Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

How does your Flood Model explain the occurrence of several to many different coal seams separated by thick layers of shale?

They would've formed at different times. Plants were washed away and collected into lowering lying areas and was covered by mud. Then the process repeated.

Any environmental change over thousands or millions of years is sufficient to cause deposits to shift between favoring deposit of swamp vegetation and deposit of clastics – and perhaps back again several times.

Why would this happen repeatedly though at the exact same place? The shift from different environments would go back and forth and yet the location would be the same. Suppose we start with a peat bog. Then over time, the area turns into a forest. Then over time, a peat bog arises that is located in the exact same area as the original peat bog. Why should this happen?

Please explain in detail how 4000+ feet of copper ore was deposited in the Bingham Canyon by a “literal flood” – all within a year – a few thousand years ago.

Honestly, I'm not sure.

Lithification would involve "cementation by crystallization of new minerals from percolating water solutions". The FM would account for the "percolating water solutions" since all the layers were deposited underwater. Where would the "water solutions" come from to account for all the layers for the SGM?

Once the sand and mud have been “compressed”, what is the process that produces folding?

Horizontal compression resulting from the hydroplates moving and hitting the basalt underneath.

You ducked my question about what results from compression of sand. First, sand is not compressible to any significant degree. The process involved may be compaction. Is that what you were indicating?

I thought the question was "what is the process that produces folding?"

The most likely product of compaction of sand is SAND. Compaction of sand does NOT result in a solid or semi-solid unit because adhesion and cohesion of particles larger than silt or clay is insufficient to bond the particles together. Cementation is required.

Of course. Where have I stated that compaction of sand results in solid rock?

NOW: please explain how loose sand is “folded” in your theories.

Not sure what you're driving at here. The mechanism for folding would be the same regardless of the type of layers.

If enough pressure is exerted on sand and/or sandstone (in the process known as metamorphism) the result can be the metamorphic rock quartzite.

Is quartzite found in sedimentary layers?

Cementation does not appear to be an option either, because you propose that the sand is not solid rock when deformation occurs.

Yes, I don't believe the layers were solid rock yet during deformation.

Here are a few references that discuss coal formation as a slow process:

NOW, Kindly cite your references for rapid formation of coal.

Of course if you want to see who has the most references, then SG will prevail.

OK, I know I didn't get to go in-depth and address all your points, but time has been very limited recently. I'll try to slowly come back to your points at a later time.

[Zzyzx]

.

How does your Flood Model explain the occurrence of several to many different coal seams separated by thick layers of shale?

They would've formed at different times. Plants were washed away and collected into lowering lying areas and was covered by mud. Then the process repeated.

Are you saying that the massive worldwide flood washed away the plants – then washed them away again – and again -- then deposited vegetative material over and over???

Please describe the process and cite references to verify your claims.

Any environmental change over thousands or millions of years is sufficient to cause deposits to shift between favoring deposit of swamp vegetation and deposit of clastics – and perhaps back again several times.

Why would this happen repeatedly though at the exact same place? The shift from different environments would go back and forth and yet the location would be the same. Suppose we start with a peat bog. Then over time, the area turns into a forest. Then over time, a peat bog arises that is located in the exact same area as the original peat bog. Why should this happen?

Geology does NOT view the Earth as a static system. Sea level changes, climate changes, landscapes change. Mountains form gradually through processes that are ongoing and are measured. Mountains are eroded by processes that are known and measured. Continents move with respect to one another – by known and accurately measured amounts.

A swamp is not expected, by geology, to remain a swamp. What was once a swamp can now be dry land. In the future it can be swampy again. That is consistent with what we know of nature – a non-static system – change is constant (and is expected). Swamps that existed millions of years ago are not expected to have remained as swamps.

Geology has the great advantage of NOT limiting its thinking to a time scale set by religious belief.

Constricted time envisioned by creationists forces one to believe in “Catastrophism” (a discredited geological theory that proposed that changes in the earth's crust in the past were brought about suddenly by physical forces operating in ways that cannot be observed today).

In other words, creationism requires magic (“miracles”) – proposals that one-time events originated by invisible super beings caused the Earth’s mountains, valleys, plains, forests, deserts – etc. Of course, there is NO evidence that such things occurred – which does not trouble those who have no regard for evidence or study of nature.

The creationists’ “great flood” is used to “explain” the Earth to fit dogma – rather than studying nature to learn. Those who think they know the answers without studying do not seek truth – they simply seek to “prove” the conclusions that they reached without study of the subject.

Please explain in detail how 4000+ feet of copper ore was deposited in the Bingham Canyon by a “literal flood” – all within a year – a few thousand years ago.

Honestly, I'm not sure.

Thank you for being honest. If you will extend the honesty to all of the questions that I ask, you may realize that your attempted answers and “explanations” cannot be supported. You state them as though you were “sure” – but that is NOT based on study of the topic being discussed – be that geology or boat building.

You are stating BELIEFS rather than conclusions based on study.

You are attempting to argue beliefs against study and reason – religion against science – creationism against geology. A century or two ago you might have been more successful.

Lithification would involve "cementation by crystallization of new minerals from percolating water solutions". The FM would account for the "percolating water solutions" since all the layers were deposited underwater. Where would the "water solutions" come from to account for all the layers for the SGM?

Once the sand and mud have been “compressed”, what is the process that produces folding?

Horizontal compression resulting from the hydroplates moving and hitting the basalt underneath.

You ducked my question about what results from compression of sand. First, sand is not compressible to any significant degree. The process involved may be compaction. Is that what you were indicating?

I thought the question was "what is the process that produces folding?"

The question is and has been – “How can loose sand and mud be folded?”

From post #101:

Kindly explain how loose sand and mud can be folded. Lay out alternating layers of sand and mud and demonstrate the process you envision for the production of strata of alternating sandstones and shales.

Compression does NOT change loose sand into anything but loose sand (unless the process of metamorphism is involved – which negates sedimentary rock).

You propose that strata were folded BEFORE they became rock. I ask how sand layers, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, can be folded. Would you care to take a stab at answering?

Cementation does not appear to be an option either, because you propose that the sand is not solid rock when deformation occurs.

Yes, I don't believe the layers were solid rock yet during deformation.

The most likely product of compaction of sand is SAND. Compaction of sand does NOT result in a solid or semi-solid unit because adhesion and cohesion of particles larger than silt or clay is insufficient to bond the particles together. Cementation is required.

Of course. Where have I stated that compaction of sand results in solid rock?

From post #102

Again, layers would be a combination of sediments settling at different rates, layers forming at different times, and tidal forces. The layers would be compressed due to the weight of sediments/water so it would not simply be loose sand/mud.

Kindly describe the condition of sand being “not simply loose sand” – and not solid rock. Geology does not know about this material.

NOW: please explain how loose sand is “folded” in your theories.

Not sure what you're driving at here. The mechanism for folding would be the same regardless of the type of layers.

I am asking you to explain how loose sand and mud are folded. Plain and simple. Demonstrate how loose sand and mud can be folded.

]If enough pressure is exerted on sand and/or sandstone (in the process known as metamorphism) the result can be the metamorphic rock quartzite.

Is quartzite found in sedimentary layers?

You are aware that I excluded metamorphic rocks in sedimentary sequences. From post #110:

However, we were discussing sedimentary rock, so metamorphism is not an option. Cementation does not appear to be an option either, because you propose that the sand is not solid rock when deformation occurs. Therefore, it appears as though loose sand is the condition that will exist – unless you have evidence of other processes (perhaps something unknown to geology?).

Here are a few references that discuss coal formation as a slow process:

NOW, Kindly cite your references for rapid formation of coal.

Of course if you want to see who has the most references, then SG will prevail.

If we see who has the most EVIDENCE, SG will prevail.

It appears as though you have NO references to rapid coal formation. Is that the case? Can’t you cite ONE legitimate study (by a person knowledgeable in the field) that shows that coal forms rapidly?

So far your “Flood Model” has been supported ONLY by Walter Brown’s “Hydroplate Theory”(an unsupported theory advanced by a mechanical engineer and avowed creationist) and by CONJECTURES that you offer by “interpreting” photographs or by “picking and choosing” information from legitimate studies that YOU think supports religious “explanation” of Earth materials and processes.

What is lacking in your argument is actual study (by you or any experts) that supports any of the assumptions and assertions offered.

OK, I know I didn't get to go in-depth and address all your points, but time has been very limited recently. I'll try to slowly come back to your points at a later time.

Your arguments seem to be deteriorating rapidly. You cannot substantiate what you say. Your “proofs” are evidence AGAINST your “Flood Model”.

Your attempts to discredit geology might be successful if you were debating someone who knew little about geology; however, such attempts are impotent in debate with someone with knowledge of the field.

Perhaps if one is preaching to the choir misinformation and unverified claims are acceptable.

Read the thread as though you were an impartial observer. Would the arguments presented by the creationist be reasonable or convincing?

[otseng]

Sorry I haven't replied sooner. It's been quite busy for me for the past 2 weeks. So I've had to drastically scale down on my participation in debate threads. And unfortunately, with the holiday season around the corner, time will not be freeing up much. But, as I've said before, I will make this thread my top priority when I can participate.

.

How does your Flood Model explain the occurrence of several to many different coal seams separated by thick layers of shale?

They would've formed at different times. Plants were washed away and collected into lowering lying areas and was covered by mud. Then the process repeated.

Are you saying that the massive worldwide flood washed away the plants – then washed them away again – and again -- then deposited vegetative material over and over???

I'm saying that the burial would've occurred in different "waves". The same material would not have been washed over repeatedly.

Any environmental change over thousands or millions of years is sufficient to cause deposits to shift between favoring deposit of swamp vegetation and deposit of clastics – and perhaps back again several times.

Why would this happen repeatedly though at the exact same place? The shift from different environments would go back and forth and yet the location would be the same. Suppose we start with a peat bog. Then over time, the area turns into a forest. Then over time, a peat bog arises that is located in the exact same area as the original peat bog. Why should this happen?

Geology does NOT view the Earth as a static system. Sea level changes, climate changes, landscapes change. Mountains form gradually through processes that are ongoing and are measured. Mountains are eroded by processes that are known and measured. Continents move with respect to one another – by known and accurately measured amounts.

A swamp is not expected, by geology, to remain a swamp. What was once a swamp can now be dry land. In the future it can be swampy again. That is consistent with what we know of nature – a non-static system – change is constant (and is expected). Swamps that existed millions of years ago are not expected to have remained as swamps.

Geology has the great advantage of NOT limiting its thinking to a time scale set by religious belief.

Constricted time envisioned by creationists forces one to believe in “Catastrophism” (a discredited geological theory that proposed that changes in the earth's crust in the past were brought about suddenly by physical forces operating in ways that cannot be observed today).

In other words, creationism requires magic (“miracles”) – proposals that one-time events originated by invisible super beings caused the Earth’s mountains, valleys, plains, forests, deserts – etc. Of course, there is NO evidence that such things occurred – which does not trouble those who have no regard for evidence or study of nature.

The creationists’ “great flood” is used to “explain” the Earth to fit dogma – rather than studying nature to learn. Those who think they know the answers without studying do not seek truth – they simply seek to “prove” the conclusions that they reached without study of the subject.

I do not see how you answered my question. But yet again instead interject with op-ed comments about creationist religious dogma.

Please explain in detail how 4000+ feet of copper ore was deposited in the Bingham Canyon by a “literal flood” – all within a year – a few thousand years ago.

Honestly, I'm not sure.

Thank you for being honest. If you will extend the honesty to all of the questions that I ask, you may realize that your attempted answers and “explanations” cannot be supported. You state them as though you were “sure” – but that is NOT based on study of the topic being discussed – be that geology or boat building.

Thinking about this more, the FM doesn't need to address copper ores since they would not be considered sedimentary deposits. Only sedimentary layers would be addressed by the FM.

I ask how sand layers, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, can be folded. Would you care to take a stab at answering?

If sand was sandwiched in between other layers, then it would also have been part of the fold.

Unlithified layers prior to faulting would be the best explanation for this: (the white layer in the center has different heights)

Of course if you want to see who has the most references, then SG will prevail.

If we see who has the most EVIDENCE, SG will prevail.

I don't think it's quite so clear cut.

There is obviously a bias among geologists against anything that resembles what is in the Bible. I've already cited that geologists would not accept a local catastrophic flood because it resembled the Noahic flood, even when the evidence was strong. And geologists only accepted it after they had a non-Biblical cause that was proposed, even though the evidence for the flood remained the same.

Another example is that geologists will entertain that the entire world being covered by ice, but immediately dismiss being covered by water. Why would this be? Only because the Bible mentions the entire world being covered by water.

It appears as though you have NO references to rapid coal formation. Is that the case? Can’t you cite ONE legitimate study (by a person knowledgeable in the field) that shows that coal forms rapidly?

No, I'm not able to find any scientific studies on rapidly forming coal in the laboratory. However, it could be simply because nobody had done any research on whether it is possible or not.

But, the main evidence that I've already presented that coal is not old is the presence of C14 in fossil fuel deposits. This would indicate that they are not millions of years old.

Your arguments seem to be deteriorating rapidly. You cannot substantiate what you say. Your “proofs” are evidence AGAINST your “Flood Model”.

I haven't reached the end of my arguments yet. I'm limited more by available time than by evidence that I can present.

Read the thread as though you were an impartial observer. Would the arguments presented by the creationist be reasonable or convincing?

I'll leave that to the observers of this thread. I don't think neither you nor I would qualify as impartial observers.

[Zzyzx]

.

How does your Flood Model explain the occurrence of several to many different coal seams separated by thick layers of shale?

They would've formed at different times. Plants were washed away and collected into lowering lying areas and was covered by mud. Then the process repeated.

How could the process be repeated once the plants were “washed away”? All this supposedly happened during a one year period. Did billions of tons of plants grow back quickly in a few weeks to be washed away again? How were successive layers of vegetation deposited?

Are you saying that the massive worldwide flood washed away the plants – then washed them away again – and again -- then deposited vegetative material over and over???

I'm saying that the burial would've occurred in different "waves". The same material would not have been washed over repeatedly.

Please cite evidence of the existence of “waves” of deposit of vegetative matter. It is a fine conjecture, is there any reason to accept that it is correct?

Or, is this another, “It might have been possible” – with NO verification?

Any environmental change over thousands or millions of years is sufficient to cause deposits to shift between favoring deposit of swamp vegetation and deposit of clastics – and perhaps back again several times.

Why would this happen repeatedly though at the exact same place? The shift from different environments would go back and forth and yet the location would be the same. Suppose we start with a peat bog. Then over time, the area turns into a forest. Then over time, a peat bog arises that is located in the exact same area as the original peat bog. Why should this happen?

Geology does NOT view the Earth as a static system. Sea level changes, climate changes, landscapes change. Mountains form gradually through processes that are ongoing and are measured. Mountains are eroded by processes that are known and measured. Continents move with respect to one another – by known and accurately measured amounts.

A swamp is not expected, by geology, to remain a swamp. What was once a swamp can now be dry land. In the future it can be swampy again. That is consistent with what we know of nature – a non-static system – change is constant (and is expected). Swamps that existed millions of years ago are not expected to have remained as swamps.

Geology has the great advantage of NOT limiting its thinking to a time scale set by religious belief.

Constricted time envisioned by creationists forces one to believe in “Catastrophism” (a discredited geological theory that proposed that changes in the earth's crust in the past were brought about suddenly by physical forces operating in ways that cannot be observed today).

In other words, creationism requires magic (“miracles”) – proposals that one-time events originated by invisible super beings caused the Earth’s mountains, valleys, plains, forests, deserts – etc. Of course, there is NO evidence that such things occurred – which does not trouble those who have no regard for evidence or study of nature.

The creationists’ “great flood” is used to “explain” the Earth to fit dogma – rather than studying nature to learn. Those who think they know the answers without studying do not seek truth – they simply seek to “prove” the conclusions that they reached without study of the subject.

I do not see how you answered my question. But yet again instead interject with op-ed comments about creationist religious dogma.

The reason I comment upon creationist religious dogma is because it is the basis of your argument. This debate has degenerated into a rehash of the “creation vs. science” debates of a century ago. Creationism could present no evidence then (other than scriptural quotations) and can do no better now – except citation of “pick and choose science” presented without understanding.

Your question was:

Why would this happen repeatedly though at the exact same place? The shift from different environments would go back and forth and yet the location would be the same. Suppose we start with a peat bog. Then over time, the area turns into a forest. Then over time, a peat bog arises that is located in the exact same area as the original peat bog. Why should this happen?

My answer was:

A swamp is not expected, by geology, to remain a swamp. What was once a swamp can now be dry land. In the future it can be swampy again. That is consistent with what we know of nature – a non-static system – change is constant (and is expected). Swamps that existed millions of years ago are not expected to have remained as swamps.

Geology has the great advantage of NOT limiting its thinking to a time scale set by religious belief.

That answer addresses the question and explains how a peat bogs, forests, and deposits of mud or sand occur in sequences within the same place over time.

Please explain in detail how 4000+ feet of copper ore was deposited in the Bingham Canyon by a “literal flood” – all within a year – a few thousand years ago.

Honestly, I'm not sure.

Thank you for being honest. If you will extend the honesty to all of the questions that I ask, you may realize that your attempted answers and “explanations” cannot be supported. You state them as though you were “sure” – but that is NOT based on study of the topic being discussed – be that geology or boat building.

Thinking about this more, the FM doesn't need to address copper ores since they would not be considered sedimentary deposits. Only sedimentary layers would be addressed by the FM.

Do you understand the origin of copper ores? Are you aware that copper can be sedimentary or igneous in origin?

Copper is found in association with many other metals and deposit styles. Commonly, copper is either formed within sedimentary rocks, or associated with igneous rocks.

The world's major copper deposits are formed within the granitic porphyry copper style. Copper is enriched by processes during crystallisation of the granite and forms as chalcopyrite — a sulfide mineral, which is carried up with the granite.

Sometimes granites erupt to suface as volcanoes, and copper mineralisation forms during this phase when the granite and volcanic rocks cool via hydrothermal circulation.

Sedimentary copper forms within ocean basins in sedimentary rocks. Generally this forms by brine from deeply buried sediments discharging into the deep sea, and precipitating copper and often lead and zinc sulfides directly onto the sea floor. This is then buried by further sediment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore_genesis

So, you are not off the hook. Kindly explain the deposit of sedimentary copper ores using the “Flood Model”.

While you are at it, kindly explain the occurrence of iron ores. Here is a simplified version to begin with:

Eventually, photosynthesis by the earliest forms of plant life (a form of life capable of feeding itself instead of feeding off of others) began to produce significant amounts of oxygen. One important thing to know about oxygen is that it likes to react with things. It is one of the most reactive of all the elements in nature. This means that it will readily attack and attach itself to other elements. Iron, in particular, is readily attacked by oxygen.

Other forms of heterotrophic early life (life forms which eat things outside themselves) had been producing waste products such as iron in the form of pyrite (a rock which is sometimes called "fools gold" because it resembles gold) which built up in the early ocean. As oxygen began to be produced, a curious phenomena occured. Large amounts of iron which had accumulated in the early ocean were attacked by the accumulating oxygen. When oxygen (O2) reacts with iron (Fe) containing substances such as FeS2 (pyrite), iron ores are produced. Oxide rocks such as limonite, hematite, magnetite (a magnetic rock), and siderite are among the iron ores. Rocks such as these are mined today, and the iron (Fe) they contain is extracted.

Over a period of a billion years, huge deposits of iron ores were laid at the bottom of the sea. This activity took place between 3.5 and 2.5 billion years ago. Iron ores mined today in the United States, Australia, and South Africa, are part of the huge deposits laid down at that time. Once the oceans were swept clean of iron, then the oxygen could begin to accumulate in the atmosphere, and respiration by sophisticated life forms could begin in earnest. It took a billion years for this process to complete. When it was finished, it closed the period in the history of the Earth which we call the Archean.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/ ... osits.html

Then, please use the Flood Model to explain the occurrence of very thick salt and gypsum deposits at various depths in the stratigraphic sequence and in widely separated areas. Both are evaporites – sediments deposited as a result of evaporation of water.

Major groups of evaporite minerals

Halides: halite, sylvite (KCl), and fluorite
Sulfates: such as gypsum, barite, and anhydrite
Nitrates: nitratite (soda niter) and niter
Borates: typically found in arid-salt-lake deposits plentiful in the southwestern US. A common borate is borax, which has been used in soaps as a surfactant.
Carbonates: such as trona, formed in inland brine lakes.

Evaporite minerals start to precipitate when their concentration in water reaches such a level that they can no longer exist as solutes.

The minerals precipitate out of solution in the reverse order of their solubilities, such that the order of precipitation from sea water is

Calcite (CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2)
Gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O) and anhydrite (CaSO4).
Halite (i.e. common salt, NaCl)
Potassium and magnesium salts

The abundance of rocks formed by seawater precipitation is in the same order as the precipitation given above. Thus, limestone (calcite) and dolomite are more common than gypsum, which is more common than halite, which is more common than potassium and magnesium salts.

Evaporites can also be easily recrystallized in laboratories in order to postulate the specific characteristics of their formation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaporite

I ask how sand layers, sometimes hundreds of feet thick, can be folded. Would you care to take a stab at answering?

If sand was sandwiched in between other layers, then it would also have been part of the fold.

Sandwiched between WHAT other layers? The primary sediment possibilities are mud (clay and silt), marine organics, terrestrial organics, pebbles, cobbles and boulders.

Are you proposing that loose sand is sandwiched between layers of loose mud and loose boulders to be folded?

Unlithified layers prior to faulting would be the best explanation for this: (the white layer in the center has different heights)

Here we go again with an untrained person attempting “geology by photograph”.

Is this a personal opinion? If not, please cite a reference to credible sources.

I am not willing to attempt geological analysis from a photograph. Legitimate interpretation of the features pictured requires more information than just a picture. As an example: Is there evidence of lateral movement? What are the materials involved? Is there any inclination of the strata? Are there any erosional surfaces in the sequence?

None of those questions can be answered by photo analysis – yet they are important to accurately describe existing conditions. Can you cite studies by qualified observers who have actually visited and analyzed the site?

Of course if you want to see who has the most references, then SG will prevail.

If we see who has the most EVIDENCE, SG will prevail.

I don't think it's quite so clear cut.

If you have any evidence, please don’t hesitate to bring it forth. So far all that has been presented is conjecture, unqualified conclusions and quotations from another unqualified creationist.

There is obviously a bias among geologists against anything that resembles what is in the Bible.

There is a bias among geologists against false information and toward verifiable information.

Martyrdom is out of favor.

Religionists imagine that there is a bias in science against their theories. Science asks for evidence. Religion produces hearsay, testimonials, conjectures and unproven assumptions regarding invisible super beings and nature-defying magic tricks. Those presentations are not taken seriously by scientific investigators who ask for verification.

If creationists wish to prove their arguments with geology, it is their responsibility to learn geology, do the studies necessary and reach valid conclusions. That is NOT done by creationists.

It has been my observation that those who begin study of geology as creationists typically either drop out OR drop creationism. When one studies the field the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of realism rather than supernaturalism.

I've already cited that geologists would not accept a local catastrophic flood because it resembled the Noahic flood, even when the evidence was strong. And geologists only accepted it after they had a non-Biblical cause that was proposed, even though the evidence for the flood remained the same.

You have created a straw man by misquoting the article you cite:

Geologist J Harlen Bretz first recognized evidence of the catastrophic floods, which he called the Spokane Floods, in the 1920s. He was researching the Channeled scablands in Eastern Washington, the Columbia Gorge and the Willamette Valley of Oregon. Bretz, however was not able to explain the source of the huge volume of water and his hypothesis was controversial, partly due to the popularity at that time of the principle of uniformitarianism in geologic processes.

In 1925 another geologist, Joseph Pardee, suggested that the water came from the failure of the glacial dam holding back the waters of Lake Missoula. By studying the canyon of the Flathead River, he estimated that flood waters in excess of 45 miles per hour would be required to roll the largest of the boulders moved by the flood. He estimated the water flow was nine cubic miles per hour, more than the combined flow of every river in the world.[1] Some estimates place the flow at ten times the flow of all current rivers combined.

Further research confirmed this hypothesis and the cause of the floods was finally explained. The Missoula Floods are also called the Bretz Floods in honor of Bretz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods

Emphasis added:

Note carefully, that the article says that hypothesis was controversial, NOT that it was “not accepted” as you claim. The MOST you could legitimately claim is that the hypothesis was not unanimously or widely accepted – which is very different from what you did state. It pays to read the articles one cites and to be accurate in what one says – to prevent foolish mistakes.

Geologists are correct to insist upon a mechanism before accepting an interpretation. Exactly the same thing was done when mainline geology rejected “Continental Drift” theories (from another of their own – at about the same time) when movement could not be measured and when no mechanism of movement consistent with physics and Earth sciences could be proposed. Once movement was documented and physics supplied a mechanism (the well known process of convection), Plate Tectonics became an accepted working theory.

That is the beauty of the Scientific Method – a means of learning about nature that maximizes the likelihood of learning truth and minimizes the likelihood of making errors. Actual studies are made of the phenomenon being discussed and new information is incorporated and old ideas are modified as necessary. Theories are tested.

What you have intended as a criticism of science and geology is, in fact, one of its greatest assets – search for truth through testing of theories and incorporation of new information only after it has been shown to be accurate.

Creationism, on the other hand, claims to have the answers and looks only for “proof” of its conclusions. Theories are not tested. Belief is based on faith and emotion.

Another example is that geologists will entertain that the entire world being covered by ice, but immediately dismiss being covered by water. Why would this be? Only because the Bible mentions the entire world being covered by water.

Martyrdom is not a valid debate tactic.

Please cite ANY geological studies that propose “the entire world being covered by ice”.

I have studied and taught glaciation but have NEVER encountered any geologist (even the “kooks”) saying that the ENTIRE Earth was glaciated. Where did you get that wild notion? Is that from creationism?

Are you familiar with the extent of continental glaciation during the various glacial periods? That is the field known as Pleistocene Geology – a fascinating field of study that can be sampled with an Internet search for the term.

It appears as though you have NO references to rapid coal formation. Is that the case? Can’t you cite ONE legitimate study (by a person knowledgeable in the field) that shows that coal forms rapidly?

No, I'm not able to find any scientific studies on rapidly forming coal in the laboratory. However, it could be simply because nobody had done any research on whether it is possible or not.

Or it could be because coal does NOT form rapidly. Legitimate studies indicate that coal formation is a slow process.

It is NOT surprising that you cannot find any legitimate studies to back an erroneous position.

But, the main evidence that I've already presented that coal is not old is the presence of C14 in fossil fuel deposits. This would indicate that they are not millions of years old.

Your “main evidence” for young coal is a single line of study that found more than expected C14 in coal samples. This leads a geologist / creationist to maintain that this indicates “quick coal” (or “diluvial coal”). There are many geologists who maintain that coal formation is a slow process. There is a chance the “dark horse” is correct. There is also a chance that a draft horse could win the Kentucky Derby. I need not comment on the probability.

C14 dating is not generally useful in geology because the half-life of C14 is not compatible with most geological studies, and because variations in results indicate measurement or sample errors, contamination, uncontrolled variables or other source of error.

Other dating techniques produce results that are more consistent and involve longer half-life periods.

It is interesting that creationists cite C14 evidence if it appears to support their claims and deny it if it disputes their claims. This is “pick and choose science” or “pseudo-science” or “faux-science”. If one trusts a technique enough to use it as evidence, one is honor bound to accept findings using the same technique that dispute one’s theories.

It is irrational to accept only the data that support a theory and discard all that disputes the theory. Again, we can “prove” that all humans are short if we discard data on those who are tall. Or, we can “prove” that coal is recent if we discard all evidence that it is ancient.

Because the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, it is only reliable for dating objects up to about 60,000 years old. However, the principle of carbon-14 dating applies to other isotopes as well. Potassium-40 is another radioactive element naturally found in your body and has a half-life of 1.3 billion years. Other useful radioisotopes for radioactive dating include Uranium -235 (half-life = 704 million years), Uranium -238 (half-life = 4.5 billion years), Thorium-232 (half-life = 14 billion years) and Rubidium-87 (half-life = 49 billion years).

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-142.htm

I realize that creationists must denounce radiometric dating, regardless how solid the evidence, because the long time frames indicated by such dating techniques conflict with biblical accounts that they hold dear.

Those who insist that the bible is the ultimate authority on all things MUST attempt to discredit opposing knowledge – just as the church defended the “Earth Centered Universe” (geocentric) religious theory during the Middle Ages -- even after compelling evidence had been presented by Galileo and others demonstrating that the sun and stars did not revolve around the Earth.

Your arguments seem to be deteriorating rapidly. You cannot substantiate what you say. Your “proofs” are evidence AGAINST your “Flood Model”.

I haven't reached the end of my arguments yet. I'm limited more by available time than by evidence that I can present.

The “evidence” that you produce seems to disprove your own theories.

Your “main evidence” for “young coal” (C14 anomalies) is as weak as your “strongest evidence” of a worldwide flood (legends of floods in various cultures).

Your “geology from photographs by amateurs” is obviously without merit.

In many instances you have claimed, “It could have been possible” in lieu of demonstrating that something occurred as you claimed.

What evidence, exactly, have you provided that actually indicates that the flood was literal? I have seen none. Zero. Nada. If a worldwide flood actually occurred a few thousand years ago, the evidence should be compelling.

Read the thread as though you were an impartial observer. Would the arguments presented by the creationist be reasonable or convincing?

I'll leave that to the observers of this thread. I don't think neither you nor I would qualify as impartial observers.

What I was referring to was reading as though an impartial observer. I often read something I have written thinking, “How would this look to another person?”. That perspective often helps structure a writing to be meaningful to others. Perhaps not everyone is willing to look at their writings with that attitude.

See the comments by Cmass http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=600 post #606

There are 2 very lengthy debates in DCR where any reasonable person whether they be Christian, Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Agnostic or from any other belief or non-belief system could conclude a decisive outcome: Zzyzx and Otseng's Flood debate and this one.

And see the comments of a fellow religionist – ST_JB http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... &start=100 post #107

In fairness to Otseng, I know he/she had done his/her all he/she can to present his/her case but I don't think it was enough to survive your attack on the proof he/she presented.

I acknowledge that I have been relentless in attacking the “proof” presented and in showing reason to doubt that the biblical tale of the flood is literally true. To be frank, one of the reasons I have been relentless is that it appears to me as though you are not being straight forward but have attempted to use “tactics” to avoid difficult questions and to excuse obvious defects in the tale.

I have been absolutely straight forward and honest in this debate. I use NO tactics other than presenting powerful, deeply considered arguments based on readily verifiable information. My “trick” is to know what I am talking about – and to recognize when someone else does not.

It is true that I have some advantages. The biggest one is that the genesis story of the flood cannot be defended with reason and evidence because it contains incredible claims (too extraordinary and improbable to be believed). There is no evidence to “explain” how the impossible could have happened (so it must be “goddidit” for every question). Another, advantage is that I devoted many years to the study of geology and it is unlikely that pseudo-geology will go unrecognized or uncontested.

Your dependence upon your “Flood Model” based on Walter Brown’s “Hydroplate Theory” is a mistake because noting claimed can be verified. That approach may convince those who known nothing about the Earth sciences, but both theories are readily recognized as defective by those who have studied the subject matter. The attempted “geological defense” might work if you had a good command of geology or I did not. It may work if preaching to the choir.

There are a number of major issues that have NOT been satisfactorily addressed with EVIDENCE to support contentions offered. These issues are NOT going to go away. If you wish to mount a credible defense of the literal flood, you MUST address these issues and more (with more than shallow or flippant answers).

As you read down the list, reflect on the fact that there is not one item for which you can provide a good solid response that lends credibility to the literal flood position. The best you have been able to offer is, “It might have been possible” – over and over.

1. Origin of the flood water (without unproven assumptions of “Hydroplate Theory”)
2. Disposal of water post-flood (ditto)

Note: If you cannot “explain” the appearance and disappearance of sufficient water to flood the Earth “to the tops of hills” without relying on the “Hydroplate Theory”, you acknowledge that if that theory is not valid you have no explanation.

3. Survival of fish (without claiming that “they live in water so they survived”)
4. Survival of plants in a year of flooding (particularly those that do not reproduce by seeds)
5. Evolution of fish and plants occurring rapidly post-flood but slowing currently
6. Accumulation of animals from all over the globe at the ark (without transportation)
7. Return of animals to their specific habitats post-flood (ditto)
8. Mountains being “lower” a few thousand years ago, rising rapidly, stopping rise
9. Continents being shoved apart by water pressure (and continuing to move)
10. Building and sailing by 8 people of a wooden ship larger than any known to have been built
11. Care and feeding of thousands or millions of animals for a year on a boat
12. 100% survival of all pairs of animals
13. Atmosphere being a “blanket of water” and “no rain” before the flood
14. Earth’s climate being significantly more mild a few thousand years ago
15. Genetic diversity in humans evolving rapidly post-flood to produce variations now present – then slowing or stopping.
16. Precise sorting of fossils in sedimentary rocks – so perfect that no fossil of any animal or plant is found lower in the stratigraphic column than would be consistent with when it evolved according to stratigraphy and paleontology.

These are MAJOR issues that you have NOT managed to “explain” in order to defend the biblical flood described in genesis as being literally true. The absence of a reasonable discussion of major issues is an indication that the position being defended is weak and unsupportable OR the debater is incapable. I conclude that the latter is not the case.