Posted by Drake, Jr. [GLamotta] on March 30, 1999 at 19:56:54 {.Oe37V.qjQMSSTtTA17sboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: **For you Drake! posted by Water Canopy HEY AF! on March 30, 1999 at 09:26:37:
It is interesting that the concept of
the water canopy is dismissed so quickly.
But it is quite reasonable in the context
of the original question and that is that
after the flood, suddenly there would be
seasons, implying
there were no seasons
earlier.
In addition, it is quite common knowledge that
there is evidence that even the poles were once
tropical, with an incredible number of mammoths
found in Siberia.
So it certainly makes sense.
What is incredibly amazing to me, though, is
that something like the canopy or the flood,
which the Bible presents as "miraculous" is
being examined in terms of scientific possibility.
What does science have to say
about "angels"
or the parting of the red sea?
These things don't fit into science explanation,
but neither are Christian fundamentalists
claiming such.
So so what if the canopy defied gravity and was
one of god's
miracles?
Resurrecting the dead is a miracle too. Did
it happen or not?
So there is no need to explain miraculous events
thus AF's late analogy of the scientific
impossibility or improbability is much ado
about nothing.
We're not subjecting the issue
of the canopy to scientific probability. It
doesn't have to meet that criteria since
it is well within the realm of "miraculous."
This is characteristic of A.F., however, who
seems to have a
lack of perception into these
issues. One of latest most ridiculous argments
was to claim that the Bible speaks of the
sun "setting" or "rising" that it is not
scientific because the sun doesn't truly rise
or set.
However, his analogy is out of context
since he is taking figurature and poetic language
and pretenting the Bible is making a scientific
statement. Even now we talk about "sunset"
and "sunrise" in our common language, yet
we
know the cosmological process does not involve
the movement of the sun but the movement of
the earth. But there is nothing wrong with
our reference to this event, in our common
language, to refer to this optical
illusion.
However, it is quite another thing to try to
make a scientific argument over in the context
of a literary or linguistic expression which
must be considered in context. So A.F. has his
own agenda, it is just
unfortunate that his
vision again and again turns up a bit short-
sighted for the topics he attempts to take on.
The fact is we haven't been given the details
of what the canopy was, how thick it was,
whether it was solid or
liquid, frozen or gas,
so A.F. is not in a position to analyze anything.
On the other hand, with the power of God to
create the universe, it doesn't seem at all too
difficult for him to suspend any amount of water
he wished
to above the surface of a planet if
he wished to do so.
Anyway, the "Watchtower" says there was a canopy,
so....there must have been one. Right? End of story.
Drake, Jr.