Posted by Bibleman [Bibleman] on November 05, 1999 at 12:03:52 {6xiCHW3gJ2MSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:
In Reply to: ***AF! JAN! AN ICE CANOPY! posted by AF on November 05, 1999 at 06:25:34:
Hi AF,
Thanks for the soundboarding. This is new so all my "excuses" aren't lined yet. (smile) We all appreciate some of the objectiveness of this.
As stated before, though, the main point was that certain Bible verses suggest the "waters above" were "frozen" or solid. So if a free-standing liquid canopy was challenging, then I would think an ice encasement would be less so.
I must say I can't dispute what you say beyond saying that some special "phenomenon" was involved, but on that note, let me point out to you two things:
1) Generally, the rule of physics is that when heat is applied, atoms expand and when heat is lost, they come closer together. Thus solid metal is hard and dense when it is cold, but add heat and it liquifies. That's the standard rule. But that would mean that when H20 froze, it would become denser than water and ordinarily should sink. The result would be the bottoms of the oceans would freeze, killing everything down there and eventually there would be a solid-ice ocean, theoretically. But for some reason water uniquely, just before it bocomes ice, expands electrodynamically. Thus when it does freeze, it is less dense than water and thus it floats! But this is an "exception" to the rule. Thus unless we really know all aspects of what is involved we can't really know specifically whether or not something is impossible or just phenomenal.
2) The other thing of note is the precision of the solar system. It is PRECISE! If there is anything I've learned from my "dabble" into astronomy is how incredibly predictable the locations of the planets are even thousands of years into the past. So if there was an area of expertise attributable to the Creator, it is the precise ability to set orbits for the heavenly bodies with incredible precision, even within the millisecond it would seem.
With such precision seen in other orbiting bodies, therefore, I don't think we should second guess God's ability to create a "solid" structure encasement of the Earth and maintain it's precise synchronized orbit, whether based upon observable dynamic laws of physics or some "alternatively" created phenomenon.
For instance, dark colors absorb heat. Snow and ice with air in it would absorb heat. But clear glass doesn't tend to absorb heat. So one would ask the difference of a translucent versus totally transparent encasement with respect to absorption of radiation. It would certainly be less to minimal.
Also our key scripture says (Prov. 8:28) When he made firm cloud masses above, when he caused the FOUNDATIONS of the watery deep to be strong.
To me these "foundations" suggest whatever physical laws there were to overcome the "structural fragility" of this fragile structure.
What was this? I can't imagine. But I don't think it would have been too difficult for God to do, even within his own physical laws, whether he bends them, as he did with making ice less dense than water, or not.
Another idea I have based upon some scriptures that saws the watery deep was like "swaddling bands" is some type of structural latticery within the ice structure. Maybe an enormous solid belt of ice around the equator or other "bands" establishing or strengthening the structurability.
And then too, with a structure that large, even the earth "flattens out" a bit as it turns. So maybe "strength" was established by some inherent flexibility, though firm. And it is not as though the "arch" of the globe is inward, which is weak, but it is outward. The arch, of course, is very structurally stable. If there were arch foundations within the canopy of thicker bands of ice, the structure may have been quite stable.
And finally, I don't think, based upon the consistently of the orbits of all the planets and even the moon, that there is much "stress" from outside sources to maintain an orbit around the sun.
It is even possible that the outer surface of the canopy to a certain degree melted when facing the sun and then refroze when it moved away from the sun.
So, basically, I understand the skepticism based upon what little information we have. Ultimately if it took a "miracle" to keep the canopy in place, then so be it. But to me, it's a "miracle" our moon has its elliptical orbit around the Earth. It's a miracle to me that the Earth hasn't fallen into the Sun, nor any of the other planets, which maintain their precise orbits century after century.
Still, all considered, a solid water canopy works infinitely better than a liquid one. You will have to at least admit that.
Still, all we are really dealing with is a synchronized orbit, and that doesn't seem to be outside God's expertise since he's a master of precision astronomy.
And finally, the Earth does have magnetic fields focussed over the poles. Maybe the canopy was made magnetodynamically sensitive in some way so that the 'adjusting" was constant based upon that.
Who knows.
Anyway, thanks for the sounding board. I wanted to hear what your take on this was, now that we are more or less stuck with a solid canopy now.
Cheers,
Bibleman