The Rainbow
I have always been curious about what changed, during the Flood, to make a rainbow a new phenomena, after the Flood. Is it possible that the loss of the canopy, changed the way light hits the atmosphere or clouds?
Views: 17
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Barnett on -
AiG's theory is that there may have been rainbows prior to the Flood, God just gave it symbolic meaning.
You also seem to be assuming the Canopy Theory. We can brainstorm this concept if you like, but even most YEC's have moved on from that theory. I continue to hold that, if it existed at all, it's roll during the flood was simply to provide 40/40 of rain, which didn't contribute much to the Flood itself. I haven't seen any science-related arguments against an ice or mist canopy just thick enough to provide some degree of rain. But I have seen scriptural evidence that the canopy might be out in space rather in around Earth.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on -
Thanks for the reply.
If I was Noah, I wouldn't be too impressed with it though.
I wonder if he had ever seen rain b4 the flood as well. Were there even local floods occurring from time to time around the globe? Were there fungal diseases on plants, that were stressed from the flood/drought cycles we see today?
I continue to believe that the flood changed things from a pleasant world to one with radical seasons and winds. I live in Wisconsin, so it is difficult to believe we were part of the original created design. :))
I'm not knowledgeable enough to endorse or deny the canopy theory, but one of the ideas was; it caused an increases in air pressure to allow insects to become as large as they did, and dragons with small air passages to breathe. But that is off-topic.
Robert Barnett said:AiG's theory is that there may have been rainbows prior to the Flood, God just gave it symbolic meaning.
You also seem to be assuming the Canopy Theory. We can brainstorm this concept if you like, but even most YEC's have moved on from that theory. I continue to hold that, if it existed at all, it's roll during the flood was simply to provide 40/40 of rain, which didn't contribute much to the Flood itself. I haven't seen any science-related arguments against an ice or mist canopy just thick enough to provide some degree of rain. But I have seen scriptural evidence that the canopy might be out in space rather in around Earth.
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Barnett on
-
Local floods before the global Flood? An excellant question. Sounds like one for Dr. Andrew Snelling, or some other qualified scientist. The current creation model has the earth much flatter than we are today (as opposed to all the tall mountains and such), so that might have made a difference.
You also make a good point regarding Noah's perspective of the rainbow. God did speak then though, didn't he? He said the rainbow was a sign, and he gave instructions on the whole be fruitful and multipl thing, and the you can eat meat now thing. So perhaps that made the rainbow stand out to Noah. It probably would have regardless whether he'd previously seen a rainbow or not.
It would be much more dramatic if it was the first rainbow there. It would have Noah staring at it, "What in the world is that? So many colors floating in the sky?"
Richard K said:Thanks for the reply.
If I was Noah, I wouldn't be too impressed with it though.
I wonder if he had ever seen rain b4 the flood as well. Were there even local floods occurring from time to time around the globe? Were there fungal diseases on plants, that were stressed from the flood/drought cycles we see today?
I continue to believe that the flood changed things from a pleasant world to one with radical seasons and winds. I live in Wisconsin, so it is difficult to believe we were part of the original created design. :))
I'm not knowledgeable enough to endorse or deny the canopy theory, but one of the ideas was; it caused an increases in air pressure to allow insects to become as large as they did, and dragons with small air passages to breathe. But that is off-topic.
Robert Barnett said:AiG's theory is that there may have been rainbows prior to the Flood, God just gave it symbolic meaning.
You also seem to be assuming the Canopy Theory. We can brainstorm this concept if you like, but even most YEC's have moved on from that theory. I continue to hold that, if it existed at all, it's roll during the flood was simply to provide 40/40 of rain, which didn't contribute much to the Flood itself. I haven't seen any science-related arguments against an ice or mist canopy just thick enough to provide some degree of rain. But I have seen scriptural evidence that the canopy might be out in space rather in around Earth.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
It would be interestting to know what circumstances could possibly have been different, rather than just say that it wasn't that way. I remember one of the ideas of the canopy was that the sky was more pinkish rather than blue, but never heard any more 'science' relating to that.
Would it also change the way light was going through clouds? if there were indeed clouds as we have today.
Not only the drama of the rainbow, but the change in the color of the sky itself, if the atmosphere really had changed. No mention of rain b4 the flood either, but he would have been used to that by now. :)
Robert Barnett said:Local floods before the global Flood? An excellant question. Sounds like one for Dr. Andrew Snelling, or some other qualified scientist. The current creation model has the earth much flatter than we are today (as opposed to all the tall mountains and such), so that might have made a difference.
You also make a good point regarding Noah's perspective of the rainbow. God did speak then though, didn't he? He said the rainbow was a sign, and he gave instructions on the whole be fruitful and multipl thing, and the you can eat meat now thing. So perhaps that made the rainbow stand out to Noah. It probably would have regardless whether he'd previously seen a rainbow or not.
It would be much more dramatic if it was the first rainbow there. It would have Noah staring at it, "What in the world is that? So many colors floating in the sky?"
Richard K said:Thanks for the reply.
If I was Noah, I wouldn't be too impressed with it though.
I wonder if he had ever seen rain b4 the flood as well. Were there even local floods occurring from time to time around the globe? Were there fungal diseases on plants, that were stressed from the flood/drought cycles we see today?
I continue to believe that the flood changed things from a pleasant world to one with radical seasons and winds. I live in Wisconsin, so it is difficult to believe we were part of the original created design. :))
I'm not knowledgeable enough to endorse or deny the canopy theory, but one of the ideas was; it caused an increases in air pressure to allow insects to become as large as they did, and dragons with small air passages to breathe. But that is off-topic.
Robert Barnett said:AiG's theory is that there may have been rainbows prior to the Flood, God just gave it symbolic meaning.
You also seem to be assuming the Canopy Theory. We can brainstorm this concept if you like, but even most YEC's have moved on from that theory. I continue to hold that, if it existed at all, it's roll during the flood was simply to provide 40/40 of rain, which didn't contribute much to the Flood itself. I haven't seen any science-related arguments against an ice or mist canopy just thick enough to provide some degree of rain. But I have seen scriptural evidence that the canopy might be out in space rather in around Earth.
-
Permalink Reply by Terrance Egolf on -
Richard,
The canopy theory for the origin of the floodwaters, or even significant rain during the Flood has been discarded by most modern creationary scientists. That is the nature of descriptive models of the world. Dr. Larry Vardiman and his students created very conservative computer models to evaluate order-of-magnitude effects of a hypothetical water vapor canopy. He conclued that if such a canopy existed before the Flood, it would have caused a runaway greenhouse effect which would have made the surface of the planet uninhabitable. To keep things just comfortably tropical, it would have produced only about 2 m of water.
By the way, the water vapor canopy theory was developed relatively recently (~1874) by a Quaker school teacher extrapolating from the secular nebular origin of the earth. This was never part of settled historical Bible interpretation, but came out of the evolutionary revolution in the 19th century.
Other issues with the canopy theory and rainbows before the Flood are:
1. There is no physical way for water vapor, which is denser than any of the atmosphere components, to stay suspended at any distance above the troposphere, which is where our weather occurs today.
2. If there were enough water vapor to flood the earth as described in Genesis 7-9, it would have obscured the stars, since it would likely had to be in the form of ice clouds, similar to noctilucent clouds we see today.
3. The Bible says that a firmament or expanse was placed between the waters above and the waters below. This same word is used for the abode of the sun, moon, and stars. So the waters above have to be much farther out than any terrestrial canopy. Russell Humphreys believes that our universe may be bounded by a shell of molecular water, which would be consistent with this description.
4. The Bible does not clearly say one way or the other whether there was rain before the Flood or not. If there was, and since a rainbow is a simple optical phenomenon associated with rain, then there is no reason to think there weren't rainbows before the Flood.
5. Considering what we know about basic atmospheric circulation today, it would be truly incredible to me if there weren't rain before the Flood. The verses stating that the Garden was watered by a mist going up from the ground because it hadn't rained in those days (Gen. 2:5, 6) is often used as the proof text for the no-rain theory. But that is not conclusive enough to be dogmatic about it. These verses occur before the creation of man in the Creation recap of Ch 2. So, there simply may not have been enough time for rain clouds to gather before the 6th day.
6. I think that the sky was so full of dark clouds and volcanic dust following the Flood and Noah's exit from the ark, that the brief appearance of a rainbow was seen as a miraculous event, as God intended, and He imbued the rainbow as a symbol of His promise to never flood the earth again. (The atmospheric conditions are derived from Michael Oard's suppositions about the amount of tectonic and volcanic activity that heated the oceans to the point they were freely evaporating immense amounts of water vapor.)
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Barnett on
-
I've heard most of the items you numbered before, but it's still good for remembering details.
The original of the water vapor canopy theory blows my mind. I did not know that. Now, what about an ice canopy with just enough water for raining 40/40? Then again, your #1 pretty much takes that out, too.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
Thanks guys. :)
There was never a concept, on my part, that the ice above the atmosphere would contain significant rain, the fountains of the deep talked about a major water source.
What about the supposed increase of air pressure, that would explain giant insects of the fossil record? [I don't bring up any of this, dogmatically, because of course, we can never know. :) ]
Do we have a reasonable explanation as to how insects could grow that large without increased air pressure?
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Barnett on
-
Well not everyone is a fan of what I'm about to use here, but consider the Hovind Theory.
For those that aren't familiar with it, here's the nutshell version: an ice meteor traveling to Earth caused the evidence of water and ice we see in space, broke through a thin ice canopy above Earth causing it to rain 40/40 (NOT signficant amount of rain), caused that massive hole most scientists tribute to the fall of the dinosaurs, caused the fountains of the deep to break open and flood the world. Basically saying the meteor caused everything from the geologic changes to the Earth's rotation slowing down (I haven't heard that part disagreed with yet) that causes our leap year and minute/second...whichever it was. I remember the basics of these things but not always specifics as it's been several years since I heard the theory.
I doubt ALL the details of Hovind's theory are accurate but it is a theory after all. But it does include the thin ice canopy and the 2x pressurized oxygen. If I remember correctly, he attributed the original large plants and animals (and the oversized human fossils) to that pressurized oxygen.
Is it also possible that this canopy did exist but it's not the one mentioned in the Creation? After all, the creation doesn't describe clouds which I think are technically water vapor in our atmosphere. I'm still more inclined to agree with AiG that what looks like the canopy in the Creation account is in outter space somewere.
Brad Bond said:Personally I believe there was a canopy and it was a thin ice layer. It could have been suspended by the Meissner Effect. We can see how this was so today as ice crystals from the blast off of the space shuttle are suspended above the poles. Being a thin layer it would not have obstructed any view of the stars and also it would not have produced any significant moisture during the flood but it would have increased the air pressure and the oxygen in the oceans there by allowing greater growth. We see evidence of increased oxygen in that world from amber. Air bubbles back then were trapped in the sap and remained there as the sap turned to amber. The oxygen content was above 30% whereas today it is about 20%. The increased oxygen would also answer the question of how some of the large dinosaurs were able to get enough oxygen to survice since their nostrils were only about the size of a modern day horses'. The ice canopy would have provided a more stable atmosphere and allowed the temperatures to be more stable. We have evidence of palm fronds in the south pole's ice and evidence of giant trees in the northern pole region. That could only have happened if the entire earth's weather was roughly the same all over.
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
Another aspect of ice layer would be filtering out of x-rays from the sun. So with just the additional o2 alone, the the insects and dinos would be fine? I owondered that myself. :)
So why is the canopy such a 'taboo', anyways? Anyone know?
Brad Bond said:Personally I believe there was a canopy and it was a thin ice layer. It could have been suspended by the Meissner Effect. We can see how this was so today as ice crystals from the blast off of the space shuttle are suspended above the poles. Being a thin layer it would not have obstructed any view of the stars and also it would not have produced any significant moisture during the flood but it would have increased the air pressure and the oxygen in the oceans there by allowing greater growth. We see evidence of increased oxygen in that world from amber. Air bubbles back then were trapped in the sap and remained there as the sap turned to amber. The oxygen content was above 30% whereas today it is about 20%. The increased oxygen would also answer the question of how some of the large dinosaurs were able to get enough oxygen to survice since their nostrils were only about the size of a modern day horses'. The ice canopy would have provided a more stable atmosphere and allowed the temperatures to be more stable. We have evidence of palm fronds in the south pole's ice and evidence of giant trees in the northern pole region. That could only have happened if the entire earth's weather was roughly the same all over.
-
Permalink Reply by Arthur Smith on -
The problem with the canopy theory is that we cannot know any of the pre flood conditions. All models that both support and deny it are based on assumptions. Terrance's #1 reason is flawed because it should read "There is no physical way THAT WE KNOW OF..." We do not know what conditions were present before the flood so we cannot simply discard it because we do not know.
I think the theory has validity. Maybe not exactly as stated, but possible greenhouse effects would aid in certain aspects of unusual descriptions in Genesis (long life, size, etc). But again, the conditions are too unknown to be too dogmatic on either side.
As for the meteor idea, I think meteors make total sense as a trigger for the opening of the fountains of the deep and restructuring of the earth through massive plate movement. But again, too many unknowns for dogmatism.
As for rainbows, God said after the flood that He placed His bow in the sky. Not that simply the bow in the sky now will be a symbol, but He said He placed it there as a symbol. The bow would not be a big deal if it had already been there.
In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/
-
Permalink Reply by Robert Barnett on
-
I agree with most of this. On the rainbow thing, AiG pointed out that it wouldn't be the first time God used something that already existed as a symbolic marking of an occassion. I think the bread/wine at the Last Supper is one example.
But as you say there are too many unknowns to be dogmatic. That's why this is basically all theory. It is good to know I'm not completely insane for thinking that thin ice canopy theory and the Hovind theory make sense to some degree. From Dr. Hovind's seminar video on it, he discussed things like wooly mammoths frozen standing, etc as evidence for his theory. AiG disagreed with that aspect of it and I understand their point. But then, I watched the video many years ago and he's probably updated it since. Well, prior to his current predicament.
Would the magnetic field hold a thin ice canopy up there? I'm pondering how many rainbows there might have been if the sunlight was going through it?
Arthur Smith said:The problem with the canopy theory is that we cannot know any of the pre flood conditions. All models that both support and deny it are based on assumptions. Terrance's #1 reason is flawed because it should read "There is no physical way THAT WE KNOW OF..." We do not know what conditions were present before the flood so we cannot simply discard it because we do not know.
I think the theory has validity. Maybe not exactly as stated, but possible greenhouse effects would aid in certain aspects of unusual descriptions in Genesis (long life, size, etc). But again, the conditions are too unknown to be too dogmatic on either side.
As for the meteor idea, I think meteors make total sense as a trigger for the opening of the fountains of the deep and restructuring of the earth through massive plate movement. But again, too many unknowns for dogmatism.
As for rainbows, God said after the flood that He placed His bow in the sky. Not that simply the bow in the sky now will be a symbol, but He said He placed it there as a symbol. The bow would not be a big deal if it had already been there.
In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/
-
Permalink Reply by Richard K on
-
It is very true that we can't know anything for sure, but think of all the science that was learned, by putting together the theories. Whether we believe the canopy theory or not, I learned that ice can be magnetic and remain suspended in the EMF of the planet. I learned that water intercepts x-rays. I learned about increased air pressure and O2 making it possible for larger insects to breathe and that hyper-baric chambers are used for healing.
There was probably other things that I learned, in relation to the theory, so that alone makes it worthy of discussion. The question that remains is: if there was a layer of ice above the atmosphere, would there be rainbows below? Can we learn that experimentally?
Is it possible to figure out what a world would look like if there was a canopy? or, am I just shooting for the sky? :)
Arthur Smith said:The problem with the canopy theory is that we cannot know any of the pre flood conditions. All models that both support and deny it are based on assumptions. Terrance's #1 reason is flawed because it should read "There is no physical way THAT WE KNOW OF..." We do not know what conditions were present before the flood so we cannot simply discard it because we do not know.
I think the theory has validity. Maybe not exactly as stated, but possible greenhouse effects would aid in certain aspects of unusual descriptions in Genesis (long life, size, etc). But again, the conditions are too unknown to be too dogmatic on either side.
As for the meteor idea, I think meteors make total sense as a trigger for the opening of the fountains of the deep and restructuring of the earth through massive plate movement. But again, too many unknowns for dogmatism.
As for rainbows, God said after the flood that He placed His bow in the sky. Not that simply the bow in the sky now will be a symbol, but He said He placed it there as a symbol. The bow would not be a big deal if it had already been there.
In His Service... Arthur Smith
www.HaveYouNotRead.com
http://YouDontHaveToHaveAPhD.blogspot.com/
Resources
© 2012 Created by Creation Conversations.
Powered by
