I would like to begin by thanking Twobitsmedia for standing by his word and excepting this debate. We have agreed on many things in the past and I am sure we will agree on many more in the future. I would also like to thank Otseng for being our gracious host. I will do my best to treat both Twobits views and the views of the readers with respect.
I do not want to create a straw man argument and would like a detailed outline of how Twobits interprets the flood described in Genesis 7&8 of the King James Version of the Holy Bible. I will begin with questions that I have from my interpretation of reading Genesis 7&8 and follow with my position.
Questions:
What was the time period that the flood happened?
How long did the flood last?
How was a boat on top of Mt. Ararat when no Mountain had been uncovered yet?
Did the flood kill plants?
On what day was the land dry?
My position:
I do not think the flood happened as stated in the KJV of the Holy Bible. My reasons for not believing the event took place as stated are contradictions dealing with this event in the KJV, lack of evidence of massive amounts of water during the time period, evidence that shows areas that were not under water during the time period, and societies that were not destroyed during the time period. I think these reasons are sufficient but I may add more as the debate progresses.
My first reason, contradictions, will be elaborated after Twobits answers my opening questions. For now I would like to point out why contradictions cause me not to believe. A self contradiction is when someone makes a factual statement about something and then makes another factual statement about that same thing when both statements cannot be true. I hope to show Twobits and readers that the KJV of the Holy Bible makes this error in both chapters 7&8 of Genesis.
My second reason for not believing is the lack of evidence of massive amounts of water during the time period. I know, this is just an argument from ignorance on my part. But after asking so many people for so long for evidence I have come to the conclusion that there is none. As Twobits can attest to, I can be quite annoying when I want something. I find it more likely that there is no evidence than that everyone that I have annoyed about this was willing to let me annoy them.
Another reason that I do not believe is that I trust the findings of scientists that have and do work in fields of study that state there was not a global flood during the time period. I have read their findings about various features of the earth and do not see why all of them would commit a vast conspiracy to fool others about this matter.
My final reason for not beliving is the societies that were not killed by a global flood. I think my grand father would wonder where his people came from if I told him all the Native Americans were wiped out by a global flood. My Puerto Rican wife would find it odd that her people could be drowned at all much less wiped out by a flood. My Aunt from Asia would have a few words with me if I told her the history of her ancestors was a fake because the flood killed them all. I would have a lot of explaining to do to people in my own family if I subscribed to a global flood as stated in the KJV of the Holy Bible.
I think my reasons for not believing and Twobits evidence will fail to convince people that read this debate with an open mind. I will now wait for Twobits answers and his opening statement.
Readers, thank you for taking the time to read and consider both sides of this debate.
Did a world wide flood caused by God actually occur as state
Moderator: Moderators
Post #11
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence.
The rule above is a rule for this entire site. Twobits has made it clear that he will not be following this rule. I have repeatedly attempted to get more that a claim out of Twobits and feel that I have done so with patients.
Twobits,
When you are willing to debate and follow the rules then I would like to have this debate with you. Until then perhaps we can converse the '69 Impala you had.
The rule above is a rule for this entire site. Twobits has made it clear that he will not be following this rule. I have repeatedly attempted to get more that a claim out of Twobits and feel that I have done so with patients.
Twobits,
When you are willing to debate and follow the rules then I would like to have this debate with you. Until then perhaps we can converse the '69 Impala you had.
-
twobitsmedia
Post #12
Ho hum.upallnite wrote:5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence.
The rule above is a rule for this entire site. Twobits has made it clear that he will not be following this rule.
5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence.
And here's what I was told by Osteng about that rule:
This is to avoid blanket statements like:
The entire Bible is fiction.
Christians are ignorant people.
Atheists are ignorant people.
etc
As long as there is some basis to assertions being made, then it's fair game. But, to present unsupportable assertions is not.
Hope that gives some insight into the rule.
My assertions are based on the Biblical text which we both agreed I would be using (NKJV). And I have no apologies for not borrowing someone elses argument as a back-up.
"more that a claim"??? what does that mean?
I have repeatedly attempted to get more that a claim out of Twobits and feel that I have done so with patients.
Sorry you cannot debate the Biblical flood on the merits of the biblical flood as you suggested in your own debate title: Did a world wide flood caused by God actually occur as stated. You seem to be hung up on some flood that happened caused by nature instead, which I do not think even happened.
Twobits,
When you are willing to debate and follow the rules then I would like to have this debate with you.
I have no idea what this means.
Until then perhaps we can converse the '69 Impala you had.
Post #13
Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of plants.
Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of animals.
Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of people.
These would have left massive amounts of evidence that Twobits has refused to produce. If these things in the real world were effected then the flood had to have happened in space/time but Twobits has refused to submit a date for this event.
Twobits has refused to even answer why he belives the source of these claims.
With no evidence and no reason to belive the claims then there is nothing to debate. The flood did not happen.
Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of animals.
Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of people.
These would have left massive amounts of evidence that Twobits has refused to produce. If these things in the real world were effected then the flood had to have happened in space/time but Twobits has refused to submit a date for this event.
Twobits has refused to even answer why he belives the source of these claims.
With no evidence and no reason to belive the claims then there is nothing to debate. The flood did not happen.
-
twobitsmedia
Post #14
Yes, and the word is "accepted" not excepted.upallnite wrote:Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of plants.
Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of animals.
Twobits has excepted that the flood killed large amounts of people.
Why would they leave large massive amounts of evidence (I ask again) How many floods started and ended by God are you using to compare what amount of "massive evidence" would be left? I have asked several times and you ignore the question. If you do not know what you are looking for, how will you know when you get it?These would have left massive amounts of evidence that Twobits has refused to produce.
Not refused..try "I don't know." (as in, the Biblical text is not clear (I say again)If these things in the real world were effected then the flood had to have happened in space/time but Twobits has refused to submit a date for this event.
No, I did say I believed the source of the flood was God. But we also agreed not to turn this into a "Does God exist" debate.Twobits has refused to even answer why he belives the source of these claims.
As per your own debate question: Did a world wide flood caused by God actually occur as stated in the Bible.With no evidence and no reason to belive the claims then there is nothing to debate.
Not the "natural cataclysmic event" you propose. The Biblical one was started and ended by God for the purpose of destroying a generation of people.The flood did not happen.
Post #15
I presented a method of coming to a date for the flood using the Bible.Not refused..try "I don't know." (as in, the Biblical text is not clear (I say again)
Do you agree to 2,250 B.C.E. being the approximate time of the flood?
If not then state your reason.
Dead people, animals and plants tend to leave evidence.Why would they leave large massive amounts of evidence
Massive numbers of dead people, animals and plants would leave massive amounts of evidence.
You are going to have to propose a reason there is no evidence.
The source of your information is the Bible. Unless God has spoken directly to you. You have stated that you will not answer why you belive the Bible.No, I did say I believed the source of the flood was God.
Are you attempting to make an argument that nothing caused by God leaves evidence?As per your own debate question: Did a world wide flood caused by God actually occur as stated in the Bible.
-
twobitsmedia
Post #16
upallnite wrote:Not refused..try "I don't know." (as in, the Biblical text is not clear (I say again)I accept that the Biblical flood does not give a date. You can use your date, but why should your date methodology be any better than all the others (and these are only a few):I presented a method of coming to a date for the flood using the Bible.
Do you agree to 2,250 B.C.E. being the approximate time of the flood?
If not then state your reason.
c. 2300 BC–2200 BC — Head of a man from Nineveh (modern Kuyunjik, Iraq) is made. It is now in Iraq Museum, Baghdad.
http://www.carnegiemnh.org/exhibits/egy ... nology.htm
http://12.151.120.44/toah/ht/02/eus/ht02eus.htm
http://www.worldtimelines.org.uk/world/ ... 000-2250BC
http://www.davidrumsey.com/amica/amico1 ... 69514.html
Not to forget to mention (again) that Talk Origins uses the date so that it can refute its own asserted date.......which really makes no sense to me. (I think they are pulling that from a YE Creation site, and for the record, I do not subscribe ro the YE creationist theories as a rule).
Why would they leave large massive amounts of evidenceThe evidence of a miracle would be the result of its goal. This was to destroy a generation,. I don't have a case for how anything else is affected. I have already stated that if the Bible is going to be used as a science book, then it should be pitched in the garbage can because it clearly is NOT.Dead people, animals and plants tend to leave evidence.
Massive numbers of dead people, animals and plants would leave massive amounts of evidence.
You are going to have to propose a reason there is no evidence.
No, I did say I believed the source of the flood was God.I have (several times) and stated I that since God is, so is the record... .The source of your information is the Bible. Unless God has spoken directly to you. You have stated that you will not answer why you believe the Bible.
As per your own debate question: Did a world wide flood caused by God actually occur as stated in the Bible.No that is NOT my attempt.. The evidence of a miracle would be the result of its goal. Anything else would be incidental.Are you attempting to make an argument that nothing caused by God leaves evidence?
