Was the Flood Literal? Osteng vs. Zzyzx One on One Debate

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[Goat]

I likewise find this to be very fascinating. By the way I am not the professor.

What makes this article even more intriguing is the fact that it was first published in the spring of 1874! That's approximately 133 years ago. The author of the article is Isaac N. Vail. I was told at one time that he was a professor. At what college or university I have no idea. I have no idea where he even lived.

I

the only information I could find is that he was a quaker schoolteacher who lived from
1840 to 1912.

[Zzyzx]

.

What makes this article even more intriguing is the fact that it was first published in the spring of 1874! That's approximately 133 years ago. The author of the article is Isaac N. Vail. I was told at one time that he was a professor. At what college or university I have no idea. I have no idea where he even lived.

It may be possible that he used the best scientific research that was available 133 years ago.

"It may be possible" . . . . that he pulled his theories out of his ear too.

Thank you for demonstrating the quality of "scientific studies" that "verify" creationist positions.

As one trained in science during the interval 133 years, I can attest that more and different information is available today for those who wish to study legitimate scientific topics.

Waters Above The Firmament 1874 Isaac N. Vail -- Refers to a discredited “theory” still brought out occasionally by creationists but not regarded seriously by astronomers, geologists, hydrologists, etc.

The pamphlet is discussed in a book entitled, Evangelicals and Crackpot Science: Newman, Robert C.

And an article entitled, Creationist Geologic Time Scale

Most creationist models for the source of the flood waters stem from the writings of Isaac Newton Vail who proposed (1874) and successively refined into the "annular theory" (Vail, 1912) a model in which the early earth had a series of Saturn-like aqueous rings, the progressive collapse of which caused successive cataclysms to bury and create fossils. Collapse of the last remnant ring caused the Noachian flood. Subsequently, most writings propose only one great canopy which collapses to create the flood (Dillow, 1981). Vardiman (1986a), head of the ICR physics department, calculates that the base of the canopy was about 7 km above the earth's surface with an ambient surface temperature of about 30 degrees C.. Additional unlikely details of this pre-flood atmosphere are calculated by Jorgensen (1990). Other Creationists writings such as the Austin et al. (1994) model avoid some of this problem by having much of the future flood water stored within the earth to burst forth as the "fountains of the deep" described in the Bible

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/wise.htm

And, an article by Wayne Simpson provided by Biblical Research Foundation

At this point we might speculate a little about what was the cause and the source
of all of this water. Several scholars have surmised that some kind of watery
shroud or vapor canopy once surrounded the earth, and that it suddenly became
unstable and collapsed. Isaac N. Vail championed this view and wrote a number of
treatises which he collected in his book, Waters Above The Firmament published
in the nineteenth century. Some of his notions seem quaint today, but it is
worth reading. The problem is that there is no known model in the solar system
of such a planetary canopy, and the physics of it cannot be proven.

http://www.jasher.com/Flood.htm

Vail’s “credentials” are not in evidence. His own claim is to be a “practical geologist” (which can mean anything or nothing).

http://ia340905.us.archive.org/2/items/ ... t_djvu.txt

[wrekk]

Again...

My, my, it is amazing the Zzyzx, McCulloch and others are afraid to touch "Waters Above the Firmament". Yet they spew forth their rant and raves of their own little theories without proof that their perspective is the only possibility.

I am still waiting...


You call what you have posted, proof?

[Revelations won]

I did not post this as proof. As I have previously stated it is a theory, just as the things others have presented are theories.

The bottom line is that you cannot prove anuy other theory to absolutely correct either.

The so called geological theories and claimed time line for various formations are far from correct. For example there are some who claim stalagmite and stalagtite formations require many thousands or millions of year to form. I have seen in mining operations these structures formed several feet in length within old mining tunnels that are less the 80 years old. I have also observed that the drip rate can vary widely from year to year, probably related to weather conditions.

To the latter day mockers, I think it would have been amusing to see you expound your theories amid the torrential downpour as the Ark lifted from the sold ground. where it was built.

Oh, by the way, do any of you know the characteristics of "gopher wood" from which the ark was constructed?

[Zzyzx]

.

I did not post this as proof. As I have previously stated it is a theory, just as the things others have presented are theories.

The bottom line is that you cannot prove anuy other theory to absolutely correct either.

Thank you for demonstrating the quality of theories that creationism uses in attempting to support its claims – a 130 year old discredited theory that contains assumptions about planetary rings that are totally inconsistent with astronomy and physics.

Of course, one can maintain that the supposed “Above the Firmament” theory MIGHT be right (but is totally unsupported by evidence or studies). Theories without study, support or evidence are known by the technical term “wild guesses”.

[wrekk]

I did not post this as proof. As I have previously stated it is a theory, just as the things others have presented are theories.

Do you even know what a scientific theory is?

Theory - An explanation for some phenomenon that is based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning.

Honestly, can these procedures, be applied to the "waters above of the firmament"? If so how?

Also, it is you not I, that has made the statement,

theories without PROOF that their perspective is the only possibility.

I would think someone bold enough to make a statement like this, would at least post their own proof of their own "theories". Why have you not done so?

When you do this, is you that come off as spewing "forth their rant and raves".

[littlesuziecollins]

of course there was a flood. every culture, religion, etc... talk about a "great flood". not the mention the scientific evidence of a global flood. read Moodys book about the flood, excuse me i don't remember the name of the book. there is more evidence pointing towards the authenticity of the bible and the events that take place, than any other historical book written. some of them i dont understand, but thats okay. All that matters is that we lead people to believe, all it takes is just a little faith, and God will open eyes and hearts to the truth. He did for me, and i use to believe in evolution. And to be honest it takes more faith to believe we came from nothing that to believe we were masterfully created.

[littlesuziecollins]

The firmament of water that surrounded the earth befor the flood, is what protected us from the harmful effects of the sun. That accounts for gigantism(which has been proven by scientist with the help of fossils). the fact that people lived longer, how when the flood did happen it was such a catasrophe because it was so sudden, remember there had nt been rain up till the flood. the water firmament was dumped and the water in the earth was released all at once.
thats why scientist have found fossilized animals in the middle of giving birth, one fossil showed dinosaurs fighting and were fossilized like that. the different layers that are found is not from millions of years of sediment. it is the settling of the sand, dirt, debris, etc.. after the flood, which you can proove yourself. by putting stuff in a glass of water. different kinds of sand, dirt, rocks, and it will all settle according to the weight. youwill see the layers. thats what happened during and after the flood. and the fossils i am talking about, was shown on national geographic, google it.
one more thing, if your heart is hardened against the Bible, then it will be "foolishness" to you, who dont believe. God will open your eyes if you ask Him to.





.[/quote]

[Revelations won]

.

I did not post this as proof. As I have previously stated it is a theory, just as the things others have presented are theories.

The bottom line is that you cannot prove anuy other theory to absolutely correct either.

Thank you for demonstrating the quality of theories that creationism uses in attempting to support its claims – a 130 year old discredited theory that contains assumptions about planetary rings that are totally inconsistent with astronomy and physics.

Of course, one can maintain that the supposed “Above the Firmament” theory MIGHT be right (but is totally unsupported by evidence or studies). Theories without study, support or evidence are known by the technical term “wild guesses”.

Tell me now, you make a statement that this 130 year old theo9ry has been discredited.

Where is your evidence that totally proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that this did not occur in the manner described in "Waters Above the Firmament"?

Let's see the total irrefutable proof....

[McCulloch]