Talk:Flood from vapor canopy (Talk.Origins)

There's a definite contradiction between this page, which says "This is an out dated theory, that most creation scientists have long since abandoned." and Canopy theory which states that "Some speculate that Gen 1:6-7 is referring to a vapor canopy which collapsed during the flood" and "The existence of the vapor canopy remains theoretic".

Roy 11:55, 16 Mar 2005 (GMT)

How is it contradictory? Most creation scientists have abandoned the theory, but you can still find other creationists using this and other out-dated arguments like moon dust thickness and Joshua's lost day. If I'm not mistaken, Carl Baugh still uses it.PrometheusX303 23:13, 10 January 2006 (GMT)

The canopy can contribute without being the only source of water
Though it may have been shown that the canopy could not contribute all the water of the flood, I do not see that that precludes a possible vapour canopy as an antediluvian protective shield and a partial source of flood water. If the hydroplate theory is correct, a huge amount of water and dust would be blasted into space without attaining orbital or escape velocity. In falling back, it would have provided the particles around which the canopy could condense and be precipitated. Oelphick 15:48, 30 July 2006 (CDT)

Don't shoot the creationist
The water vapor canopy was actually proposed by an evolutionist named Isaac Vail (1840 –1912). He supported the case mainly by ancient Babylonian mythology. < no i don't support that site...but it has some info on the theory. Anyway...we are not saying that the flood was soley based on the vapor canopy, we also believe there is a "fountain of the deep".--KRiStA 18:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)