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?
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?
Moderator: Moderators
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20865
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 368 times
- Contact:
Post #3
I will be arguing from the position that the Biblical account of the flood in Genesis is to be taken literally.
The entire world was covered with water. It was not a localized flood. And it was not a mythical story.
The entire world was covered with water. It was not a localized flood. And it was not a mythical story.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20865
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 368 times
- Contact:
Post #6
One quick response to this.Zzyzx wrote:Continuing My Opinion: Fanciful accounts were eventually recorded and became embedded in Christian lore to be included in what is known as the Christian Bible (and its predecessor literature). Many modern Christians may be inclined to defend the biblical account as literal because admitting that biblical accounts are non-literal opens the entire work to doubt. If non-literal parts occur throughout the work and are inseparable from other parts, there is no rational way to distinguish actual, literal truth (if any exists).
There is a scientific theory that the entire Earth was once entirely covered with ice/snow. This is not considered quack science and active research is being pursued on this. Yet, the idea that whole world was covered with water is immediately scorned and rejected. I would say this is a bit hypocritical and that the only reason water is rejected is because it is presented in the Bible. But, if one considers the evidence without having any bias beforehand, I believe that the FM is a reasonable explanation.
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20865
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 368 times
- Contact:
Post #8
No apology needed. I'm glad you pointed out your background.Zzyzx wrote:Pardon me for not clearly stating my background. I have been rather open about that in many threads and thought it was general knowledge. My mistake. Sorry.
Very interesting. I think this will definitely come into play in this debate.My area of specialization in academia was fluvial geomorphology -- study of the landforms in relation to the action of flowing water. That is within the overall fields of physical geography (particularly landforms) and geology (particularly Earth processes).
No awkward position at all. I'd rather debate someone who is knowledgeable about a subject. And I welcome the challenge.If my background in science puts either of us in an awkward position, perhaps we should reconsider having a debate on the flood topic. Part of my reason for suggesting that topic was your interest in science.
I sort of share the same opinion. I do not have a very high opinion of formal schooling. But, I do place great value in personal education.I do not glorify schooling and make a strong distinction between what occurs under that title and what constitutes true education.
Some areas are incompatible, but I believe some areas are. And after reading Dawkins' The God Delusion, I was surprised that Dawkins shares the same view.The reason that I seldom engage in debates between science and religion is that the two are incompatible, IMO. Although others maintain differently, I see irresolvable, fundamental differences between religion and science that insure conflict and competition, and preclude agreement or even compromise.
Not all areas of science are reproducible, but in general I agree.True science seeks to LEARN and to TEST its ideas based upon evidence and reproducibility.
I will say this also for the purpose of this debate on the flood. I shall strive to concentrate on presenting empirical evidence to support the FM. I will not be using the Bible as primary evidence for the flood.
Ideally that is true. But scientists are human also and some (perhaps most?) do not easily admit that their own ideas could be wrong. But, what we should go on is the empirical evidence and simply go where it leads. If the evidence points to concepts found in the Bible, I would hope that scientists would be open enough to entertain it.True science is willing, even eager, to change its ideas to incorporate new truths that are discovered through the study of nature of the real world we inhabit (though individual scientists or groups may temporarily attempt to maintain old positions in spite of new information).
-
otseng
- Savant
- Posts: 20865
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
- Location: Atlanta, GA
- Has thanked: 214 times
- Been thanked: 368 times
- Contact:
Post #9
(The following post is collated from several posts in the Global Flood thread.)
Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.
Here is a cross diagram of the earth before the Flood:
We all know the idea that the land mass of Europe/Africa and the Americas were once one land mass. The commonly accepted idea is that plate tectonics broke up Pangaea over millions of years. There are many problems with this theory. But the most notable one is the existence of the mid-Atlantic ridge. It is the longest mountain range in the entire world. It spans from Iceland to Antarctica (46,000 miles).
Just looking at it, it is exactly halfway between Europe/Africa and Americas. And it looks like this is where the two split. Looking at this, it seems like the E/A and Americas were once joined at the mid-Atlantic ridge, then it got split apart.
This split occured during the flood. During the initial stage of the flood (rupture phase), the crust split along where the mid-Atlantic ridge is. During the split, the subterranean water gushed out of the crack and eroded the the soil/rock on both sides of the crack. Meanwhile, as water was coming out, the two sides slid away from each other.
The two land masses were not once connected where the beaches are now, but they were connected where the continental shelves are. This explains the origin of the continental shelves.
During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world. This destroyed the water canopy that had existed in the atmosphere. The pressure of the water gushing out would have formed the mid-Atlantic ridge.
The major land mountain ranges were formed as the water under the crust diminished. While there was water, the crust was free to move since water has a low friction coefficient. But once the water was gone, the crust hit the basalt underneath. With the large friction coefficient, the crust started to buckle. The crust had a huge lateral momentum as it was sliding away from the mid-Oceanic ridge. The momentum caused the crust to form the Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, Himalayas, etc.
As the water eroded the sides of the crust, it carried sediments and deposited it rapidly around the world. The entire world was covered with water and sediments at this point. Meanwhile, the crust was gradually settling as the water underneath decreased. As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.
The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock stratas that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.
The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.
There are 4 major phases of the flood: the rupture phase, the flood phase, the continental drift phase, and the recovery phase.
During the rupture phase, the crack on the crust formed that started at the mid-Oceanic ridge and traveled around the world. Water jettisoned from the underground chamber at the fissures into the atmosphere and eroded the sides of the cracks. I believe this phase occurred over days, perhaps weeks. Brown says this occurred in hours. I however think it must've been longer. I think the layers got deposited in stages to account for footprints in layers and also sequences of layers that could not be explained with a single deposit of sediments. Sorting of layers would take place between the stages where deposits were laid down. This entire process could not have happened in hours, but rather over many days.
During the flood phase, sediments and water covered the entire earth. The surface topography was still relatively flat at this point. Brown says this phase lasted months long. I would say this probably last much shorter, in the range of days/weeks. My basis for this is that I don't agree with Brown on how the mid-Oceanic ridge got formed. Brown believes it was formed by the weight of the continents pressing down on the basalt and it eventually caused the mid-Oceanic ridge to form. I have a different hypothesis. I believe the oceanic ridges were caused by hydrodynamic forces as the water was ejected out of the earth. The pressure of the escaping water would cause the basalt to be forced upward by the water pressure forces and form the ridges. The formation of the ridges caused the flood to go into the next stage, the drift phase. Since hydrodynamic forces would have immediately formed the ridges, the flood phase could not last too long.
During the drift phase, as the mid-Oceanic ridge formed, the hydoplates slid down the ridge and the Americas and Eurasia/Africa moved away from each other. As the hydoplates moved, there was still some underground water under the hydroplates to allow for movement. But, when the water was gone, the hydroplates would stop moving when it hit the basalt underneath. The momentum of the moving hydoplates would cause the formation of the mountains. Brown believes this phase to have lasted 1 day, though I believed it lasted much longer, days/weeks.
During the recovery phase, the water receded into the lower parts of the surface creating the oceans we have now. Canyons were created by water rapidly receding from the areas near mountains. The sea level was lower after all the water receded than compared to now. Over time, all the weight of the continents would cause the continents to gradually sink into the basalt underneath. This would cause the continents to be lowered, as well as push the sea floor up. This would explain land bridges in the past that are now covered by water today.
Let me start by describing the Earth before the Flood. The earth's atmosphere was very different than it is now. The temperature was more uniform throughout the earth and was mostly tropical. The entire world was covered by some sort of water canopy which allowed for a global tropical climate. It also did not rain. The earth had an abundance of large animals (dinosaurs) and large plants. The oceans did not exist as we know them now. However, there were seas that existed. The major mountain ranges did not exist and the mountains were smaller than what we have today. About half the water now in the oceans was once in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface. Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass.
Here is a cross diagram of the earth before the Flood:
We all know the idea that the land mass of Europe/Africa and the Americas were once one land mass. The commonly accepted idea is that plate tectonics broke up Pangaea over millions of years. There are many problems with this theory. But the most notable one is the existence of the mid-Atlantic ridge. It is the longest mountain range in the entire world. It spans from Iceland to Antarctica (46,000 miles).
Just looking at it, it is exactly halfway between Europe/Africa and Americas. And it looks like this is where the two split. Looking at this, it seems like the E/A and Americas were once joined at the mid-Atlantic ridge, then it got split apart.
This split occured during the flood. During the initial stage of the flood (rupture phase), the crust split along where the mid-Atlantic ridge is. During the split, the subterranean water gushed out of the crack and eroded the the soil/rock on both sides of the crack. Meanwhile, as water was coming out, the two sides slid away from each other.
The two land masses were not once connected where the beaches are now, but they were connected where the continental shelves are. This explains the origin of the continental shelves.
During the rupture phase as the subterranean water gushed out, the force of the water coming out eroded a lot of the soil/rocks and carried it high into the atmosphere and deposited it rapidly around the world. This destroyed the water canopy that had existed in the atmosphere. The pressure of the water gushing out would have formed the mid-Atlantic ridge.
The major land mountain ranges were formed as the water under the crust diminished. While there was water, the crust was free to move since water has a low friction coefficient. But once the water was gone, the crust hit the basalt underneath. With the large friction coefficient, the crust started to buckle. The crust had a huge lateral momentum as it was sliding away from the mid-Oceanic ridge. The momentum caused the crust to form the Rockies, Appalachians, Andes, Himalayas, etc.
As the water eroded the sides of the crust, it carried sediments and deposited it rapidly around the world. The entire world was covered with water and sediments at this point. Meanwhile, the crust was gradually settling as the water underneath decreased. As the land mountain ranges were forming and as the sediments in the water settled, the water receded into the oceans we have now and also froze in the North and South poles.
The massive amounts of sediments from the crust erosion formed practically all the rock stratas that we see today. So, instead of billions of years for it to form in the EM, it occurred within a year in the FM.
The rapid burial of the plants and animals caused the formation of most all the oil, coal, and fossils we find today.
There are 4 major phases of the flood: the rupture phase, the flood phase, the continental drift phase, and the recovery phase.
During the rupture phase, the crack on the crust formed that started at the mid-Oceanic ridge and traveled around the world. Water jettisoned from the underground chamber at the fissures into the atmosphere and eroded the sides of the cracks. I believe this phase occurred over days, perhaps weeks. Brown says this occurred in hours. I however think it must've been longer. I think the layers got deposited in stages to account for footprints in layers and also sequences of layers that could not be explained with a single deposit of sediments. Sorting of layers would take place between the stages where deposits were laid down. This entire process could not have happened in hours, but rather over many days.
During the flood phase, sediments and water covered the entire earth. The surface topography was still relatively flat at this point. Brown says this phase lasted months long. I would say this probably last much shorter, in the range of days/weeks. My basis for this is that I don't agree with Brown on how the mid-Oceanic ridge got formed. Brown believes it was formed by the weight of the continents pressing down on the basalt and it eventually caused the mid-Oceanic ridge to form. I have a different hypothesis. I believe the oceanic ridges were caused by hydrodynamic forces as the water was ejected out of the earth. The pressure of the escaping water would cause the basalt to be forced upward by the water pressure forces and form the ridges. The formation of the ridges caused the flood to go into the next stage, the drift phase. Since hydrodynamic forces would have immediately formed the ridges, the flood phase could not last too long.
During the drift phase, as the mid-Oceanic ridge formed, the hydoplates slid down the ridge and the Americas and Eurasia/Africa moved away from each other. As the hydoplates moved, there was still some underground water under the hydroplates to allow for movement. But, when the water was gone, the hydroplates would stop moving when it hit the basalt underneath. The momentum of the moving hydoplates would cause the formation of the mountains. Brown believes this phase to have lasted 1 day, though I believed it lasted much longer, days/weeks.
During the recovery phase, the water receded into the lower parts of the surface creating the oceans we have now. Canyons were created by water rapidly receding from the areas near mountains. The sea level was lower after all the water receded than compared to now. Over time, all the weight of the continents would cause the continents to gradually sink into the basalt underneath. This would cause the continents to be lowered, as well as push the sea floor up. This would explain land bridges in the past that are now covered by water today.
