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?

[Zzyzx]

.
Are you willing to debate the topic of whether the biblical flood is literal or not (including geology) WITH a stipulation that EVERY claim is honorably verified OR failure is acknowledged and the claim is WITHDRAWN?

(Note: “honorably verified” does NOT include using informaton concerning climate 75 Million years ago to verify a claim concerning temperature 5 Thousand years ago. Nor does it include “things might have been different then” – unless verification is provided to show that things WERE specifically as stated.)

[otseng]

.
Are you willing to debate the topic of whether the biblical flood is literal or not (including geology) WITH a stipulation that EVERY claim is honorably verified OR failure is acknowledged and the claim is WITHDRAWN?

If it has been sufficiently demonstrated through evidence that the claim is in error, I am willing to withdraw my claim. Also, I attempt to back up my claims through evidence. And if I provide no evidence, then I'm willing to drop those claims.

However, let me add also that we're probably not going to change each other's minds in this thread. As a matter of fact, I doubt very many on this forum has changed their minds on a position as a result of any thread on this forum. So, there should be no expectation that anyone would alter their position.

But, it would be a fair expectation that any claims that go unsupported should be withdrawn.

(Note: “honorably verified” does NOT include using informaton concerning climate 75 Million years ago to verify a claim concerning temperature 5 Thousand years ago. Nor does it include “things might have been different then” – unless verification is provided to show that things WERE specifically as stated.)

I would disagree with this. Practically all secular geological information on the internet are from sources that believe in evolutionary theory. To discount using secular geological sources would limit me only to using Christian sources. And generally I try to avoid using those (since people like to accuse me of simply copying from Christian web sites). So if I'm going to use secular sources, it would be impossible to avoid references to millions of years.

[Zzyzx]

.

a.
Are you willing to debate the topic of whether the biblical flood is literal or not (including geology) WITH a stipulation that EVERY claim is honorably verified OR failure is acknowledged and the claim is WITHDRAWN?

If it has been sufficiently demonstrated through evidence that the claim is in error, I am willing to withdraw my claim. Also, I attempt to back up my claims through evidence. And if I provide no evidence, then I'm willing to drop those claims.

What you are saying is, “Unless my claim is proven false, it must stand”.

In science and logic, those who make the claim are expected to verify their claim if challenged or withdraw it from consideration. Others are NOT required to “prove me wrong”. Unsupported claims are regarded as “garbage”.

Theology apparently operates on the basis of “true unless proven false”. That would fit with its arguments and beliefs.

Here is a very simple description of argumentum ad ignorantum

Fallacy ten: appeal to ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantum)
The argument makes a claim that something it true because it is not proven to be false. There are many things that may not be true but are not known yet to be so.
There are many things that are not proven to be false yet may not be true . This argument literally relies on your ignorance of the subject to make its point.
http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewart ... 4&id=33074

Under “true unless proven false”, anyone can claim that they have a pink elephant in their back yard or that they have an invisible rabbit (or god) and the opposition is required to prove the contention false or it stands.

That system of “logic” may be handy for arguing in favor of invisible super beings, but it is very unhandy for searching for truth or understanding. I favor truth and understanding – not unsupported claims.

However, let me add also that we're probably not going to change each other's minds in this thread. As a matter of fact, I doubt very many on this forum has changed their minds on a position as a result of any thread on this forum. So, there should be no expectation that anyone would alter their position.

Changing your mind or position is NOT my concern. Reasoned debate is my objective. I write for those who read these threads with an ability to understand and evaluate what is said – and compare realism with supernaturalism.

Reasoned debate cannot occur when claims need not be supported. Any harebrained scheme can be proposed with no support and be expected to stand until proven false.

My intent is to show that even a capable debater cannot honestly and honorably make a case for the legendary flood being literal based upon reason, logic and evidence. That has been demonstrated to my satisfaction.

I understand that it is very difficult to attempt to verify a legend using reason; however, that is supposedly the position you chose to defend.

But, it would be a fair expectation that any claims that go unsupported should be withdrawn.

That has not happened in this debate. “The climate was different then”, “Fish survived the flood because they live in water”, “There has been rapid evolution since the flood”, “Mountains were lower 5000 years ago”, “The atmosphere was a blanket of water”, “water gushed out from vast underground caverns”, etc – are examples of claims which, upon challenge, have not been supported – but have not been withdrawn (and have been repeated as though they were valid).

(Note: “honorably verified” does NOT include using information concerning climate 75 Million years ago to verify a claim concerning temperature 5 Thousand years ago. Nor does it include “things might have been different then” – unless verification is provided to show that things WERE specifically as stated.)

I would disagree with this. Practically all secular geological information on the internet are from sources that believe in evolutionary theory. To discount using secular geological sources would limit me only to using Christian sources. And generally I try to avoid using those (since people like to accuse me of simply copying from Christian web sites). So if I'm going to use secular sources, it would be impossible to avoid references to millions of years.

It is understandable why you would disagree with a requirement that applicable evidence be supplied to verify claims.

I have no problem with thinking in terms of millions of years. Geology does that regularly.

HOWEVER, I disagree with using information regarding what the Earth’s climate was like 75 Million years ago to make a claim about what the climate was like 5 Thousand years ago. I’m sure that you understand what I am saying.

It is not difficult to understand that information pertaining to climate of 500 years ago CANNOT be used to verify the climate 10 years ago, and that information regarding climate millions of years ago cannot be used to verify climate of thousands of years ago.

I also disagree with a person who maintains that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old using information pertaining to climates from 75,000,000 years ago. If the Earth is “young”, there was no climate eons ago. Consistency requires that information be restricted to the time period that one accepts as the age of the Earth.

If information provided by scientists regarding climate of 75 Million years ago is used in an argument, one CANNOT rationally reject the time and use the rest of the information in a different context. Time is a fundamental of the evidence that science has provided, and cannot be separated from other information provided (to fit someone’s theological arguments). That is an extreme example of “pick and choose science”.

I am disappointed that this has not been what I would consider a reasoned debate. Any argument based upon claims that are not substantiated if challenged (“prove me wrong or my statements stand”) is NOT reasoned debate since it violates a fundamental principle of logic and reason. Perhaps such illogical “argument” is the best that theology is capable of mounting. I expected more from a capable debater.

[otseng]

That has not happened in this debate. “The climate was different then”, “Fish survived the flood because they live in water”, “There has been rapid evolution since the flood”, “Mountains were lower 5000 years ago”, “The atmosphere was a blanket of water”, “water gushed out from vast underground caverns”, etc – are examples of claims which, upon challenge, have not been supported – but have not been withdrawn (and have been repeated as though they were valid).

Why should they be withdraw if we haven't even started to talk about the geological data?

I understand that it is very difficult to attempt to verify a legend using reason; however, that is supposedly the position you chose to defend.

I will admit it is difficult to defend if I cannot even talk about geology.

HOWEVER, I disagree with using information regarding what the Earth’s climate was like 75 Million years ago to make a claim about what the climate was like 5 Thousand years ago. I’m sure that you understand what I am saying.

I understand what you are saying as I cannot use any information that is from secular geology sources.

Using data that is found in rocks in very much different from the claim that the rocks are millions of years old. The difference is between fact and theory. And due to the constant evolutionists indoctrination of things being millions of years old, people cannot separate fact from theory.

Let's take one example that I had used.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1773.html

"About 49 million years ago, azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin," said Kate Moran, an oceanographer and engineer who visited Fairbanks recently. "It describes the Arctic Ocean at a time when it was warm and fresher than today."

Here is the fact: "azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin".

Here is the theory: "About 49 million years ago"

Now, I don't have to accept the theory in order to accept the fact.

I am disappointed that this has not been what I would consider a reasoned debate. Any argument based upon claims that are not substantiated if challenged (“prove me wrong or my statements stand”) is NOT reasoned debate since it violates a fundamental principle of logic and reason. Perhaps such illogical “argument” is the best that theology is capable of mounting. I expected more from a capable debater.

The disappointment would be due to your continual insistence that we cannot discuss geology. If we are able to freely debate without your limitations, this would be a much more interesting debate. And since you have training in geology, I had expected you to welcome discussing geology. So, the disappointment would be mine.

Why don't we let the general public decide this? Should I be allowed to use geology to defend my position? Is it reasonable to exclude the geological evidence in discussing a global flood?

[Zzyzx]

That has not happened in this debate. “The climate was different then”, “Fish survived the flood because they live in water”, “There has been rapid evolution since the flood”, “Mountains were lower 5000 years ago”, “The atmosphere was a blanket of water”, “water gushed out from vast underground caverns”, etc – are examples of claims which, upon challenge, have not been supported – but have not been withdrawn (and have been repeated as though they were valid).

Why should they be withdraw if we haven't even started to talk about the geological data?

There have been well over 100 posts and at least ten pages in this thread (including those lost in the hack), many of them relating to what you refer to as geology. How is it that you seem to think that you have not been able to discuss geology adequately? Do you realize that what you have presented is far from convincing? I would tend to agree.

As a person trained in geology, I recognize that the “Flood Model” and “Hydroplate Theory” do NOT represent geology but represent creationism masquerading as science. Walter Brown is a mechanical engineer with an avowed agenda of promoting creationism. He is not a geologist. His theories do not represent geology.

Do you agree that Walter Brown is a mechanical engineer and a professed creationist – not a geologist?

I understand that it is very difficult to attempt to verify a legend using reason; however, that is supposedly the position you chose to defend.

I will admit it is difficult to defend if I cannot even talk about geology.

You have not been limited by avoiding geology. A large number of other topics have been raised.

Notice that climate, fish and atmosphere are NOT topics of focus of geology. They are separate fields of investigation – climatology, ichthyology and meteorology. You have not been limited by avoidance of geology. You have been limited by absence of support for your claims

Areas of discussion that are NOT geology include:

1. Climatology (“climate was much milder 5000 years ago”)

2. Meteorology (atmosphere a “water blanket” and “no rain” before the flood)

3. Ichthyology (fish survive radical habitat change “because they live in water”)

4. Biology (diversity of animals that would be required to be aboard the ark – and impossibility of repopulating all the Earth’s animals from ONE breeding pair of each – and three breeding pairs of humans)

5. Genetics (“rapid evolution” supposedly occurred after the supposed flood, but stopped being rapid presently)

6. Marine engineering (building a ship that exceeds structural limitation of wood – impossibly large undertaking for four men and wives)

7. Animal behavior (animals walking, crawling, swimming, flying to be aboard the ark – and making their way home after a year.)

8. Human limitations (ability of four men and their wives to care for thousands or millions of animals aboard a ship for a year – while sailing an impossibly large ship and bailing as required – with no known experience)

Thus there are at least eight major fields of study that are separate from geology. You are limited only by the weakness of the arguments presented.

HOWEVER, I disagree with using information regarding what the Earth’s climate was like 75 Million years ago to make a claim about what the climate was like 5 Thousand years ago. I’m sure that you understand what I am saying.

I understand what you are saying as I cannot use any information that is from secular geology sources.

Using data that is found in rocks in very much different from the claim that the rocks are millions of years old. The difference is between fact and theory. And due to the constant evolutionists indoctrination of things being millions of years old, people cannot separate fact from theory.

Let's take one example that I had used.

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1773.html

"About 49 million years ago, azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin," said Kate Moran, an oceanographer and engineer who visited Fairbanks recently. "It describes the Arctic Ocean at a time when it was warm and fresher than today."

Here is the fact: "azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin".

Here is the theory: "About 49 million years ago"

Now, I don't have to accept the theory in order to accept the fact.

You are perfectly welcome to use secular sources – provided that you use them honorably. Honorable use is NOT pulling a few favorable facts out of a study and applying them with disregard for the context within which they were presented.

What you are saying is that you want to use information from 49 million years ago to answer a question regarding 5 thousand years ago. That doesn’t work.

In reasonable debate one cannot use information regarding conditions that prevailed hundreds of years ago to explain what happened last winter. Is that a difficult concept for creationists to understand?

I am disappointed that this has not been what I would consider a reasoned debate. Any argument based upon claims that are not substantiated if challenged (“prove me wrong or my statements stand”) is NOT reasoned debate since it violates a fundamental principle of logic and reason. Perhaps such illogical “argument” is the best that theology is capable of mounting. I expected more from a capable debater.

The disappointment would be due to your continual insistence that we cannot discuss geology. If we are able to freely debate without your limitations, this would be a much more interesting debate. And since you have training in geology, I had expected you to welcome discussing geology. So, the disappointment would be mine.

Why don't we let the general public decide this? Should I be allowed to use geology to defend my position? Is it reasonable to exclude the geological evidence in discussing a global flood?

I have agreed to discuss the entire topic including geology with the CONDITION that each claim be verified or withdrawn. There is quite a backlog of unverified claims that require either support or withdrawal.

If you continue to refuse to be bound by the need to verify claims, this is not a debate – it is a farce. Refusal to support claims is unacceptable in reasoned debate, regardless of topic.

I am NOT willing to continue debate unless you agree to support claims or withdraw them. Argumentum ad Ignorantum (“prove me wrong or my claims stand”) is NOT a part of reasoned debate. It may be acceptable in theology, but not in logic, science or common sense.

I understand your hesitation to be bound by an agreement to support claims or withdraw them – because your claims cannot be supported (see 1 through 7 above). Those are what are known by the professional term “pie in the sky” – ideas thrown out with absolutely no support. They have no place in reasoned debate.

If you will agree to support the claims you make or withdraw them, we can proceed.

Perhaps a very appropriate place to start would be with the construction of the ark. Can you support the claim that four men and their wives gathered millions of pounds of “gopher wood” and built a ship 450 feet long and 5 stories high – with one 17” window? Can you show that the task is within reason for people, with no known experience, from an era in which even the wheel was unknown, to perform the task of building a ship that exceeds the known structural limitations of wood shipbuilding?

Would you care to withdraw that claim?

Would you care to withdraw the claim that the atmosphere was a “blanket of water” while they were building the ark (or “before the flood”)?

Would you care to withdraw the claim that animals worldwide flew, walked, crawled, swam, tunneled, etc to reach the ark and be put aboard?

[otseng]

How is it that you seem to think that you have not been able to discuss geology adequately?

Since the hack and the resulting loss of posts, here are all the things you've said regarding discussing geology in this thread.

I have started a thread in General Chat entitled “Flood Model” where those arguments can be presented in as much detail as desired without affecting this thread.

Post 26

I respectfully decline to further discuss introductory level geology in this thread.

Post 28

I agree that geology is relevant to this thread -- perhaps to the 10% level.

Again, I respectfully decline to repeat discussion of elementary geology.

Post 33

One cannot intelligently discuss the field of geology without understanding and studying the field and one cannot intelligently discuss science without understanding scientific discussion.

Post 51

I respectfully decline to discuss geology and suggest that it would be far more appropriate for you to discuss the subject with someone whose understanding of the field is of the same level as your own, AND someone who is willing to accept supernatural explanations in lieu of scientific explanations – in order to “justify” scriptures.

I am satisfied with the presentation I made for Standard Geology and feel no need to discuss the matter further.

Post 66

I am willing to discuss geology with someone who understands at least the basics of the field.

Post 69

Do you agree that Walter Brown is a mechanical engineer and a professed creationist – not a geologist?

I agree. But being a mechanical engineer and a creationist would not nullify his arguments. This would be an Ad hominem fallacy. This would also extend to me not being a geologist and being a creationist. What would constitute a valid debate is counter evidence, not attacking the person.

You have not been limited by avoiding geology. A large number of other topics have been raised.

And we have talked about all those areas that you mentioned, except for the ones that would be addressed by the Flood Model.

Honorable use is NOT pulling a few favorable facts out of a study and applying them with disregard for the context within which they were presented.

Data is data. I am free to use any data from whatever context they are in.

What you are saying is that you want to use information from 49 million years ago to answer a question regarding 5 thousand years ago. That doesn’t work.

Again, 49 million years ago is not a fact, it's a theory.

In reasonable debate one cannot use information regarding conditions that prevailed hundreds of years ago to explain what happened last winter. Is that a difficult concept for creationists to understand?

If it was a fact that something happened hundreds of years ago, then of course it cannot be said it happened last winter. The issue is, what is fact and what is theory? A reasonable debate is able to use facts from various sources, even if a differing theory is embedded in the source.

I am NOT willing to continue debate unless you agree to support claims or withdraw them. Argumentum ad Ignorantum (“prove me wrong or my claims stand”) is NOT a part of reasoned debate. It may be acceptable in theology, but not in logic, science or common sense.

Again, if I provide no evidence to support my claims, then it reasonable for it to be withdrawn. But just because my arguments do not conform to your beliefs does not mean it should be withdrawn.

I have agreed to discuss the entire topic including geology with the CONDITION that each claim be verified or withdrawn.

OK, at least we're making some progress in discussing geology.

I understand your hesitation to be bound by an agreement to support claims or withdraw them – because your claims cannot be supported (see 1 through 7 above).

I have already provided evidence and arguments to defend those points.

If you will agree to support the claims you make or withdraw them, we can proceed.

There is no need to withdraw them if I have already provided evidence and reasoning to defend the claims. If I have provided no evidence, then you are free to point that out and we can review them.

Perhaps a very appropriate place to start would be with the construction of the ark. Can you support the claim that four men and their wives gathered millions of pounds of “gopher wood” and built a ship 450 feet long and 5 stories high – with one 17” window? Can you show that the task is within reason for people, with no known experience, from an era in which even the wheel was unknown, to perform the task of building a ship that exceeds the known structural limitations of wood shipbuilding?

We have already addressed all of this. The issue is not that there is no evidence to support these claims, but whether you accept the evidence that I have already provided.

Would you care to withdraw the claim that the atmosphere was a “blanket of water” while they were building the ark (or “before the flood”)?

The "blanket of water" would be the proposed explanation for the climate difference in the past. If there is a more viable explanation for the climate difference, then I am willing to withdraw the claim.

Would you care to withdraw the claim that animals worldwide flew, walked, crawled, swam, tunneled, etc to reach the ark and be put aboard?

I never claimed that the animals worldwide reached the ark.

[Zzyzx]

.
First, I will deal with the topic of “disappointment” that was raised up-thread.

The disappointment would be due to your continual insistence that we cannot discuss geology. If we are able to freely debate without your limitations, this would be a much more interesting debate.

You are dead wrong about the reason for my disappointment – another assumption you have made that is in gross error.

You are qualified to speak about the reason for your disappointment – but NOT the reason for MY disappointment. If you want to know about my thoughts on the matter, do the honorable thing and ASK. Don’t try to tell what you do not know (about my disappointment or about geology).

The actual reasons for my disappointment are as follows:

I actually expected that the owner of this site would set a sterling example of honorable, straight-forward debate – setting forth strong positions backed by solid evidence – respecting logic and reason as applied to debate – avoiding any semblance of tricky tactics or question dodging -- someone with whom I would be proud and honored to debate.

I did not expect to be debating with a person who claimed creationism was geology, who refused to substantiate claims with something more than conjecture, who refused to withdraw unsupported claims (or who did not know the difference between conjecture and evidence), who used argumentum ad ignorantum in lieu of making strong points – and who, when backed into a corner, would evoke “goddidit”.

I expected that forum rules would be followed:

5. Support your assertions/arguments with evidence. Do not make blanket statements that are not supportable by logic/evidence.

I am disappointed that points that have been challenged and not supported are not withdrawn but are repeated as though they were valid.

I am disappointed to so often encounter, “It might have been possible”, when I ask for evidence and “prove my theories wrong” (or words to that effect) when theories have been challenged.

I am disappointed that the discussion has departed from reason, knowledge, experience, intelligence, judgment, science or common sense – when “goddidit” was evoked to “explain” the inexplicable. It is NOT possible to substantiate “goddidit. It is just another unsubstantiated claim (that should be withdrawn because it cannot be shown to be true).

Claims of “divine intervention” may convince the choir, but they do not convince others – and have no place in a “scientific” or “reasoned” discussion. Since they cannot be supported they must be withdrawn.

If one simply uses slippery tactics to avoid acknowledging their errors or mistaken assumptions – and refuses to withdraw unsupported claims, then ANY harebrained scheme can be “debated” as though it was real – particularly when one can always cover their deficiencies with “goddidit”.

The past two months of this thread have produced posts that are a long way from the honorable, straight-forward debate that I expected from one who should be highly capable. I honestly expected much better.

Do you understand now the folly of assuming that you “know” my position when you do not?

The most recent post verifies everything said above.

Would you care to withdraw the claim that animals worldwide flew, walked, crawled, swam, tunneled, etc to reach the ark and be put aboard?

I never claimed that the animals worldwide reached the ark.

A claim has been made that animals (now it is not worldwide????) made their way to the ark (including animals from the Arctic and Antarctic, microscopic animals, those with limited mobility, those with extremely narrow habitat requirements, etc). That claim is directly contrary to what we know of animals in the real world. It is, in other words, incredible or irrational. NO evidence has been supplied to show that animals were somehow available to be taken aboard the ark. Was it magic?

What EVIDENCE has been presented that animals made their way to the ark? EVIDENCE – not conjecture. Exactly what is your EVIDENCE to support the statement? There is none. I request that the claim be withdrawn as unsupported.

If, as you now seem to claim, animals worldwide did not reach the ark – HOW did they survive the flood??????

The “gathering animals” claim was challenged and was not and CANNOT be supported. Instead of acknowledging that the claim cannot be supported and withdrawing it (which would heavily damage the “literal flood” argument – but would be the honorable thing to do), various “they flew and swam” proposals were made – then the ultimate religionist defense -- “goddidit” (which, itself, cannot be substantiated).

I expect that you realize that the “gathering of animals” is a weak point in literal interpretation of the flood. That alone is enough reason to question the truth of the entire tale. If a means of getting animals from all over the Earth onto the ark cannot be shown to have been available, the tale is highly doubtful. Tricky tactics might somehow duck the issue temporarily; however, it does not go away. Resorting to “goddidit” acknowledges that answers cannot be based in reason.

If you will agree to support the claims you make or withdraw them, we can proceed.

There is no need to withdraw them if I have already provided evidence and reasoning to defend the claims. If I have provided no evidence, then you are free to point that out and we can review them.

The “evidence” provided has been of the caliber of citing studies that relate to millions of years ago to “explain” conditions of thousands of years ago. If studies cited have fundamental flaws in your estimation, you cannot ethically cite parts of them as evidence (see below).

What you are saying is that you want to use information from 49 million years ago to answer a question regarding 5 thousand years ago. That doesn’t work.

Again, 49 million years ago is not a fact, it's a theory.

If the study you cite is in error in any significant aspect, you are honor bound to NOT use the flawed study as “evidence”. It is invalid to pick and choose parts and deem the remainder invalid. A study that is known to you as being significantly flawed (or based on flawed assumptions or theories) cannot ethically be used to support your claims.

I should not need to point out such fundamental elements of science or debate to someone who claims to be familiar with both.

Your estimations of conditions of 5000 years ago are not FACTS they are THEORIES. They are conjecture that is not supported by evidence that pertains to 5000 years ago. You are ethically obligated to provide evidence that pertains EXACTLY to 5000 years ago (or immediately “before the flood”) – or withdraw your claim.

You know and I know that you cannot provide any legitimate evidence that climate was significantly more moderate 5000 years ago. This dance is simply an attempt to avoid admitting that evidence is lacking to support the claim and attempting to avoid the ethical responsibility to withdraw the claim.

The same is true for each of the following

1. Climatology (“climate was much milder 5000 years ago”)

2. Meteorology (atmosphere a “water blanket” and “no rain” before the flood)

3. Ichthyology (fish survive radical habitat change “because they live in water”) EVIDENCE has NOT been provided to show that fish were significantly different 5000 years ago (it has only been SUGGESTED), that they survived the proposed flood, that they evolved rapidly after the flood and that they stopped evolving rapidly. Evidence is required to support the contention – “they might have . . . . . . .” is NOT good enough. That is conjecture. Try evidence of reality. Show that it actually happened.

4. Biology (diversity of animals that would be required to be aboard the ark – and impossibility of repopulating all the Earth’s animals from ONE breeding pair of each – and three breeding pairs of humans). Cite EVIDENCE to support the contention that one pair of animals is sufficient to repopulate the Earth. Cite EVIDENCE to show that rapid evolution of animals occurred after the flood and stopped before present (or show that rapid evolution continues)

5. Genetics (“rapid evolution” supposedly occurred after the supposed flood, but stopped being rapid presently). Present EVIDENCE not conjecture. SHOW how species evolved to their present diversity from whatever animals you propose were aboard the ark.

6. Marine engineering (building a ship that exceeds structural limitation of wood – impossibly large undertaking for four men and wives). Show EVIDENCE that Noah and family actually built or could build such an immense craft (with primitive tools and not even the wheel). Citing stories of large craft whose existence and size is far from certain is NOT evidence.

7. Animal behavior (animals walking, crawling, swimming, flying to be aboard the ark – and making their way home after a year.) Account, with EVIDENCE, for the accumulation of animals to load aboard the ark. Every animal on the Earth must be accounted for – or they would be extinct.

8. Human limitations (ability of four men and their wives to care for thousands or millions of animals aboard a ship for a year – while sailing an impossibly large ship and bailing as required – with no known experience). Demonstrate, with reason, how eight people could sail an impossibly large craft, bail as necessary, feed and care for thousands or millions of animals, clean up after all animals – for a year.

Perhaps a very appropriate place to start would be with the construction of the ark. Can you support the claim that four men and their wives gathered millions of pounds of “gopher wood” and built a ship 450 feet long and 5 stories high – with one 17” window? Can you show that the task is within reason for people, with no known experience, from an era in which even the wheel was unknown, to perform the task of building a ship that exceeds the known structural limitations of wood shipbuilding?

We have already addressed all of this. The issue is not that there is no evidence to support these claims, but whether you accept the evidence that I have already provided.

Correction: The “evidence” presented has been conjecture or reference to legends or unsupported theories. SHOW how it is reasonable and rational to expect Noah and family to construct a ship larger than any KNOWN to have existed – including gathering millions of pounds of wood, moving it to the site without use of wheels, working it with tools of the era (Bronze Age), building without known experience.

You have NOT shown that the task is reasonable and rational. Would you care to try or to withdraw the claim?

Would you care to withdraw the claim that the atmosphere was a “blanket of water” while they were building the ark (or “before the flood”)?

The "blanket of water" would be the proposed explanation for the climate difference in the past. If there is a more viable explanation for the climate difference, then I am willing to withdraw the claim.

Kindly note that a “proposed explanation” is NOT evidence, it is conjecture. Kindly show EVIDENCE that the atmosphere was a “blanket of water” or withdraw the claim. “It might have been” is NOT evidence. It is conjecture. (Note: conjecture is defined as, “inference from defective or presumptive evidence b : a conclusion deduced by surmise or guesswork”).

Logic does NOT require that a “more viable explanation” be provided than an unsupported claim. An unsupported claim need not be supplanted or proven wrong. An unsupported claim is withdrawn in honorable debate.

Do you agree that Walter Brown is a mechanical engineer and a professed creationist – not a geologist?

I agree. But being a mechanical engineer and a creationist would not nullify his arguments. This would be an Ad hominem fallacy. This would also extend to me not being a geologist and being a creationist. What would constitute a valid debate is counter evidence, not attacking the person.

Attacking the credibility of the person used as a source of expert information IS VALID. Citing unverified, unqualified sources or authors is an indication of very weak argument. The credibility and quality of sources IS significant. Do you agree?

Do you agree that logic and reason require that citations used for “evidence” come from people qualified to speak as experts in the field in question? Do you agree that study and credentials in one field do NOT qualify as an expert in other fields?

Since Walter Brown is NOT an expert in geology, citing him as a source of information pertaining to geology is no more valid than citing the pope concerning geology.

Can you support your arguments without using as “evidence” an unsubstantiated “flood model” produced by a person with no demonstrated expertise, credentials or credibility in the field of geology? Can you support your views using actual studies performed by people with training and experience in the field they are studying – something more than conjecture?

[otseng]

I actually expected that the owner of this site would set a sterling example of honorable, straight-forward debate – setting forth strong positions backed by solid evidence – respecting logic and reason as applied to debate – avoiding any semblance of tricky tactics or question dodging -- someone with whom I would be proud and honored to debate.

A straight forward debate is one in which any evidence can be used. Not in having an arbitrary restriction in which the main empirical evidence cannot be used simply because I have no formal training in a particular field.

As for question dodging, you have yet to address my question regarding the universal flood stories.

"Again, what other possibilities are there in explaining the prevalence of the flood stories among so many cultures and with similarities? Or do you agree that the 3 that I proposed are the only possibilities?"

I am disappointed that the discussion has departed from reason, knowledge, experience, intelligence, judgment, science or common sense – when “goddidit” was evoked to “explain” the inexplicable. It is NOT possible to substantiate “goddidit. It is just another unsubstantiated claim (that should be withdrawn because it cannot be shown to be true).

This has been the only instance I've used "goddidit" to explain anything. What other instances have I invoked the god card?

But, for sake of argument, I'll drop any assertion that animals made their way to an ark. How would this falsify a global flood?

If a means of getting animals from all over the Earth onto the ark cannot be shown to have been available, the tale is highly doubtful.

Again, only you are stating that animals all over the Earth went to the ark. So, your interpretation could be highly doubtful, but that doesn't necessarily mean that my interpretation is.

Your estimations of conditions of 5000 years ago are not FACTS they are THEORIES.

Of course my claim is not considered a fact. Further, I don't even claim it to be a theory, but a model.

Since Walter Brown is NOT an expert in geology, citing him as a source of information pertaining to geology is no more valid than citing the pope concerning geology.

Let's suppose that Walter Brown did not originate the hydroplate theory. And let's suppose that Mr Q originated it. We have no knowledge of Q's credentials. How would you falsify the hydroplate theory?

[Zzyzx]

Since Walter Brown is NOT an expert in geology, citing him as a source of information pertaining to geology is no more valid than citing the pope concerning geology.

Let's suppose that Walter Brown did not originate the hydroplate theory. And let's suppose that Mr Q originated it. We have no knowledge of Q's credentials.

It is NOT that Walter Brown and Osteng are creationists that casts doubt upon their geological theories – BUT that they are attempting to “explain” geology with no evidence of understanding that field of study.

Knowledge of theology, mechanical engineering and computer programming does NOT translate to understanding of ANY natural science -- Earth science, geology, archeology, meteorology, climatology, hydrology, sedimentation, geomorphology, etc. A neurosurgeon is NOT credible as an aeronautical engineer, for example, any more than a theologian, engineer or programmer is credible as a geologist.

I do not attempt to “prove wrong” mathematicians, computer programmers, engineers or neurosurgeons – BECAUSE I realize that I do not possess sufficient knowledge and experience those fields of expertise. I am realistic enough to accept that there are limits on my knowledge – and that I cannot claim expertise in fields that I have not studied. Osmosis is not known to impart knowledge.

Likewise, I do not accept amateur “geologists” who possess very limited knowledge of the natural sciences attempting to dispute professional who actually study the fields in question.

Evidently religionists believe that theistic beliefs are sufficient basis for disputing professional scientists who actually study and work in the subject areas. What makes this so?

Do you accept every “model” and “theory” proposed by anyone as though it was true – without evidence being presented? If not, why would you accept Brown’s “model” or “theory” since it is not based upon evidence but upon unsupported conjecture?

How would you falsify the hydroplate theory?

Is it some sort of religionist obsession that their claims are valid unless “falsified”? That incorrect notion appears consistently in religionist “arguments”. Is that because the claims presented cannot be verified? Or is it because in religion claims are accepted without verification?

I have no desire or intention to “falsify” the “flood model”. In honorable debate and in logic those who make the claims are expected to substantiate their claims with credible evidence or withdraw the claim. In this debate that does not happen.

I simply ask that ANY statements used as “evidence” be credible and verifiable. I ask that evidence be supplied to substantiate claims. If the same ideas were proposed by a different person I would still ask what evidence the ideas were based upon and I would ask about the abilities and veracity of the person making the claim.

If an alternative “model” or “theory” was proposed by an unidentified person would you accept it without question? Does one simply accept any unverified “model” or “theory” proposed by any person whose knowledge and experience cannot be verified to apply to the topic – as long as the ideas conform to religious dogma?

I actually expected that the owner of this site would set a sterling example of honorable, straight-forward debate – setting forth strong positions backed by solid evidence – respecting logic and reason as applied to debate – avoiding any semblance of tricky tactics or question dodging -- someone with whom I would be proud and honored to debate.

A straight forward debate is one in which any evidence can be used. Not in having an arbitrary restriction in which the main empirical evidence cannot be used simply because I have no formal training in a particular field.

Correction: a straight forward debate would be one in which the person making claims would back up the claims with solid evidence (as suggested by forum rules) – NOT conjecture, legends, myths, and reference to persons who have little or no demonstrated knowledge or credibility.

A straight-forward debate is one in which any claim that cannot be substantiated with credible support is withdrawn immediately.

I disagree that ANY evidence can or should be used in debate. Quoting a person who knows nothing about the subject, for instance, makes a farce of a “debate”. Citing “evidence” that is known to be invalid or from studies that are flawed is not acceptable in honorable debate.

The tactic of dodging questions is not symptomatic of straight-forward or honorable debate.

As for question dodging, you have yet to address my question regarding the universal flood stories.

After ducking many questions you can only reply with “you haven’t addressed this ONE issue that I raised”????

AND, I certainly did address the question. I replied that presence of legends of floods are NOT evidence that a worldwide flood occurred. I also pointed out that an argument based on such tenuous “evidence” is certainly a weak argument.

"Again, what other possibilities are there in explaining the prevalence of the flood stories among so many cultures and with similarities? Or do you agree that the 3 that I proposed are the only possibilities?"

My position is that legends do not require “explanation”. I have no opinions concerning the origin of legends, nor do I claim to be an expert on legends. I do not agree with your proposition nor do I seek alternative explanations.

If you insist that the presence of legends in various cultures constitutes “evidence” to verify the flood, I will accede that it appears to be the strongest “evidence” that has yet been presented in favor of the literal flood – and that it is extremely weak.

I am disappointed that the discussion has departed from reason, knowledge, experience, intelligence, judgment, science or common sense – when “goddidit” was evoked to “explain” the inexplicable. It is NOT possible to substantiate “goddidit. It is just another unsubstantiated claim (that should be withdrawn because it cannot be shown to be true).

This has been the only instance I've used "goddidit" to explain anything. What other instances have I invoked the god card?

But, for sake of argument, I'll drop any assertion that animals made their way to an ark. How would this falsify a global flood?

I accept your dropping the assertion that animals made their way to the ark.

Unless animals from all over the Earth were aboard the ark, they were killed (as “god” intended according to the scriptures you quoted).

Without magic, please explain how animals worldwide could have been aboard the ark – or how they survived “god’s wrath” without being aboard.

If a means of getting animals from all over the Earth onto the ark cannot be shown to have been available, the tale is highly doubtful.

Again, only you are stating that animals all over the Earth went to the ark. So, your interpretation could be highly doubtful, but that doesn't necessarily mean that my interpretation is.

Correction: I am stating that according to the scriptures you quoted, all living things not aboard the ark were supposedly killed.

I am aware that animals exist worldwide in diverse habitats very different from the Middle East (or wherever the ark was supposedly constructed – where was that, by the way?) and thousands of miles away. Unless there is some magic involved to place them aboard the ark, all animals except the one pair aboard were supposedly killed.

I am ASKING how the animals survived. Please explain, without using magic, how all animals known to exist today survived the flood. Were they all aboard the ark? If so how did they get aboard (particularly those whose native habitat is far away and isolated)?

Your estimations of conditions of 5000 years ago are not FACTS they are THEORIES.

Of course my claim is not considered a fact. Further, I don't even claim it to be a theory, but a model.

Please distinguish between a model and a theory as you use the terms.

Your CLAIMS that climate and terrain were significantly different 5000 years ago are what I question – regardless what you call them. They are presented as though true.

Please provide verification that climate and terrain of the Earth were substantially different 5000 years ago (not millions of years ago) OR withdraw the claim.

Let’s go through each of the claims you have made so you can provide credible verification OR withdraw the claim.

[otseng]

I do not attempt to “prove wrong” mathematicians, computer programmers, engineers or neurosurgeons – BECAUSE I realize that I do not possess sufficient knowledge and experience those fields of expertise. I am realistic enough to accept that there are limits on my knowledge – and that I cannot claim expertise in fields that I have not studied.

What formal training do you have in theology?

Likewise, I do not accept amateur “geologists” who possess very limited knowledge of the natural sciences attempting to dispute professional who actually study the fields in question.

I do not claim to be an amateur geologist. And on this forum any idea can be attached. I would challenge you to find any topic that is remotely related to religion that has been barred from attack. Is geology such a sacred cow that it cannot even be questioned by a mere mortal like myself?

Do you accept every “model” and “theory” proposed by anyone as though it was true – without evidence being presented? If not, why would you accept Brown’s “model” or “theory” since it is not based upon evidence but upon unsupported conjecture?

I accepted Brown's theory because of the evidence. His theory makes so much sense to me and the geological evidence so convincing that I decided to buy his book and do more research on my own. So, if you really are interested in the evidence that he proposes, I'd challenge you to buy the book and to examine the evidence for yourself.

Is it some sort of religionist obsession that their claims are valid unless “falsified”? That incorrect notion appears consistently in religionist “arguments”. Is that because the claims presented cannot be verified? Or is it because in religion claims are accepted without verification?

I have no desire or intention to “falsify” the “flood model”. In honorable debate and in logic those who make the claims are expected to substantiate their claims with credible evidence or withdraw the claim. In this debate that does not happen.

What kind of debate is it when side is not willing to falsify the primary claim of the other?

But anyways, here is what I am driving at. If I were to falsify the hydroplate theory, I would present the geological evidence and show where the hydroplate theory fails to account for it. And show where the SGM is a better explanation of the geological data. I would not go about it by questioning the credentials, motives, if he is "honorable", what his personal beliefs are, what training he does not have, etc.

Correction: a straight forward debate would be one in which the person making claims would back up the claims with solid evidence (as suggested by forum rules) – NOT conjecture, legends, myths, and reference to persons who have little or no demonstrated knowledge or credibility.

You have yet to demonstrate that the evidence that I have provided are not factual.

After ducking many questions you can only reply with “you haven’t addressed this ONE issue that I raised”????

Ducking many of your questions? Again, it's only because you bar discussing geology here. When we can get back to discussing geology, I will then be able to answer the questions.

AND, I certainly did address the question. I replied that presence of legends of floods are NOT evidence that a worldwide flood occurred.

But you did not answer the question. The question is "what is the explanation for the existence of these stories?"

My position is that legends do not require “explanation”. I have no opinions concerning the origin of legends, nor do I claim to be an expert on legends. I do not agree with your proposition nor do I seek alternative explanations.

Well, until you answer this simple question, it would be hypocritical to charge me with question dodging.

I accept your dropping the assertion that animals made their way to the ark.

Unless animals from all over the Earth were aboard the ark, they were killed (as “god” intended according to the scriptures you quoted).

Actually, I'm also even willing to drop any assertions on the ark. But I will make the assertion "The entire world was covered with water. It was not a localized flood."

Please distinguish between a model and a theory as you use the terms.

I use the term theory in a strict sense.

A theory has gained widespread acceptance by professionals as an explanation to observed phenomenon.

A theory is a step above a hypothesis. A theory is more than simply proposing an idea, but has a large set of empirical evidence to support it and passed falsifications of the idea.

But it is a step below a law. A theory is not an inconvertible fact. It is still possible that a theory is false.

"In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations which is predictive, logical and testable."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

So, since I use theory in the strict sense, I do not wish to debate if the hydroplate theory can be considered a theory in the strict sense. And since Walter Brown presents it as a theory, I decided to call my own version a Flood Model.

I use the term model in the loose sense. A model is a framework to describe/explain something.

"An abstract model (or conceptual model) is a theoretical construct that represents something, with a set of variables and a set of logical and quantitative relationships between them."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29

I'm not asserting the there is any professional acceptance of the FM. Or that it has undergone any attempts at falsification. Or that it has been presented in any peer reviewed journals.

But, what I am asserting is that the empirical evidence fits with the Flood Model. And even more, that the evidence fits better than with other theories/models.

Please provide verification that climate and terrain of the Earth were substantially different 5000 years ago (not millions of years ago) OR withdraw the claim.

Give me the green light for us to discuss geology, then I can start addressing this.