[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

The Ole statement of:

FACT: The flood had no effect on the heavens. All flood effects were confined to the Earth's surface and atmosphere.

is refuted succinctly by the Hydroplate theory and by Winman. The comets, the moon craters, the evidences of water in space are all exceedingly logical when looked at in the hydroplate model presented by Hovind.
The Ole statement said heavens, plural, so Winman presented evidence from the first and second heaven, both of which are excellent.

but where did I or Ole mention water on comets?
Well until man can catch a comet it is a theory that water is on one. equipment is made to look for such but I doubt it's accuracy as they are programed to give the answer men want to disprove God more than anything.

Ole begged for evidence in the heavens of the flood, in stating there was none as a FACT.
Why would men program their spectrometers to give a result of water in comets if that lends credibility to the flood/hydroplate theory?
Also, as I understand, the same side of the moon is always facing the earth, and ironically, its the only side with many craters on it, the other side being fairly smooth.

you are welcome to think that But God's word says the water came from above and below to cover the face of the earth. It doesn't say great geysers shot rock and water into deep space vacuum that landed on Mars and made comets. that is a good example on how men sneak their theories in on you cloaked in Bible terminology and then you swallow it as gospel truth.

One of many truthful evidences we are left with are the massive oceanic trenches and seams, which when looking at a map of the world in relief, one can observe they practically wrap around the globe like a baseball stitching.
This is where the hydroplate theory makes sense. If that much water under that much pressure (weight of all the zillions of pound of crustal rock) were released, its not only plausible, but probable that it would have shot up into space beyond our atmosphere, and once there is no more resistance, could fly very far, perhaps ionizing along the way.

As for misunderstanding Ole,

the change he points out is to the stars and planets the second heaven. He doesn't disagree with the fact that rain was a new thing.

When Noah's flood happened did it change anything in the upper heavens (above Earth's atmosphere)? Were there changes made to the sun, moon, or stars? The answer is NO. The heavens that were already ordained and up in the sky during Adam's day are the very same heavens that were there for Noah and his sons after the flood. And those same heavens are still there today.

I understand Ole as meaning that for example, the hunk of rock we call the moon was still the same hunk of rock after the flood. It wasn't replaced, but it sure got a few scars. If comets came from the earth, shot into outer space by the fountains of the deep breaking up, does that change space? No, it just means that a few more hunks of rock are flying around in the same space with all the other planets that were already out there.

Hovind points out something interesting that comes up in his debates, that due to the latent heat of condensation, had all the water for the flood come from rain fall, there would have been enough heat energy released to fry the planet. Part came from above (the canopy falling down), but a much greater part came from the fountains of the deep.

None of this hydroplate theory is UNscriptural or contradictory, but makes sense of the evidence left behind from the Biblical account.

I agree fully with the difference between something being OLD and something being OF OLD.

Re: The rainbow promise

If the world has been destroyed by flood twice as the Gap Theory demands, why does God not mention it?

in fact, why doesn't God mention the "first flood" at all, if its so important?
How could a flood punish angelic, non-physical beings anyways, especially since they kept right on existing? If angelic beings occupied this earth before recreation, why would there have been any need at all for a physical world for them to inhabit or pollute?

It makes perfect sense to me that it was all very good at the end of the sixth day, then Lucifer observed the importance given to mankind, and became jealous of God's interest in them. His Pride of his own beauty led Satan to tempt man's worship away from God to himself. Surely there had to be a catalyst to Satan desiring to exalt himself, and what better one than jealousy for this measly man, made a little lower than the angels, being given so much attention by God Almighty? The timeline allows for Adam and Mrs. Adam to live in the garden of Eden for up to around 100 years before the fall of man. Plenty of time for Lucifer's fall.


Anyways, I know I'm jumping into the discussion and it may seem like I'm ganging up against the gappers, but I want it to be clear that my interest is in TRUTH, not in arguing with brothers in Christ, or anyone else for that matter. Arguing is a waste of time, but pursuit and defense of truth is for edifying the church and giving glory to God.

Winman rightly said:

You simply cling to your theory, no matter how much scripture (or common sense for that matter) is presented against it.

There will come a point where all points have been made, the truth is hanging there, for the reader to take or reject, and once that point is past, there is no more use in debate.