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]

.

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?

I have absolutely no training in theology. Therefore I do not claim to be knowledgeable in the field.

That is why I make NO claims based on theology. NONE. I make no attempt to “interpret” what is said by biblical writers. If the tale says it rained for forty days and forty nights I accept that it is saying 960 hours. If it says that the Earth was flooded to the tops of mountains, I accept that it is saying “to the tops of mountains” verbatim. If the bible says that the Earth stood still, I accept that it is saying that the Earth stopped rotating.

Because I accept that the claims are being made does NOT mean that I accept that the claimed events actually occurred. I EXPECT that those who attempt to defend bible stories as being literal are stating that they accept it as written in the bible verses they quote – and expect them to be able to answer questions with reason and evidence to show that the stories are true (or to acknowledge that they cannot support the stories as being literal).

Likewise, I have no training in computer programming – so I do not attempt to undertake advanced analysis of the work of computer programming professions – who I acknowledge have far more knowledge of the subject than I have.

I have no training in mechanical engineering, so I do not undertake advanced analysis of the work of mechanical engineers.

That makes a certain amount of sense, doesn’t it?

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.

You have claimed to have knowledge of geology. That knowledge is not professional level knowledge. A non-professional who professes to have knowledge is known as an amateur.

The term “amateur” is defined as: “one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession; or one lacking in experience and competence”.

Does that definition fit your situation? If not, please explain what level of understanding of geology you possess or claim.

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?

You are perfectly free to attack geology all you wish. I have no objection.

When you attempt to attack or discredit geology based on conjecture or opinion or upon theological grounds, I may choose to point out the error or ask for substantiation. When substantiation is not provided, I may ask that the claim or criticism be withdrawn (as it would be in honorable debate).

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.

Are you saying that there is EVIDENCE that vast caverns existed ten miles below the surface of the Earth, EVIDENCE that water gushed out of the caverns and made oceans, Evidence that the mountains “were lower” 5000 years ago. Evidence that those things actually existed or occurred?

Are you saying that there is more than conjecture? More than, “it might have been” or “I think it was” or “creationists say it was”?

If there is evidence that these things are factual, you failed to bring forth that evidence in a thread that has well over 100 posts. What were you waiting for?

I have repeatedly ASKED for evidence to support your (or Brown’s) contentions. All that has come back is more conjecture.

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.

What “makes sense” to a person who does not understand the field of study is NO indication of truth. Quite often what appears to “make sense” on superficial level is found to be defective upon investigation. What is lacking in your “makes sense” position is the investigation and the evidence to support conjecture.

If there was evidence to support the contentions, perhaps it would have been prudent for you to have cited actual real world evidence to support the ideas you were setting forth.

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.

I am not debating Walter Brown. I am debating someone who claims to understand and favor his “Flood Model”. If there is evidence to support the claims you have made that has been left out of discussion.

Notice that I am not requesting that you buy and study advanced geology texts. I present what I have to say without requiring you to buy the books and study.

I am not willing to support a creationist organization by sending funds. Walter Brown’s book is not available in my library – in either fiction or non-fiction sections.

Here is a sample of what others think of Brown’s work:

Walt Brown (creationist)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)

Walter T. Brown is an American young earth creationist, who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation. Brown has a PhD in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also served in the US military, from which he retired in 1980.

Brown wrote In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, in it he claims to provide evidence against evolution and for creation science and flood geology (including hydroplates).

Controversy and criticism

Comets

One key element of Brown's hydroplates proposal is that when water shot out from under the Earth it blew rock from underground into the solar system and made the comets. This idea is not supported by any evidence from astronomy or planetary science.

Brown misinterprets outdated scientific literature as a basis for his skepticism of mainstream theories for the origin of comets. Footnote 26 is from Fred L. Whipple's, The Mystery of Comets was written in 1985 prior to the Hubble space telescope being launched and Kuiper belt objects being found en masse since 1992. Moreover the footnote goes on to say:

"What is the chance that Jupiter could catch them [comets falling from outside the solar system] by its gravity and tame them into short-period, prograde orbits? He [H. A. Newton] found that the chance is very small. Only about one in a million would have its period reduced to less than Jupiter’s period of 11.86 years." Ibid., p. 75 [1]

Whipple here is speaking to the likelihood of comets from outside the solar system being turned into short-period comets. However, for decades scientists have proposed short period comets come from the Kuiper belt which is within the solar system, and that long-period comets come from the Oort cloud which is outside.[citation needed] The erratic orbital trajectories of long-period comets suggests there is indeed a cloud of debris surrounding our solar system which is beyond our current ability to detect. Throughout the 1990's and to this day numerous objects have been found validating the existence of the Kuiper belt along the orbital plane; which answers Brown's question of why short term comets are along the orbital plane. Brown goes on to predict:

PREDICTION 28: The Oort cloud will never be seen, because it does not exist. [2]

It should be noted Brown commented on the Kuiper belt not being observed in 1995 (even though it had been) and has maintained the belt and the Oort cloud are "ad hoc" explanations for comets. This ignores historical indirect evidence and present day observational evidence. In 2003 a relatively large trans-Neptunian object called Sedna was detected and may be part of the inner Oort cloud, although the debate continues, it stands to reason there are many more smaller objects to be detected beyond Pluto.[citation needed]

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?

I credit you with realizing that in debate there is NO requirement that one side “falsify” the other’s claim.

In logic and reason, the person making the claim is expected to verify the claim – OR withdraw the claim.

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

If you wish to “falsify” the Flood Model I have no objection. If you wish to “falsify” Standard Geology, have at it. I have seen opinions that seem to imply that you regard geology as wrong – but those are only opinions – certainly not “falsification”. “I think the FM fits better” said by a person who has limited knowledge in the field means absolutely nothing.

You have your work cut out for you if you wish to prove wrong all of geology. Suggestions are not enough. Evidence is required.

It might be more productive to attempt to support the ideas and claims that you have put forth – citing credible evidence.

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.

Are you saying that if someone quoted the Pope or Walt Disney concerning a scientific subject that you would NOT question the credibility of the source?

Really?

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.

I have demonstrated that you attempted to use 75 Million year old climatic information to make claims about climate 5 Thousand years ago. The last I heard you had not acknowledged that as an error and had not withdrawn the claim.

I have demonstrated that your “evidence” to support the incredible size proposed for the ark is ONLY reference to two tales of supposed ancient boats, the existence and size of which is disputed. I pointed out that the presence of legendary craft is not evidence to support the existence of real craft. You have provided no other evidence to support the claim (but have not withdrawn the claim).

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.

Discussion of geology is NOT required to discuss climate, or the size of the ark, or the gathering of animals, or the stop-and-go evolution proposed post flood, or the survival of fish “because they live in water”. What is your excuse for ducking those questions?

How is geology directly involved in any of the above? Why can’t you substantiate what you say about climate, the ark, the animals, stop-and-go evolution, and the fish?

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 answer is VERY clear – I have no explanation for the presence or absence of legends and see no reason to manufacture any other answer.

Is there something about that position that is not understandable?

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.

What part of the bolded statement above do you not understand?

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."

I accept that you drop assertions concerning the ark.

However, the ark seems central to defense of the flood as being literal. If the ark and its cargo cannot be shown to be literally true, what is left of the story?

Kindly account for survival of all presently existing animals (including fish, and microscopic and sedentary animals) and all existing plants. The scripture you quoted as applicable indicates that “god” said that he would kill every living thing he had created (evidently excluding ONLY those on the ark).

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.

Do you understand that the REASON for professional evaluation and peer review is to LEARN if empirical evidence fits the Flood Model? Since that has not been done, it is just another unsupported guess backed by opinion, and without support.

Who has made the determination that the Flood Model fits empirical evidence?

That would imply that the “model” has been tested by knowledgeable people and has been found to fit evidence.

“It seems to me” statements by a person who has not studied the field are NOT acceptable as indication that the FM fits evidence.

There is adequate reason for professional studies to undergo peer review. That announces the evidence, methodology and conclusions so that others can evaluate what has been presented.

That is why an article presented in The New England Journal of Medicine has greater credibility than one appearing in The USA Today.

Walter Brown’s book was self-published (by his Center for Scientific Creation) and does not claim endorsement by any legitimate scientific organization.

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.

You don’t need geology to verify claims you have made regarding climate. That is the field of climatology and meteorology.

As a show of good faith, substantiate that claim legitimately (not citing 75 Million year old conditions) or withdraw the claim -- and I will agree to discuss geology WITH the stipulation that claims are to be verified with credible evidence or withdrawn.

Fair enough?

[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?

I have absolutely no training in theology. Therefore I do not claim to be knowledgeable in the field.

Then according to your own standards, you cannot attempt to prove wrong theology. So, you are not in a position to discredit any of the Bible, including Gen chapters 6 - 9. It doesn't matter what evidence you present, since you have absolutely no training in theology, then you no say on the truthfulness of the Bible. Further, you'll need to withdraw all claims that the Bible is in error.

Now, I don't hold to such a standard (and neither does the rules of this forum). I do not require anybody to have any training to debate any topic.

So, if you want to play by your standards, by all means. But, you'll need to be consistent about it and also apply it to yourself. Since you have admitted that you have no training in theology, questioning theology would be out of bounds for you.

I do not claim to be an amateur geologist.

You have claimed to have knowledge of geology. That knowledge is not professional level knowledge. A non-professional who professes to have knowledge is known as an amateur.

An "amateur geologist" would overstate my position. Perhaps just "amateur" would suffice.

You are perfectly free to attack geology all you wish. I have no objection.

And the light has turned to green.

When you attempt to attack or discredit geology based on conjecture or opinion or upon theological grounds, I may choose to point out the error or ask for substantiation. When substantiation is not provided, I may ask that the claim or criticism be withdrawn (as it would be in honorable debate).

Certainly. Though I think this will require some more discussions.

Are you saying that there is EVIDENCE that vast caverns existed ten miles below the surface of the Earth, EVIDENCE that water gushed out of the caverns and made oceans, Evidence that the mountains “were lower” 5000 years ago. Evidence that those things actually existed or occurred?

Well, might as well discuss it now.

What I am presenting is a model to explain a worldwide flood. The model must be logically consistent and fit with empirical evidence. The more data that fits the model, the stronger the model becomes. And if data does not fit the model, then the model becomes weaker.

This will be like determining what happened at a crime scene if there were no direct eyewitnesses. A case is not dismissed simply because there is no direct evidence to convict someone. But, there needs to be at least some indirect evidence. A smoking gun, a receipt of the gun purchase, a motive, some suspects, etc.

And what I'll be presenting will be similar. Will I have direct evidence of some things? Perhaps not. But, I'd certainly better have plenty of indirect evidence to support my case.

What will show the model to be false are things that are logically inconsistent in the model and data that goes contrary to the model. So, if an alibi requires a person to be at two different places at the same time, then the alibi is suspect. Or if someone testifies that he was not where he says he was, then the alibi is suspect.

Also, if we are going to go by the standard that only direct evidence is admissable, then we're going to be throwing a lot of things out. For example, what direct evidence is there to show that stratas are millions of years old? Or what direct evidence is there that mantle convection is able to move plates?

What “makes sense” to a person who does not understand the field of study is NO indication of truth. Quite often what appears to “make sense” on superficial level is found to be defective upon investigation. What is lacking in your “makes sense” position is the investigation and the evidence to support conjecture.

Certainly.

If there was evidence to support the contentions, perhaps it would have been prudent for you to have cited actual real world evidence to support the ideas you were setting forth.

I agree.

Here is a sample of what others think of Brown’s work:

Comets would be an example of where I depart from Brown.

I credit you with realizing that in debate there is NO requirement that one side “falsify” the other’s claim.

I use the term "falsify" loosely here, not in the strict sense. What I mean is to present counter evidence/arguments to show that a claim is wrong.

In logic and reason, the person making the claim is expected to verify the claim – OR withdraw the claim.

If no evidence (either direct or indirect) is presented, then it is fair to ask for it to be withdrawn.

I have seen opinions that seem to imply that you regard geology as wrong – but those are only opinions – certainly not “falsification”.

Again, I use the term loosely, not in the strict sense. I'm not out to discount all of conventional geology. But, my case is to show how the Flood Model is a better explanation of geological features than the standard geological explanations.

It might be more productive to attempt to support the ideas and claims that you have put forth – citing credible evidence.

I always attempt to use secular sources as evidence.

Are you saying that if someone quoted the Pope or Walt Disney concerning a scientific subject that you would NOT question the credibility of the source?

They can say anything they want on any topic. But, if it goes against logic/evidence, then I can question it.

I have demonstrated that you attempted to use 75 Million year old climatic information to make claims about climate 5 Thousand years ago. The last I heard you had not acknowledged that as an error and had not withdrawn the claim.

I used the evidence to simply say that the climate was different in the past. And I also challenged that it being 75 millions ago is a fact.

I have demonstrated that your “evidence” to support the incredible size proposed for the ark is ONLY reference to two tales of supposed ancient boats, the existence and size of which is disputed. I pointed out that the presence of legendary craft is not evidence to support the existence of real craft.

Sources that I used to support the other ships of similar size do not present them as fictional. Since you claim they are all fictional, you'll need to support your assertion.

Discussion of geology is NOT required to discuss climate, or the size of the ark, or the gathering of animals, or the stop-and-go evolution proposed post flood, or the survival of fish “because they live in water”. What is your excuse for ducking those questions?

If I've addressed them, it's not ducking the question.

My answer is VERY clear – I have no explanation for the presence or absence of legends and see no reason to manufacture any other answer.

In that case, the most logical explanation out of the 3 that I proposed is that a global flood actually occurred.

However, the ark seems central to defense of the flood as being literal. If the ark and its cargo cannot be shown to be literally true, what is left of the story?

The claim that the entire world was flooded by water. To me, this is the big issue.

Suppose there was only a local flood. Then if Noah built a boat and gathered some animals into it would really be inconsequential.

The claim that a global flood occurred should leave far more evidence if it occurred than the claim that an ark existed.

Further, the common element of the flood stories is that the entire world was flooded. I don't think we're here to argue which story makes the most sense. But let's talk about the fundamental issue, did a worldwide flood occur?

Walter Brown’s book was self-published (by his Center for Scientific Creation) and does not claim endorsement by any legitimate scientific organization.

Then it should be very easy for you to argue against it then.

[Zzyzx]

What formal training do you have in theology?

I have absolutely no training in theology. Therefore I do not claim to be knowledgeable in the field.

Then according to your own standards, you cannot attempt to prove wrong theology. So, you are not in a position to discredit any of the Bible, including Gen chapters 6 - 9. It doesn't matter what evidence you present, since you have absolutely no training in theology, then you no say on the truthfulness of the Bible. Further, you'll need to withdraw all claims that the Bible is in error.

Notice that I am NOT attempting to prove Genesis wrong. I am showing that YOU are wrong and you are proving Genesis wrong.

YOU cited the biblical verses that you intended to defend. You presented the argument. You presented the creationist “Flood Model”. You are my opponent – not Genesis – nor Walter Brown.

Notice that YOU are the one making claims. I have made very few. Instead, I allow you to be out front with your claims – and simply ask for verification – which is very weak at best.

Theology has nothing to do with my attack of your arguments. I attack the assumptions and assertions you have made that relate to fields of study with which I am familiar.

I have assisted you to demonstrate that your claims are based upon conjecture rather than substantiation and I have pointed out your primary defense of the literalness of Genesis rests in “Model” that represents itself as geology but is, in fact, pure Creationist Conjecture without verification.

So far, you have done a credible job of showing that the biblical flood cannot be shown to be literal.

You basically conceded that the flood is not literal when you withdrew “for the sake of argument” all claims regarding animals making their way to the ark.

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?

You, I and our readers realize that ALL the world’s animals being aboard the ark is central to the tale. If it is not literal the tale is not literal.

It is becoming very apparent that you cannot defend an ark full of all the world’s animals as being literally true.

Your position NOW becomes an attempt to only defend that a worldwide flood occurred. Your strongest evidence is the presence of legends in many cultures that a flood occurred.

What I am presenting is a model to explain a worldwide flood.

What you SAID you were debating was that the biblical account of the flood was literal. That includes a LOT more than just a worldwide flood.

Further, the common element of the flood stories is that the entire world was flooded. I don't think we're here to argue which story makes the most sense. But let's talk about the fundamental issue, did a worldwide flood occur?

The issue we agreed to debate is whether the biblical account of the flood is literal or not. There is a BIT more to the biblical account than whether the flood was local or worldwide. YOU have made a claim that:

1. Eight people built an ark larger than any KNOWN wooden ship ever built,

2. The eight put aboard a pair of every “kind” of animal from all over the Earth,

3. The eight sailed the incredibly (impossibly) large ship for a year while feeding all the animals,

4. Ventilation was supposedly provided for all the world’s animals by a 17 inch window in a 450 foot long, 50 foot high ship.

5. All pairs of animals survived to reproduce (without ONE death – or the animals would be extinct)

6. Animals and humans repopulated all of the Earth’s continents and islands starting in Turkey – in 5000 years.

7. Plants survived being flooded for a year – including every microscopic plant and every fragile plant that now exists.

8. Fish survived radical habitat changes “because they live in water” (supported only by citing that a few species are anadromous).

9. Mountains were lower 5000 years ago (and magically grew at an astonishing rate since – then stopped growing.

10. Continents were “shoved apart” by “gushing water” at an astonishing rate of ten miles per day.

11. The Earth’s atmosphere was a “blanket of water” before the flood (and the “wicked and evil” people must have breathed through gills – but people were probably different then, weren’t they?)

I always attempt to use secular sources as evidence.

Do you identify your primary source in this debate, Walter T. Brown, an American young earth creationist, and director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, and his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” as a secular source????

You know, I know and our readers know that Walter Brown is a very sectarian source and is your primary source beyond the bible. We should realize that his “theories” are pure conjecture without support – and are intended to “prove Genesis right”. It doesn’t get LESS secular than that.

Are you being honest and realistic in what you say or are you just saying whatever sounds good?

I have demonstrated that your “evidence” to support the incredible size proposed for the ark is ONLY reference to two tales of supposed ancient boats, the existence and size of which is disputed. I pointed out that the presence of legendary craft is not evidence to support the existence of real craft.

Sources that I used to support the other ships of similar size do not present them as fictional. Since you claim they are all fictional, you'll need to support your assertion.

Read more carefully. What I actually said is that your reference was “two tales of supposed ancient boats, the existence and size of which is disputed”. Do you see “fictional” in that statement?

Do you see “existence and size disputed” in that statement? Do you wish to claim that the size and existence are NOT disputed?

You have cited as evidence ONLY two reports of ships that were supposedly as large as the supposed ark – and the size and even the existence of the ships is debated. I supplied information regarding the uncertainty in earlier posts.

Since there is NO certainty regarding the size of the ships you cited, I request that you verify the size or withdraw the claim.


AGAIN, your strongest evidence for the occurrence of a worldwide flood is LEGENDS. Your strongest support for the incredible claimed size of the ark is LEGENDS. You are attempting to support the LEGEND of the flood based upon your “best evidence” – other legends -- and Walter Brown’s unsupported and unaccepted (except by creationists with similar agenda) theories.

Let’s proceed and see what interesting theories can be raised in defense of the “literal” flood.

[otseng]

What formal training do you have in theology?

I have absolutely no training in theology. Therefore I do not claim to be knowledgeable in the field.

Then according to your own standards, you cannot attempt to prove wrong theology. So, you are not in a position to discredit any of the Bible, including Gen chapters 6 - 9. It doesn't matter what evidence you present, since you have absolutely no training in theology, then you can have no say on the truthfulness of the Bible. Further, you'll need to withdraw all claims that the Bible is in error.

Notice that I am NOT attempting to prove Genesis wrong. I am showing that YOU are wrong and you are proving Genesis wrong.

What we are debating is "Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?"

I am taking the position that it is literal. The claim that you are making is that it is not to be taken literally. So, the debate is on the flood described in the bible.

Of course we are debating against each other. But the basis of our debate is on chapters 6 - 9 of the Bible.

My point in all this is addressing the issue that you have raised several times that I have no training in geology. And this disqualifies me from arguing against it. And if this is the standard that you require, then you likewise would be disqualified from arguing against anything in the Bible.

Theology has nothing to do with my attack of your arguments. I attack the assumptions and assertions you have made that relate to fields of study with which I am familiar.

If I had been barred from discussing geology in the past dozens of threads, then how were you able to "attack the assumptions and assertions you have made that relate to fields of study with which I am familiar."? Which fields of study with which you are familiar are you referring to?

So far, you have done a credible job of showing that the biblical flood cannot be shown to be literal.

It's not my burden to show that it cannot be literal, but to show that it can be literal. And I've already presented many (non-geological) evidence to show that it can be literal.

Let me ask this, exactly what evidence have you presented to show that it cannot be literal?

You basically conceded that the flood is not literal when you withdrew “for the sake of argument” all claims regarding animals making their way to the ark.

If I make no claim on how the animals arrived at the ark, it does not show that the flood cannot be literal.

You, I and our readers realize that ALL the world’s animals being aboard the ark is central to the tale. If it is not literal the tale is not literal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ALL". But though the ark is an important part of the story, the ark is secondary to a worldwide flood.

It is becoming very apparent that you cannot defend an ark full of all the world’s animals as being literally true.

I've never made the claim that "all of the world's animals" went into the ark. If that is what you believe, then I agree that it could not have been possible.

Your position NOW becomes an attempt to only defend that a worldwide flood occurred. Your strongest evidence is the presence of legends in many cultures that a flood occurred.

If we reach that a worldwide flood is plausible, then we'll need to then look at how life could've survived a global flood. But to argue first how life could've survived a worldwide flood before even establishing that a worldwide flood could've even occurred would be premature.

Also, if a worldwide flood did not occur, the geological evidence should be overwhelmingly against a worldwide flood. Debating about the ark would have significantly less evidence, so we'd be be both doing a lot of conjecture on it. This is not saying that I'm not willing to go into this, but if we have an area where there would be a lot of evidence for and against, we should explore those first.

The issue we agreed to debate is whether the biblical account of the flood is literal or not. There is a BIT more to the biblical account than whether the flood was local or worldwide.

If the flood was local, all the points you raised would be moot.

Do you identify your primary source in this debate, Walter T. Brown, an American young earth creationist, and director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, and his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” as a secular source????

Of course I would not consider him a secular source. Also, I would not consider it my primary source, but my original source. To support the Flood Model, the geological evidence I'll be presenting (and that I did present in the deleted posts) will primarily be from secular sources.

You have cited as evidence ONLY two reports of ships that were supposedly as large as the supposed ark – and the size and even the existence of the ships is debated. I supplied information regarding the uncertainty in earlier posts.

We are then getting somewhere since you have changed your position from the ships being "myths" to being "uncertain".

Please refresh me in your evidence where the existence and size of the ships are uncertain.

You are attempting to support the LEGEND of the flood based upon your “best evidence” – other legends

Well, since you cannot propose any other explanation for the "legends", then my assertion would remain unchallenged.

[Zzyzx]

.

What formal training do you have in theology?

I have absolutely no training in theology. Therefore I do not claim to be knowledgeable in the field.

Then according to your own standards, you cannot attempt to prove wrong theology. So, you are not in a position to discredit any of the Bible, including Gen chapters 6 - 9. It doesn't matter what evidence you present, since you have absolutely no training in theology, then you can have no say on the truthfulness of the Bible. Further, you'll need to withdraw all claims that the Bible is in error.

Osteng, what formal training do you have in theology?

Notice that I am NOT attempting to prove Genesis wrong. I am showing that YOU are wrong and you are proving Genesis wrong.

What we are debating is "Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?"

I am taking the position that it is literal. The claim that you are making is that it is not to be taken literally. So, the debate is on the flood described in the bible.

Of course we are debating against each other. But the basis of our debate is on chapters 6 - 9 of the Bible.

My point in all this is addressing the issue that you have raised several times that I have no training in geology. And this disqualifies me from arguing against it. And if this is the standard that you require, then you likewise would be disqualified from arguing against anything in the Bible.

Your lack of training in geology disqualifies you from testifying as an expert in the field. Your opinion, “the FM fits better than SG” is simply a personal opinion of a person who knows little about the field – and has no merit in a debate.

Since your opinions have no credibility, you are obligated to use sources that are experts in the field. If we are talking about geology, Walter Brown is NOT an expert. His studies are in mechanical engineering and his agenda is promotion of creationism.

If one wishes to demonstrate that “FM fits better than SG” in reasoned debate, they cite experts and studies the field in question (not creationists or anyone else who has no legitimate claim to knowledge of the subject). Simply repeating a personal opinion that is unsupported by study is unacceptable.

Likewise, when one asserts “the fish were different then” one is ethically obligated to demonstrate that is more than a personal opinion – studies that show that fish were actually different at the time in question – AND studies that show how fish have evolved since that time.

If one asserts in debate that the Earth’s climate was more moderate 5000 years ago, they are ethically obligated to demonstrate that the climate was more moderate 5000 years ago (not 74 Million or 49 Million years ago) – OR acknowledge that their statements are personal opinion.

If one asserts that the Earth’s atmosphere was a “water blanket” before the food, they incur the burden of citing experts or studies in climatology (not experts in theology – or mechanical engineering) that verify the claims – NOT statements of creationists who have no expertise in the fields in question.

Theology has nothing to do with my attack of your arguments. I attack the assumptions and assertions you have made that relate to fields of study with which I am familiar.

If I had been barred from discussing geology in the past dozens of threads, then how were you able to "attack the assumptions and assertions you have made that relate to fields of study with which I am familiar."? Which fields of study with which you are familiar are you referring to?

Climatology, meteorology, hydrology, biology

So far, you have done a credible job of showing that the biblical flood cannot be shown to be literal.

It's not my burden to show that it cannot be literal, but to show that it can be literal. And I've already presented many (non-geological) evidence to show that it can be literal.

It is your burden to demonstrate that the flood IS literal – NOT that it “can be literal”.

Perhaps you are laboring under the misconception that “it could have happened” is indication that “it did happen”.

That is a likely mistake to be made when a conclusion is reached first and then support is sought.

Did you believe that the flood was literal before you began gathering supporting information?

Let me ask this, exactly what evidence have you presented to show that it cannot be literal?

I have presented evidence to indicate that the amount of water required (one billion cubic miles) and the rainfall rates required to meet the scriptures you quoted exceed the Earth’s entire water supply and known conditions that actually exist and occur on the Earth.

I have shown that the proposed size of the ark is one and a half times the size of the largest wooden ships known to have been constructed – and that such size is beyond what marine architects and ship builders consider to be the structural limits of wood ship construction.

Without the water and without the ark full of animals, the biblical tale you are attempting to support is non-literal.

You basically conceded that the flood is not literal when you withdrew “for the sake of argument” all claims regarding animals making their way to the ark.

If I make no claim on how the animals arrived at the ark, it does not show that the flood cannot be literal.

Do you accept the biblical claim that a pair of every “kind” of animal was aboard the ark?

Do you realize that must include microscopic and fragile animals from all over the surface of the Earth (or they would be extinct)?

You ARE attempting to defend the biblical tale as literal, aren’t you? The “animals aboard” issue IS a statement from the account you are attempting to defend, is it not?

You, I and our readers realize that ALL the world’s animals being aboard the ark is central to the tale. If it is not literal the tale is not literal.

I'm not sure what you mean by "ALL". But though the ark is an important part of the story, the ark is secondary to a worldwide flood.

Please tell the flood story without an ark.

Again, you, I and the readers realize that Noah and the ark are central to the flood story that you are attempting to show is literally true.

It may be useful to attempt to divert attention away from embarrassing issues regarding thousands or millions of animals aboard a ship, fed and cared for by eight people (who were also supposedly sailing the world’s largest wooden ship), for a YEAR. However, those issues don’t go away and they have not been credibly addressed.

I think you should explain to me and to our readers how those eight people managed to feed and care for all those animals (including the microscopic and fragile animals and those with precise habitat requirements).

It is becoming very apparent that you cannot defend an ark full of all the world’s animals as being literally true.

I've never made the claim that "all of the world's animals" went into the ark. If that is what you believe, then I agree that it could not have been possible.

I do not accept that any animals went on a cruse in any ark. The scriptures that you quote and attempt to defend as literal specify that there was an ark full of every “kind” of animal. The scriptures that you attempt to defend specify that god said he would kill all living things that he had created (other than those in Noah’s care, evidently).

If the ark full of animals preserved from being killed (as described in the scriptures you defend) is not literally true, the story is not literally true.

Your position NOW becomes an attempt to only defend that a worldwide flood occurred. Your strongest evidence is the presence of legends in many cultures that a flood occurred.

If we reach that a worldwide flood is plausible, then we'll need to then look at how life could've survived a global flood. But to argue first how life could've survived a worldwide flood before even establishing that a worldwide flood could've even occurred would be premature.

Also, if a worldwide flood did not occur, the geological evidence should be overwhelmingly against a worldwide flood.

Try to remember that geology does NOT attempt to disprove your favorite flood legend.

It is your burden to prove that your claims are valid. Conjecture is not proof. Lack of “falsification” is not proof. Legends are not proof. “It could have happened” is not proof. “I think it happened” is not proof. Non-expert testimonials and opinions are not proof.

Debating about the ark would have significantly less evidence, so we'd be be both doing a lot of conjecture on it.

Precisely. There is approximately zero evidence concerning the ark.

I have NO conjecture concerning the ark – that is yours exclusively. You claim that it was literal. You claim that it was 450 feet long. I doubt your claims and ask for evidence. None has been provided.

This is not saying that I'm not willing to go into this, but if we have an area where there would be a lot of evidence for and against, we should explore those first.

What you have presented as “evidence” is conjecture.

For instance, when I ask how fish survived a radical change in habitat you cited a few anadromous varieties and suggested that “before the flood the fish could have been more adaptable”. That is not evidence at all – it is pure conjecture.

You also claimed that after the flood fish evolved rapidly enough to produce all present varieties (then evidently stopped evolving). I asked for verification that this is more than conjecture. None has been provided. Why not?

Please cite evidence that the Earth’s climate was moderate before the flood – and explain how the Earth’s climate could have been colder than present also before the flood.

When attempting to debate such issues, it is necessary to cite experts in the applicable fields of study to verify statements. Remember that your opinion is of no significance as evidence.

The issue we agreed to debate is whether the biblical account of the flood is literal or not. There is a BIT more to the biblical account than whether the flood was local or worldwide.

If the flood was local, all the points you raised would be moot.

Agreed.

Also, if the flood was local the biblical account is non-literal.

You have NOT demonstrated that the flood was worldwide.

Do you identify your primary source in this debate, Walter T. Brown, an American young earth creationist, and director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation, and his book “In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood” as a secular source????

Of course I would not consider him a secular source. Also, I would not consider it my primary source, but my original source. To support the Flood Model, the geological evidence I'll be presenting (and that I did present in the deleted posts) will primarily be from secular sources.

Your conclusions appear to be largely drawn from the Flood Model that you are now claiming is NOT your primary source. Is that true?

The Flood Model is a creationist model constructed without evidence of expertise in geology. Do you agree?

You have cited as evidence ONLY two reports of ships that were supposedly as large as the supposed ark – and the size and even the existence of the ships is debated. I supplied information regarding the uncertainty in earlier posts.

We are then getting somewhere since you have changed your position from the ships being "myths" to being "uncertain".

Please refresh me in your evidence where the existence and size of the ships are uncertain.

From your own references:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/artic ... ntid=10387
Regarding shipbuilding technology, Wu pointed out among other things that a ship traversing the ocean sustains many forces: it is "not just like a matchbox in a swimming pool." It is still not known how it was possible for Chinese shipwrights to build a framework, without any iron, that could sustain a 400-foot long vessel. Instead of looking for the answer just in the documentary record, Wu proposes that "naval architects join in with historians to discover whether it was possible, or how the ships were built."

Emphasis added

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_ship
Scholars suggest that the actual ships may have been smaller and the actual length of the biggest treasure ships may have been between 59 m and 84 m.[11], since in later historical periods ships approaching the extreme sizes claimed for the treasure ships (such as HMS Orlando) were unwieldy and visibly undulated with the waves, even with steel braces. It is suggested that the problem of "hogging", the tendency of very large wooden ships to sag (like a pig's body) because of buoyancy in the middle, would have been impossible to solve, given the great size of the ships and the technology available at the time.

A very suspicious feature of the suggested dimensions is the low length-to-beam ratio of about 2.5 to 1. This low ratio would impair both speed and maneuverability, which are important qualities for an oceangoing ship. All of the historically-confirmed large wooden ships have ratios far in excess of 3:1. Furthermore the claimed dimensions are inconsistent with the reported displacement figures of 1500 tons, implying unrealistically thin hulls or barge-like "ships".[12]

Again, from your own reference

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres
The current theory[citation needed] is that Ptolemy's ship was an oversize catamaran galley, measuring 128 m, or 420 ft. The dual hull arrangement with a central working platform was designed for sea battles with catapults and could carry 3 to 4 thousand marines.

Emphasis added.

Do you agree that there is disagreement about the size of the ships you cite as “evidence” that the ark “could have been that large”?

Do you agree that “could have been” is pure conjecture and that it is far below a demonstration of what WAS true?

You are attempting to support the LEGEND of the flood based upon your “best evidence” – other legends

Well, since you cannot propose any other explanation for the "legends", then my assertion would remain unchallenged.

Are you attempting to say that unless I “otherwise explain” the presence of legends that your assertion that the flood was literal is unchallenged? Are you serious?

[otseng]

.

What formal training do you have in theology?

I have absolutely no training in theology. Therefore I do not claim to be knowledgeable in the field.

Then according to your own standards, you cannot attempt to prove wrong theology. So, you are not in a position to discredit any of the Bible, including Gen chapters 6 - 9. It doesn't matter what evidence you present, since you have absolutely no training in theology, then you can have no say on the truthfulness of the Bible. Further, you'll need to withdraw all claims that the Bible is in error.

Osteng, what formal training do you have in theology?

I have no formal training in theology. But, since I do not have the standard that formal education is required to debate a topic, it would be irrelevant.

What I am bringing to light is that you have the requirement that in order to debate a topic, one needs to have formal training in it. Since you, not I, have this requirement, I'm simply holding you to this standard. So, only after you have formal education in theology would you be qualified to question anything written in the Bible.

But, if you drop the requirement that formal education is required to debate a topic, then you are free to proceed to question the Bible.

Your lack of training in geology disqualifies you from testifying as an expert in the field. Your opinion, “the FM fits better than SG” is simply a personal opinion of a person who knows little about the field – and has no merit in a debate.

I do not claim do be an expert in anything. If I simply assert "the FM fits better than SG" without any reasoning/evidence, then my assertions have no basis.

Climatology, meteorology, hydrology, biology

And you have formal education in these fields?

It is your burden to demonstrate that the flood IS literal – NOT that it “can be literal”.

I disagree. It is my burden to provide enough reasoning/evidence to support a case that it can be literal. I will provide a model that has a rational explanation of how a global flood could have occurred.

Even for a theory, it is not an explanation that has a 100% certainty that it is true and is a fact of reality. But it is a rational explanation that fits with available data. So, why should I be held to a higher standard than most fields of science?

Did you believe that the flood was literal before you began gathering supporting information?

I was ambivalent before I started gathering information.

I have presented evidence to indicate that the amount of water required (one billion cubic miles) and the rainfall rates required to meet the scriptures you quoted exceed the Earth’s entire water supply and known conditions that actually exist and occur on the Earth.

I've already addressed that only you claim this. I would agree that there is not enough water to cover the mountains as they are now currently. However, the Flood Model does not state this.

I have shown that the proposed size of the ark is one and a half times the size of the largest wooden ships known to have been constructed – and that such size is beyond what marine architects and ship builders consider to be the structural limits of wood ship construction.

That's because you discount the evidence I've provided for Tessarakonteres and Zheng He's ship.

Please tell the flood story without an ark.

Again, I'm not saying that the ark is not part of the flood story. Further, it's not that I'm unwilling to debate the ark. As a matter of fact, we've already debated various aspects of it. But, would the ark be the central issue of consideration? I would say that the primary issue would be a global flood.

When I became a Christian, the flood story was one of the first things I questioned. And my first questions were: where did the water come from? where did it go? how could water have covered the entire world? If these questions can be addressed, then addressing how could animals have survived a global flood would be next. If these questions cannot be addressed, and it was only a local flood, Noah could've built whatever boat he wanted, even a rowboat with his personal pet collection aboard, and it would've made no difference. If it was a local flood, it would already have been shown to be a non-literal story.

Try to remember that geology does NOT attempt to disprove your favorite flood legend.

My point is if SG is true, then the geological evidence should overwhelmingly support SG rather than the FM. This is what I would like to investigate.

Debating about the ark would have significantly less evidence, so we'd be be both doing a lot of conjecture on it.

Precisely. There is approximately zero evidence concerning the ark.

"Significantly less evidence" is not the same as "approximately zero evidence".

You claim that it was 450 feet long. I doubt your claims and ask for evidence. None has been provided.

Again, only because you discount my evidence for ships that have existed in the past with similar sizes.

For instance, when I ask how fish survived a radical change in habitat you cited a few anadromous varieties and suggested that “before the flood the fish could have been more adaptable”. That is not evidence at all – it is pure conjecture.

I am not attempting to prove that all fish were different in the past. But I am showing that it is probable and a reasonable position. You seem to state that unless I can prove something, even though it might be probable, then it cannot be true.

Also, if the flood was local the biblical account is non-literal.

You have NOT demonstrated that the flood was worldwide.

Yes, if the flood was local, the story would not be literal.

Your conclusions appear to be largely drawn from the Flood Model that you are now claiming is NOT your primary source. Is that true?

That is true. When I provided geological evidence prior to the forum hack, the sources I used to support my asssertion was not from Brown's site.

The Flood Model is a creationist model constructed without evidence of expertise in geology. Do you agree?

I agree.

From your own references:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/artic ... ntid=10387
Regarding shipbuilding technology, Wu pointed out among other things that a ship traversing the ocean sustains many forces: it is "not just like a matchbox in a swimming pool." It is still not known how it was possible for Chinese shipwrights to build a framework, without any iron, that could sustain a 400-foot long vessel. Instead of looking for the answer just in the documentary record, Wu proposes that "naval architects join in with historians to discover whether it was possible, or how the ships were built."

Emphasis added

Just because they do not know how they could've created it does not mean they did not create it. And "naval architects join in with historians to discover whether it was possible" does not mean they have discovered that it was not possible. So, they have made no assertion that it was not possible.

Do you agree that “could have been” is pure conjecture and that it is far below a demonstration of what WAS true?

I would disagree that it is "pure conjecture". Pure conjecture implies that there is zero evidence for it.

You are attempting to support the LEGEND of the flood based upon your “best evidence” – other legends

Well, since you cannot propose any other explanation for the "legends", then my assertion would remain unchallenged.

Are you attempting to say that unless I “otherwise explain” the presence of legends that your assertion that the flood was literal is unchallenged? Are you serious?

I am referring to the 3 explanations that I proposed for the explanation of the flood stories.

1. The myths all arose independently
2. A flood myth originated in one place and was spread to all the cultures.
3. An actual global flood occurred.

I asserted that number 3 is the most logical. That assertion has been unchallenged.

[Zzyzx]

.

It is your burden to demonstrate that the flood IS literal – NOT that it “can be literal”.

I disagree. It is my burden to provide enough reasoning/evidence to support a case that it can be literal. I will provide a model that has a rational explanation of how a global flood could have occurred.

You stated (in post #3 of this thread) that you would be arguing that the biblical account in Genesisis to be taken literally.

I will be arguing from the position that the Biblical account of the flood in Genesis is to be taken literally.

You now appear to be laboring under the misconception that your task is to show that the flood story “could have occurred”

It is my burden to provide enough reasoning/evidence to support a case that it can be literal.

That is NOT in keeping with the agreed upon topic of debate. There is quite a difference between

1. It could have occurred

2. It did occur literally as reported

Do you agree that there is a difference between your two statements?

Do you now propose to change the topic of our debate to something other than whether the genesis account is literal?

Do you want to say that parts of the genesis flood tale are literal and others are not? If so, which parts are literal? Which can you defend?

Have you discovered that you cannot make rational case for the genesis account being literally true – and now want to change the topic to something that you think is more reasonable to defend?

Even for a theory, it is not an explanation that has a 100% certainty that it is true and is a fact of reality. But it is a rational explanation that fits with available data. So, why should I be held to a higher standard than most fields of science?

You are being held to your own statement of what you are arguing. You claim to be arguing that the biblical account “is to be taken literally”.

If you no longer wish to defend the genesis tale as being literally true, acknowledge that and we can go on to other topics.

Osteng, what formal training do you have in theology?

I have no formal training in theology. But, since I do not have the standard that formal education is required to debate a topic, it would be irrelevant.

Okay, we are on equal standing as far as formal training in theology. Neither of us has any claim to expertise. Your opinion is no more valid or credible than mine regarding theology, based upon formal training.

What I am bringing to light is that you have the requirement that in order to debate a topic, one needs to have formal training in it.

Correction: My position is that a person who is not trained or expert in a given field is not qualified to testify as an expert. Their opinions are simply personal opinions regarding matters with which they have not demonstrated knowledge or expertise.

What you have attempted to do throughout this thread is to set forth your opinions, conclusions and assertions as true without them being verified by expert information.

When debating a topic, a non-expert is expected to present credible expert information in the field in question (and not merely repeat their own non-expert opinions – such as “I think the FM fits better”).

Since you, not I, have this requirement, I'm simply holding you to this standard. So, only after you have formal education in theology would you be qualified to question anything written in the Bible.

If that was the standard, you would be disqualified from discussion of theology for the same reason – lack of formal training.

But, if you drop the requirement that formal education is required to debate a topic, then you are free to proceed to question the Bible.

Again, my requirement is that debate be based upon expert information and interpretation – not upon opinion of untrained persons. I maintain that one is free to express an opinion – identified as opinion.

Do you agree?

Your lack of training in geology disqualifies you from testifying as an expert in the field. Your opinion, “the FM fits better than SG” is simply a personal opinion of a person who knows little about the field – and has no merit in a debate.

I do not claim do be an expert in anything. If I simply assert "the FM fits better than SG" without any reasoning/evidence, then my assertions have no basis.

Your repeated assertion “the FM fits better than SG” is without merit. That is a personal opinion of an untrained person.

Your opinion may be significant to you but has no meaning in debate. Do you agree?

Climatology, meteorology, hydrology, biology

And you have formal education in these fields?

I have taken many undergraduate and graduate level courses in the first three and have taught college level classes in climatology and meteorology. Hydrology is an overlapping field to my specialization of fluvial (meaning related to streams) geomorphology (meaning study of the landform features of the earth). My undergraduate minor was biology.

I claim that I am “familiar with” those fields – knowledgeable, but not expert.

And your formal education in those fields, sir?

I have presented evidence to indicate that the amount of water required (one billion cubic miles) and the rainfall rates required to meet the scriptures you quoted exceed the Earth’s entire water supply and known conditions that actually exist and occur on the Earth.

I've already addressed that only you claim this. I would agree that there is not enough water to cover the mountains as they are now currently. However, the Flood Model does not state this.

We agree that there is not enough water to cover the Earth’s mountains as they are currently.

You maintain that the mountains were different 5000 years ago (or whenever the flood supposedly occurred) and have evidently “grown” or evolved since. I ask for evidence that is true. You present none.

You cite the “Flood Model” which ASSUMES that the Earth’s mountains were significantly different 5000 years ago. HOWEVER, you show no evidence that the assumption is correct – nor does the Flood Model.

It is a non-argument to maintain that little water would be required if it can be assumed that the Earth was different than we know it to be. The assumption is what is questioned. Why is your assumption of lower mountains any more valid than one that might be made that the Earth’s mountains were higher 5000 years ago? What indication do you have that your assumption is correct (other than wishful thinking)?

Your claims are NOT verified by the “Flood Model” – which merely makes unsupported assumptions and conjectures. It is NOT expert testimony by someone knowledgeable in the field.

I have shown that the proposed size of the ark is one and a half times the size of the largest wooden ships known to have been constructed – and that such size is beyond what marine architects and ship builders consider to be the structural limits of wood ship construction.

That's because you discount the evidence I've provided for Tessarakonteres and Zheng He's ship.

Notice that I say “largest wooden ships known to have been constructed”.

Your own “evidence” states that the size of the ships you cite is disputed.

You do not cite ANY evidence to support the claim of the size of the ark – only biblical passages and tales of two completely different ships the size of which is disputed.

Present some evidence that the ark was actually the size claimed – present some evidence that the ark actually existed -- or admit that you cannot.

Please tell the flood story without an ark.

Again, I'm not saying that the ark is not part of the flood story. Further, it's not that I'm unwilling to debate the ark. As a matter of fact, we've already debated various aspects of it. But, would the ark be the central issue of consideration? I would say that the primary issue would be a global flood.

Again, you stated that the genesis account “is to be taken literally” – That includes the ark full of animals, fed and cared for by eight people, for a year, while sailing a ship larger than any known to exist.

It is no wonder that you want to avoid the subject of the ark.

Try to remember that geology does NOT attempt to disprove your favorite flood legend.

My point is if SG is true, then the geological evidence should overwhelmingly support SG rather than the FM. This is what I would like to investigate.

You have been attempting to state that the FM fits better than geology. You have repeatedly stated personal, untrained opinions to that effect (and have cited works of people who state personal opinions and assertions, without expert status). Both you and Walter Brown have an announced agenda of “proving” creationism.

What you have NOT done is to demonstrate that the Flood Model is supported by actual information or studies by people known to be knowledgeable in the related areas of study.

The Flood Model is an unsupported creationist theory. Your opinions and assumptions are those of a person who does not show evidence of understanding the fields of study in question.

Debating about the ark would have significantly less evidence, so we'd be be both doing a lot of conjecture on it.

Precisely. There is approximately zero evidence concerning the ark.

"Significantly less evidence" is not the same as "approximately zero evidence".

Please cite ANY evidence (not conjecture or biblical quotation) that the ark full of animals is literally true, or acknowledge that you cannot.

You claim that it was 450 feet long. I doubt your claims and ask for evidence. None has been provided.

Again, only because you discount my evidence for ships that have existed in the past with similar sizes.

Again, your own “evidence” acknowledges that the size of the boats in question is NOT known and is disputed. So much for “evidence”.

For instance, when I ask how fish survived a radical change in habitat you cited a few anadromous varieties and suggested that “before the flood the fish could have been more adaptable”. That is not evidence at all – it is pure conjecture.

I am not attempting to prove that all fish were different in the past. But I am showing that it is probable and a reasonable position. You seem to state that unless I can prove something, even though it might be probable, then it cannot be true.

Correction. I am stating that your claim that fish “could have been different” in the past has NOT been supported by evidence to indicate that they were ACTUALLY different and that all you say is therefore mere conjecture.

When you make the claim, I ask that you verify that fish were actually different (not just in imagination or conjecture). You obviously cannot do so. Therefore, your claim is invalid.

Also, if the flood was local the biblical account is non-literal.

You have NOT demonstrated that the flood was worldwide.

Yes, if the flood was local, the story would not be literal.

Thank you.

You have NOT demonstrated that the flood was worldwide. You have asserted that it was. Assertion is not evidence.

Your strongest “evidence” so far has been related to legends of floods in various cultures. Is there something more that verifies that the flood was worldwide (something beyond conjecture)?

Your conclusions appear to be largely drawn from the Flood Model that you are now claiming is NOT your primary source. Is that true?

That is true. When I provided geological evidence prior to the forum hack, the sources I used to support my asssertion was not from Brown's site.

You base your “geological” arguments and conclusions upon the Flood Model (after disregarding parts that are obviously faulty), then search for confirming information (after disregarding parts that do not fit your theories).

You drew information from scientific sites, disregarded parts of the studies that did not fit your “model”, then INTERPRETED the meaning of the information.

Try to remember that your “interpretation” of information may be meaningful to YOU, but it is not evidence in debate because it is a personal opinion of a person who has not studied the field in question.

Label your opinions as opinions.

The Flood Model is a creationist model constructed without evidence of expertise in geology. Do you agree?

I agree.

Thank you.

From your own references:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/artic ... ntid=10387
Regarding shipbuilding technology, Wu pointed out among other things that a ship traversing the ocean sustains many forces: it is "not just like a matchbox in a swimming pool." It is still not known how it was possible for Chinese shipwrights to build a framework, without any iron, that could sustain a 400-foot long vessel. Instead of looking for the answer just in the documentary record, Wu proposes that "naval architects join in with historians to discover whether it was possible, or how the ships were built."

Emphasis added

Just because they do not know how they could've created it does not mean they did not create it. And "naval architects join in with historians to discover whether it was possible" does not mean they have discovered that it was not possible. So, they have made no assertion that it was not possible.

I am not saying that “they did not create it” or that “it was not possible” – I AM saying that you have NOT demonstrated that such ships were constructed OR that 450 foot long wooden ships WERE actually constructed. AND, that you have NOT demonstrated that an ark was constructed.

I am saying that you have not presented evidence that overrides the expert opinion of marine architects and shipbuilders who maintain that 300 feet is the maximum for structural limits of wooden ship construction.

You have ASSERTED that “it may have been possible” for other ships or the ark to have been constructed – which is very different from affirming that the ark “was constructed”.

It “may have been possible” for angels to have built the ark for Noah too – but there is no more assurance of that than there is of Noah building the ark.

Do you agree that “could have been” is pure conjecture and that it is far below a demonstration of what WAS true?

I would disagree that it is "pure conjecture". Pure conjecture implies that there is zero evidence for it.

Exactly. Kindly cite evidence to support conjecture.

You are attempting to support the LEGEND of the flood based upon your “best evidence” – other legends

Well, since you cannot propose any other explanation for the "legends", then my assertion would remain unchallenged.

Are you attempting to say that unless I “otherwise explain” the presence of legends that your assertion that the flood was literal is unchallenged? Are you serious?

I am referring to the 3 explanations that I proposed for the explanation of the flood stories.

1. The myths all arose independently
2. A flood myth originated in one place and was spread to all the cultures.
3. An actual global flood occurred.

I asserted that number 3 is the most logical. That assertion has been unchallenged.

You are free to state the OPINION of what is most logical. Remember that it is an opinion.

I do not choose to state an opinion because I do not place great importance upon the presence or absence of legends. My choice to not state an opinion is NOT evidence that your opinion is correct.

[Zzyzx]

.
There appear to be three major areas of misunderstanding regarding this debate.

1) Scientific study depends upon independent verification of claims (“substantiate or withdraw”).

Religious thinking does not require independent verification (“believe on faith alone”).

In any serious scientific study conclusions are based upon evidence presented and all conclusions are subject to rigorous testing by disinterested parties.

In religion, conclusions are presented by scripture, and evidence is sought to justify or “prove” or “defend” the conclusions. Independent testing of theories is not expected or encouraged.

In scientific studies, when new information is presented that invalidates existing knowledge; thinking is updated to incorporate the new knowledge.

In religion, updating is not incorporated because dogma has stated “the facts” (miracles, floods, parting seas, Earth stopping rotation, resurrection, afterlife, etc) that must be accepted. New information that conflicts with scriptures is dismissed or discouraged.

Scientific study has the objective of discovering truth – wherever it may lead.

Religious study has the objective of proving scriptures and obtaining salvation – for self or others.



2) When I state that you are not qualified to discuss geology and that I am not willing to debate geology with an untrained person, I failed to make clear my exact meaning.

Anyone is free to discuss geology; however, those who have not studied the field are not qualified to speak with authority. A person with no knowledge of the field is NOT qualified to state that “geologists are wrong and I know what is right”. That is claiming status or authority beyond one’s understanding, training, and ability.

You may be qualified to speak authoritatively about computer programming and Walter Brown may be qualified to speak authoritatively about mechanical engineering. BUT, neither of you is qualified to speak authoritatively about biology, climatology, metrology, stratigraphy, anthropology, paleontology, etc.

You and Brown are entitled to layman’s opinions but not expert opinions. To make credible statements and conclusions in debate of subjects about which you do not have expert status, you are required to cite information and conclusions from others who do have that position. You may NOT (credibly) cite their evidence and draw different conclusions – because you do not have sufficient demonstrated knowledge of the field.

Thus, if you wish to state that “the atmosphere was a blanket of water” prior to the flood you must (to be credible) determine when the flood occurred (possibly from theological sources) then present information from credible, expert climatology sources that describes the Earth’s climate at the time in question.

It is NOT credible to use your own guess as to when the flood occurred (because you are speaking as a layman in theology – without training in the field) AND you cannot credibly use “out of context” information from expert studies (such as taking information about climates that experts discuss as being characteristic of 75 Million years ago and using it as though it applied to 5 Thousand years ago).

That is a very amateur mistake – and is one of the reasons why opinions expressed people without knowledge of the fields of study are not regarded as credible. One who is accustomed to having conclusions subjected to peer review is careful to not make such mistakes. The knowledge that data, methodology and conclusions will be examined by others (often unfriendly others) is great motivation for legitimate scientists to be very cautious to avoid mistakes.

It must be tempting for religionists to cite creationist sources and to attempt to dismiss scientific studies that disagree with scriptures. However, in honorable and ethical debate that is not possible. That must be reserved for preaching to the choir.


3) You seem to be confused about what you are debating. Originally your claim was that you were arguing that the genesis account of the flood was to be taken literally. Later you are attempting to say that you only intend to show that the flood “could have been possible”.

Kindly note the difference between

1. It IS

2. It could be possible

Those are totally different positions. For the purpose of this debate I insist that you defend the original position OR acknowledge that you cannot. We can then discuss debating “it could have been literal”.


I earlier refused to discuss geology because you insisted upon stating personal opinions as fact and repeatedly made pronouncements regarding the field that you are not qualified by training or experience to make. You, as a layman, declared that geology and related fields of study were wrong and you were right – with no training in any of the fields in question.

Henceforth I expect you to refrain from making claims of knowledge beyond your ability and training and will expect you to cite authentic, qualified sources for information and conclusions.

I will expect you to verify your claims or admit that you cannot provide credible, expert verification of information and conclusions, and that you will then withdraw claims that you cannot verify.

I will expect you to defend the genesis story (as presented in the verses you quoted) as being literal (not “it could have been possible”).

[Zzyzx]

.
You have expressed a desire to talk about geology. Okay, here is a geology topic that you should enjoy.

Sedimentary rocks are those which are formed from parts of pre-existing rocks, materials that have been accumulated (deposited) as sediments and later solidified (lithified, cemented, etc) into solid rock units.

Stratigraphy is the specialized field within geology that deals with the origin, composition, distribution, and succession of strata (layers of sedimentary rock or earth of one kind lying between beds of other kinds).

Those who study stratigraphy identify and characterize strata partially on the basis of the fossils they contain.

In many places worldwide, thousands of feet of sedimentary rock layers (strata) exist. In a few cases a cross section of the strata is exposed and can be studied (such as in the Grand Canyon).

Those who study stratigraphy and paleontology know that there is a difference between the fossils that occur in the lower (oldest) strata vs. the top (newest) strata. The lowest (oldest) rock layers contain fossils of primitive (early, simple) life forms, many of which no longer exist (have become extinct). Younger (higher) strata contain successively more complex (evolved) life forms.

For instance, the famous fossil trilobites are found in rocks that are low in the sequence of rocks (the stratigraphic column) and are regarded as being from the Paleozoic era.

Much higher in the sequence of rocks are found fossils of mammals. Discussions of historical geology indicate which fossils are present in the lower (older) vs. younger (upper) strata. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Rock strata do NOT contain fossils of both trilobites AND mammals – one or the other, but not both together.

In Standard Geology that is expected because the lowest strata are regarded as being older (perhaps much older) and therefore can contain older, more primitive fossils. Many of those life forms died out (became extinct) and other life forms came into existence.

According to the “Flood Model” the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited during the supposed worldwide flood and are all of the same age (within one year).

If that was the case, how could the fossils have been sorted so perfectly so that the most primitive are found exclusively in the lowest strata and fossils of completely different life forms are found in higher rock units?

If the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited at the same time, why aren’t the fossils mixed as one would expect?

How could there be a complete absence of strata which contain BOTH old fossils (say trilobites) and newer fossils (say mammals) when all rock units are supposedly of the same age and were supposedly deposited together?

Please answer with citation of expert sources (and, in addition, express your own opinion if desired).

[otseng]

That is NOT in keeping with the agreed upon topic of debate. There is quite a difference between

1. It could have occurred

2. It did occur literally as reported

Do you agree that there is a difference between your two statements?

Do you now propose to change the topic of our debate to something other than whether the genesis account is literal?

Nothing has been changed. I am arguing for the position that the Biblical story of the flood is to be taken literally. And the Flood Model is what I propose to explain how a global flood occurred. I'm not going to the extreme position of stating that the Flood Model is absolutely true and is actually how things happened. It is simply a model that I believe is reasonable and supportable from empirical evidence.

Have you discovered that you cannot make rational case for the genesis account being literally true – and now want to change the topic to something that you think is more reasonable to defend?

Not at all.

You are being held to your own statement of what you are arguing. You claim to be arguing that the biblical account “is to be taken literally”.

If you no longer wish to defend the genesis tale as being literally true, acknowledge that and we can go on to other topics.

Um, sorry, this thread is not going to end simply because you want to argue about semantics.

Correction: My position is that a person who is not trained or expert in a given field is not qualified to testify as an expert. Their opinions are simply personal opinions regarding matters with which they have not demonstrated knowledge or expertise.

What you have attempted to do throughout this thread is to set forth your opinions, conclusions and assertions as true without them being verified by expert information.

I am not testifying my positions on the strength of my training. Further, what exactly do you mean by being "verified by expert information"? Is it a requirement that ideas needs to be substantiated by an expert in a field in order to present an idea?

When debating a topic, a non-expert is expected to present credible expert information in the field in question (and not merely repeat their own non-expert opinions – such as “I think the FM fits better”).

Of course.

Since you, not I, have this requirement, I'm simply holding you to this standard. So, only after you have formal education in theology would you be qualified to question anything written in the Bible.

If that was the standard, you would be disqualified from discussion of theology for the same reason – lack of formal training.

I don't think you are understanding the point. This site has no such standard, only you are insisting on such a standard.

Again, my requirement is that debate be based upon expert information and interpretation – not upon opinion of untrained persons. I maintain that one is free to express an opinion – identified as opinion.

Do you agree?

Well, I think some progress is being made in that you seem to be dropping the requirement that formal training is required.

If an argument is made without any evidence/reasoning, then it can be construed simply as an opinion. But, if the evidence is verifiable and the logic is sound, it goes beyond being mere opinion.

Your repeated assertion “the FM fits better than SG” is without merit. That is a personal opinion of an untrained person.

Your opinion may be significant to you but has no meaning in debate. Do you agree?

I have taken considerable time trying to addressing all the roadblocks you have erected in stopping from discussing geology. I was hoping we'd be able to get pass these by now and get to the real debate, instead of debating the technicalities of how to debate.

I earlier refused to discuss geology because you insisted upon stating personal opinions as fact and repeatedly made pronouncements regarding the field that you are not qualified by training or experience to make. You, as a layman, declared that geology and related fields of study were wrong and you were right – with no training in any of the fields in question.

If I make assertions that are easily refuted by evidence, then it should be quite easy to present those evidence. But, if I get challenged simply because I do not have formal training in it, then it does not invalidate my assertions.

Those who study stratigraphy and paleontology know that there is a difference between the fossils that occur in the lower (oldest) strata vs. the top (newest) strata. The lowest (oldest) rock layers contain fossils of primitive (early, simple) life forms, many of which no longer exist (have become extinct). Younger (higher) strata contain successively more complex (evolved) life forms.

I would challenge this assertion. The Cambrian Explosion shows that complex life shows up early on. There is no clear correlation between the strata depth and life complexity.