: The Waters above can't be clouds. The Bible says that the birds "fly on the face of the expanse". So where's the expanse between birds and clouds?
The atmosphere could have been a lot thicker before the flood without a water canopy. The explosions of the fountains of the deep may have blown both rocks, water and atmosphere away from the earth. Catastrophic plate tectonics provides a great explanation for moving continents around and flooding them. But we still have a long way to go to begin to have a picture of what earth was like before the flood.
What about the firmament in Genesis 1,8?
For your interest:
→ Is the raqîa‘ (‘firmament’) a solid dome? - creation.com/is-the-raqiya-firmament-a-solid-dome
→ The ‘waters above’ in Genesis 1-a brief survey of competing interpretations - creation.com/waters-above-survey
→ Biblical heavens and the language of appearance - creation.com/heavens-phenomenological
Also, see the 'related articles' sections below each of those articles. 👍
The Crystalline Canopy Theory in an article published by Creation Evidence Museum by Carl E. Baugh proposes a variety of possibilities that I would love to see CMI address...
Sorry to say, we think that he’s well meaning but that he unfortunately uses a lot of material that is not sound scientifically. So we advise against relying on any ‘evidence’ he provides, unless supported by creationist organisations with reputations for Biblical and scientific rigour. Unfortunately, there are talented creationist speakers with reasonably orthodox understandings of Genesis who continue to promote some of the Wyatt and Baugh ‘evidences’ despite being approached on the matter.
creation.com/dont-use-arguments#baugh
Hello here. I would, if I could, correct something he teaches.
The rainbow wasn't there before the flood, contrary to what he says. The reason for this statement is because
(1) It is not like communion or baptism at all. Those signs are done by men. This one is done by God. Those signs remind men. This sign reminds God. So why is it right to say that it was a sign with new significance?
(2) Why would the rainbow be of any promise to Noah and his sons if they had seen it from the beginning?
Intresting when he mentioned about putting new meanig, never seen it that way
I think it's obvious that the entropy caused by accumulation of genetic errors is the primary culprit for our reduced lifespans. Why would we have ever thought that enviornment was the primary cause of such a logarithmic decay of lifespans? Unless the canopy theory was originally proposed before the discovery of the DNA molecule. In that case it would make sense.
But what doesn't make sense is why theu would have thought the waters above were the primary cause of the flood, and not the fountains of the deep. We did know about plate tectonics. Though I suppose I am looking in hindsight which is not very fair.
Patriarchal drive is the most likely explanation.
creation.com/patriarchal-drive
I like the canopy theory. I don't think the bible mentions that it does rain beforehand .
And it does say water came up from below too.
How would you then explain the ice age??
I think I'll stick to the ice canopy theory - this presentation didn't explain how many mammoths were found in the upright position.
No single video is going to address everything, regardless, hanging your hat on the ice canopy just because of mammoths hardly excuses all the other flaws pointed out. Further, we write about that topic on creation.com. Feel free to look it up, and you will see that one does not need to appeal to an ice canopy to explain it.
The Sudden drop in age after Shem may be a textual variant. See the Septuagint in Gen 5 and 11 compared to the Masoretic Text. Also, it’s possible that the fountains of the deep kept the earth warmer before they were unleashed in the flood.
We believe that the Masoretic text retains the correct genealogical dates. I would encourage you to search creation.com for more related articles as we have written extensively on this topic.
creation.com/lxx-mt-response
creation.com/smith-response
creation.com/6000-years-masoretic-vs-lxx
creation.com/bad-arguments-mt-lxx
creation.com/long-sojourn-response
@@creationministriesintl Thank you for taking the time to respond.
@@creationministriesintl I've watched your video on the subject of the Septuagint and found it to be very helpful - enough to change my mind. Thank you again.
Before the "Flood" life spans were several hundred years. Afterward, the grew shorter with each generation!
Untill, before the introduction of the first effective antibiotic drug (Penicillin) in 1944-45, life spans (even in Europe and America was only about 50 or so!
Today? Nearly all of my own family is living well past 80 !
And the "Record" set just a few years back was nearly 122.
So obviously some great amount of "genetic damage" set in right after the "Flood"! Of this there has never been any question.
I disagree that there was rain before the flood. Two simple proofs- One is Genesis 2: 5-6 which says: "Now no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth, nor had any plant of the field sprouted; for the LORD God had NOT YET SENT RAIN UPON THE EARTH, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But springs welled up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground."
If the Bible makes a note of this, it would likely make a note of when the first rains fell. And the first time after this that the Bible mentions rain on the Earth is Genesis 7:4 in which the Lord says:
"For seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights, and I will wipe from the face of the earth every living thing I have made.”
Verses 10-12 then say:
And after seven days the floodwaters came upon the earth. In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And the rain fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.
The clear implication is there was no rain until the flood. The next proof is Genesis 9: 12-13 in which the Lord says:
“This is the sign of the covenant I am making between Me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set My rainbow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth."
The only way a rainbow can occur is by sunshine passing through rain and seen by an observer in between the sun and the rain. Thus the new rainbow appearance requires both at the same time-sunshine during rain. New because there was no rain prior to the flood. And during the flood itself, there was dark clouds and rain. But after the flood, there was current conditions of both for the first time.
Rainbows can be generated without rain, simple 'mist' at a waterfall is well known to produce rainbows.
Genesis 2: 5-6 describes unique conditions the world faced prior to the end of creation week. Nothing in scripture suggests this continued after creation week, let alone for over a thousand years.
Your argument has already been addressed on creation.com. Please visit the website and use the search engine.
Rain is an inevitable product of evaporation. Water evaporates, rises into the air, and the only way for water to come down onto the earth again, is by rain (or snow). Given enough time, rain would have to fall, it is inevitable, and it certainly would be sooner than the 16 centuries separating creation week from the flood.
I have not changed my mind yet on this. I still think the Canopy Theory hold water at this time.
It's disappointing to see such dishonesty on this channel. At the very end he claims that a canopy theory is not supported by scripture. Anyone with an elementary level of knowledge of the Bible understand the word firmament was used many times Five more minutes of reading would reveal descriptors of the firmament such as sapphire, curtain, metal to name a few. So yes scripture does support the idea of a barrier of some sort. You may not believe a certain theory but please at least be honest in your arguments.
No dinosaur bones in the La Brea Tar Pits
Please review your Google earth map that shows the pre-diluvian shoreline you know as the outer continental shelf. It is 120 meters below the current surface of the ocean. Understand that the tribes of the Pacific Northwest have names for not only villages sites on that ancient shoreline, but also the names for the ancient rivers readily seen on the ocean floor. Inclusive in those ancient names are the names NoaxxSha and EeSha. They also document a greater light during the day and a lesser light at night. Ask yourself where was that 120 meters before the flood? Why does the Bible not mention the sun and moon until after the flood? Did the flood event create the impact crater we know as the Gulf of Mexico, whose debris field became the Great Plains, and the pressure ridge we call the Rocky Mountains. Did the resulting atmosphere collapsing crater plume also form the Sahara Dessert stretching on to Mongolia, along with the Tsunamis debris that created the Aleutian chain, the Sea of Japan, the Sea of Okhotsk, the East China Sea, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Bismarck Sea, the Appalachian Mountains, as well as depositing ocean seals and salmon, 1,000 miles inland, into Lake Baikal that survive today? There are scores of global scars that verify the flood for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear. God left His palm print for who would see.
Okay guys I'm always ready to learn. Do you have a reason or model that does explain extraordinary sizes of animals in the fossil records? I was bought up on the canopy theory and while I have some understanding of what you are saying I am searching for an explanation for these gigantic animals and insects. Can you help and do you have a theory of how and why they are found?
But where do natural disasters come from, is it possible that the flood event changed the earth in that it was no longer stable?
In Genesis 7:11 it says God broke the fountains of the deep. The book of Jubilees tells us that there were “7 mouths” at the great fountain of the deep that were broken.
How many major tectonic plates does science tell us we have? 7.
What are the causes of earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanoes? The movement of tectonic plates.
So natural disasters are a domino effect of God destabilising the earth when He broke the fountains of the great deep.
This video just recycles Dr. Sarfati's arguments from Creation magazine but is very unconvincing. It keeps bringing up the false belief that the decrease in the lifetimes had something to do with it. It has nothing to do with the canopy theory. Also, it keeps repeating Vardan's 30 year old research which assumes the canopy was 1.5 meters thick. It could have been just inches thick.
being a few inches thick doesn't exactly do anything to help with the radiation protection. In addition, it is relevant because most people we hear from who do promote the canopy theory do employ it as an explanation of long lifespans, and believe the canopy was very thick (thus providing a notable source of water for the flood). If you have a particular version of the theory then you are welcome to send it a ticket, or just ignore the parts that don't apply to whatever version of the model you have adopted.
Let there be light. . Nova, is extremely hot. It evaporated the ice the world was. That vapor went to the thermosphere and stayed. . Simular to Saturn with debris rings feom nova. I hope that's clear for everyone!
Isn’t it crazy that it took Noah 500 years to have a child? What the heck was he doing for all of that time?
@@Chellebelle121 Adam, 130 years.
So “waters on the other side of the universe” is a respectable theory but not the vapor canopy theory? Lost me there
We gave quite clear reasons for why the vapour canopy doesn't work. Do you have a remedy for these problems, or something that suggests scientific or scriptural issues with the waters above being on the edges of the universe?
As we pointed out, Psalm 148:3-4 speak of the "waters above the heavens" still existing at the time the Psalm was written. This would not have been the case if the waters above the heavens referred to a pre-Flood water canopy.
Psalm 148:3-4
Praise him, sun and moon, praise him, all you shining stars! 4 Praise him, you highest heavens, and you waters above the heavens!
Genesis 1:7-8
And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven.
Well here is a big problem that I see so far. Poking holes in a theory that does have some proof isn't any better. We know there were dragon Flys with 12 inch wing span and some of the dinosaurs size and build would make it very difficult for them to move unless there was a higher air pressure and oxygen content. We know this from ice samples as well. So it goes a long way into proving some thing was different back then. Higher air pressure also allowed bigger insects and larger birds to fly easier then they could today. We also know there were several larger flying birds that are now extinct. I don't think genetics can explain the insect difference in size today. So yeah there has to be some difference back then that allowed much larger animals to exist and its really funny we don't have near the mega fauna that was here.
What we listed was a lot more than just some holes. We have written on those other matters on creation.com, I recommend visiting there. All things considered, one must keep in mind, those features you describe in the pre-flood biosphere cannot be used as evidence specifically of a vapour canopy. Pre-flood conditions were different without a doubt, but alternative explanations for those should be explored, as the video makes clear, the vapour canopy presents numerous extreme problems, and is not a direct teaching of scripture anyways.
@@creationministriesintl well as to biosphere features why could they not be used? We know there had been higher oxygen levels and higher air pressure. Oxygen at 31% has been found deep in ice bubbles. So yes that's a fact. Some very large awkward looking things flew a higher air density and pressure would help those things fly. So there are several things that point to a very different earth.
Did I say the earth wasn't 'very different'? Did you look these things up on creation.com?
You aren't bringing up talking points were aren't already aware of, and just as before "those features you describe in the pre-flood biosphere cannot be used as evidence specifically of a vapour canopy. Pre-flood conditions were different without a doubt, but alternative explanations for those should be explored, as the video makes clear, the vapour canopy presents numerous extreme problems, and is not a direct teaching of scripture anyways." Those things you bring up, even if uncontestable, do not magically erase the fatal flaws highlighted in the video, so to assume that the water canopy must be the explanation behind those unique features, is not only unverifiable but also unreasonable. It is far more reasonable to search for an explanation that accounts for those unique features without also having extreme explanatory problems (such as steam cooking all life on the planet).
There is good reason that all major creationist organizations (AIG, ICR, and CMI) have abandoned the canopy theory. It is a bad explanation. There are other ways to explain these features that are far more sound.
We addressed your objections about oxygen in bubbles, dragonflies, etc., in the video. Did you watch it?
@@creationministriesintl yeah I watched it but I don't know that I agree with all your findings. There were multiple types of insects that got very large. Way larger then any today. So yeah you have to have a repeatable method for them growing that large. Just explaining the difference in their breathing isn't going to cut it on such a level. That's what I'm trying to point out. Just because I disagree with some of your findings doesn't mean I'm trying to push evolution as I'm not. I just find some of your conclusions not fully thought out in my opinion. I may be completely wrong so it's why I brought this up to see if my thoughts or yours will hold up. Thats not me trying to be rude or insulting far from it. I'm trying to sort something out that is new and I'm trying to figure out which makes more sense.
I couldn't make it past the 2 :50 mark, because of the logical fallacies. If A is true B must also be true - is a fallacy.
Care to get a bit more specific?
Does the canopy HAVE to explain the age of the patriarchs to be true?
Sin creates genetic error, which multiplies?
the water canopy is so clearly written in Genesis...... how dare you try to argue it away .... ! No one knows how far out or deep it was so to presume it would not have created edenic temperatures is the hight of arrogance in the face of Our heavenly Father's knowledge and wisdom!!!!!!
The Bible says that there was rain
Why is it so hard to believe the Bible? That is one reason why people did not believ... They had never had rain
Thus us exactly why the rainbow first appeared after the flood and now you have another problem to solve!!!!
Why don't you folks have a debate with Dr. Kent Hovind on a debate channel about this with him.
Why would we? Rarely do debates change anyone's mind, and it is often a poor way to properly explain a position, let alone convince the opponent to change his or her mind. Rather than a debate, it is better for Creationists to publish their claims in Creationist peer review journals so the ideas can be examined like any other model.
The model has been examined among the major creationist organizations and subjected to the peer review process, and the idea has been rightly rejected. If Kent Hovind still holds to that model someone should recommend that he examine the reasons why all the big creation groups reject it, if those don't change his mind, then he is welcome to publish a paper defending the model in one or more of the creation science journals, which is the appropriate method when it comes to scientific models. A UA-cam debate is not an appropriate medium for that.
@@creationministriesintl A debate is perfect to get info out. Have some Christian strength. He does, you should.
In our experience, it is not (you can access previous debates that CMI's members have engaged in before, or attempted to organize, but when it comes to reaching people, it tends to accomplish little). When hashing out models the major creationist organizations do so in our journal publications. As said, he is welcome to examine the information published there (as that treatment will be far more comprehensive than any youtube debate), and if he wishes to defend the canopy model after that, then submitting it to the journals (where the creation community as a whole can analyze his arguments) would be the best approach. Debates may be popular for entertainment, but they are not useful for much else.
creation.com/debates
Journal publications are where secular scientists challenge each other, and develop their models, and it is where creationists do so too. Debates are good for armchair entertainment, but not for model building.
You don't have to like the answer, but that is where the strength of a model is tested today whether it be in the secular, or creationist community.
Laymen are free to read the publications as well, it is hardly something that occurs in the shadows.
@@creationministriesintl Debates go on in colleges all the time. They're great entertainment, plus another tool to make a person think. I think you're mistaken, but to each there own.
What is the sun? What is the exhaust created by burning hydrogen? How many BTUs are generated by burning hydrogen? A massive hydrogen flame burns so hot and fast it leaves a ball of ice behind in the process it also creates water and in that state with the outer atmosphere it will stay that way. The earth had a 36hr rotation, 2 days and nights in one rotation of the earth. What changed it our actions and words caused the earth to spin faster. there was water but between us and the water was ice. Of course it didn't start that way but the faster the earth spun the more water was produed by the melting ice. The ice protected us from infrared and ultraviolet rays. No wind to blow disease from one camp to another. it continued until the weight of the water burst open the windows of heaven. You want to debate it with me. I will prove what I am saying with the Bible and with science any time you are ready to challenge me. Not only this but you will see it again God promises 2 things; One the entire Earth will never be flooded with water again and two the next time earth will be destroyed by fire. The fire that will make a new Heaven and a new earth. Frozen water is ice!
Speaking of Japheth, Ham, and Shem, I placed them in the order of their accepted birth and not their order of importance and how even at the birth of Jesus it was the descendants of Shem (Jewish people) who were first to arrive followed by Ham's offspring, (the Wise men) and last, Japheth's people represented by King Herod who wanted to finish off a rival to his throne. He was a king to the Jews who purchased his kingship from the Romans. All of the way through the Old & New Testament the order represented is always Shem, Ham, and Jephthah. God has purpose to His order in everything. Also of note is what isn't written. Are we to assume that this was Noah's first wife and kids? Were there never any daughters? It doesn't matter in the slightest, because what is important for us to know is what God had His people write down for us to know.
I thought the vapor canopy meant the gas form of water other gaseous substances 😅 like clouds
The change in state of a large enough amount of anyrhing, techincally creates an effect that causes a ripple in our aqueous and resonant beings and interdependent atmosphere 0.o😅
Read the Septuagint like Jesus did. The ages of the lineage becomes much more clear and corrects the masoretic paradox
Phoenix phonomenum ! Noahs flood 2239 BC ?
Oxygen levels were 30-40% higher
Or… maybe your idea of the “universe” doesn’t exist. Maybe the Bible is right and the earth is flat, stationary and enclosed just like it says, despite the conventions of men.
We've covered flat earth in plenty of detail, e.g. creation.com/refuting-flat-earth (and see the related articles and media).
So we won't be discussing these here. 👍
Mr. Tay, please take some speech lessons. You are hard to understand.
He speaks perfectly normal Singaporean English. Perhaps you could take some listening lessons, or be a little bit more gracious. ;)
@@boomstand2872 His enunciation is poor by any standard, and he lives and works in America, not Singapore. His job is public speaking, so I would think he wants people to understand him. Gracious includes constructive criticism.
Would you like him to speak with a Southern accent, a New York accent, an Eskimo accent or maybe he should speak speak like a Californian. Personally I think he should train himself to speak with a Wisconsin accent or maybe Canadian. King James English would be fun too.
Pre flood conditions were different