• CSC Home Page
  • Order Book
  • Table of Contents
  • Preface
  • Endorsements
  • Part I: Scientific Case for Creation
    • Life Sciences
    • Astronomical and Physical Sciences
    • Earth Sciences
    • References and Notes
  • Part II: Fountains of the Great Deep
    • The Hydroplate Theory: An Overview
    • The Origin of Ocean Trenches, Earthquakes, and the Ring of Fire
    • Liquefaction: The Origin of Strata and Layered Fossils
    • The Origin of the Grand Canyon
    • The Origin of Limestone
    • Frozen Mammoths
    • The Origin of Comets
    • The Origin of Asteroids, Meteoroids,and Trans-Neptunian Objects
    • The Origin of Earth's Radioactivity
  • Part III: Frequently Asked Questions
  • Technical Notes
  • Index

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

[ Frequently Asked Questions > Did a Water Canopy Surround Earth and Contribute to the Flood? > Conclusion ]

Conclusion

Arguments for canopy theories do not stand up when examined closely, as almost all creation researchers I know now acknowledge. These theories also contain biblical and scientific problems, such as those associated with heat, pressure, sunlight, support, condensation nuclei, ultraviolet light, and the greenhouse effect. Also, canopy theories do not even begin to explain the flood’s global destruction and geological activity.  [Page 111 lists 25 examples.]

Canopy theories have misled many, delaying understanding of the flood, geology, and, therefore, Earth’s true age. The flood water came from below, not above.  Failure to understand this has caused many to doubt the historical accuracy of the flood account, and, therefore, the Bible itself. Without the flood to explain the fossils buried in the Earth’s sedimentary layers, the theory of organic evolution fills the vacuum—an explanation that also removes or minimizes need for the Creator.

  • Previous Page
  • Next Page

Updated on Sunday, September 01 09/01/19 20:37:45
Copyright © 1995–2013
Center for Scientific Creation
http://www.creationscience.com

(602) 955-7663