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

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[Revelations won]

I find it amusing that so many set up so many false assumptions regarding the flood with an apparent lack of understanding of what even constitutes the “fountains of the deep” and “waters above the firmament”, as well as their propensity to present other undocumented alleged criteria.

I may not contribute the so called “orthodox” viewpoints. In fact what will hereafter be presented may be anything but “orthodox”. For this I make no apologies.

Before presenting details of the great flood, I will cover some important background details which will hopefully give a better preview and understanding of the why’s and how’s of the actual event.

Genesis 1:2 “And the earth was without form and void: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

As we view the developmental stages of the earth, we so note that the earth at this stage appears to have been immersed in water, for the scripture so states that the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Secondly we note that the earth would appear unto man as being without form and void. This may result from at least two conditions.

The fact that there was no light, or should we say, total darkness, and therefore was not observable by man.

Also in the utter absence of light, temperatures would be very cold, therefore, I would suggest that the waters covering the earth were very possibly in a frozen state. This ice age condition would also render the earth essentially without form and void. (Even void of vegetation or other life forms).

If one carefully observes what is taught in Genesis, it should also be so noted that the original light that appeared was not that of our present solar system. One cannot totally dismiss the possibility that this original light source was from other than the sun. Thus the earth in it’s early developmental or formative time periods could have been located at some far distant place in the galaxy. This time period could have extended for even millions of years. The final preparation or creative periods or days could also have taken additional thousands of years.


In the second creative period we find an extremely important key to understanding not only the creation process, but also probably the single most important key to a correct understanding of what made the flood possible. Observe what is taught in:

Genesis 1:6-8 “And God said let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament heaven...”

The above is a critical point which I dare say more than 99% of those that read, totally miss. In other words, they fail to comprehend the significance of what is said regarding the “waters above the firmament”. Today, I think most people understand the cloud formations, lakes, rivers, oceans, glaciers, etc that exist and constitute “waters below the firmament”.

How many stop or search deep enough to comprehend “waters above the firmament” ? (Answers to this question will be provided in great detail after these preparatory remarks.)

Next we need to observe the further organizational developments as shown in Genesis 1:9 “And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.”

According to this account all dry land was in one large continent. Also all the waters, or seas were gathered into one body of water.

Genesis also points out that there was still not rain upon the face of the earth to water it. Moses, in this narrative, does not go into details of why this was so.

As mentioned earlier there exists a possibility that this earth may have in it’s early stages been in a different solar system and orbit. The earth, after being exposed to the first light source, may have been in a much hotter state than at present. It may have after reaching it’s present orbit began a cooling process. Thus rain might not have fallen to water the face of the ground, although virga conditions may have existed as the clouds exceeded their dew point maximums. With elevated temperatures on the earth’s surface those rain drops may have naturally never reached it’s surface. This cooling process could have taken many centuries or even millennia.

In Genesis 1:10-14 It appears that a very large river flowed out of Eden and parted into four other large rivers, which watered the whole face of the earth. The source of water for these massive rivers is not stated, but could have been a gigantic spring or artesian well system.

The point that so many people miss is the fact that this massive water system originated in the Garden of Eden. This is also indicated to be the high point or highest elevation of the earth. Why is this so important? Because we see that a great variety of plants, vegetables and fruit trees grew there in abundance, continually. I would suggest that this being the case, then the highest topographic location on the earth at that time may have by it’s very description, been at an elevation very close to sea level.

During the flood or shortly thereafter, there may have been some topographic changes in the earth's surfaces. If so, they were not recorded in the Genesis narrative.

The earliest recorded record of major changes in the earth’s ocean and land surface structure occurred long after the flood as stated in the “days of Peleg” when the earth was divided and continents were then formed, perhaps somewhat as we see them this day. Many high places were made low and many low places were re-shaped and made into high places. Many of these low places or original sea beds that were made into high places in the days of Peleg, may account for the many locations world wide where extensive sea shell remains exist at the present time. I personally do not think that these shell evidences had anything to do with the approximate 200 day flood. Although I admit that it is possible that there were major earthquakes or changes that occurred on the earth due to natural forces such as earthquakes that could have occurred as the flood receded. Ocean depths experiencing massive seismic conditions, could have had massive depth changes occur, which may have also been substantial factors causing the waters to recede rapidly.

I will state three maxims at this point, which I hold to be true:

“Pseudo science and pseudo religion will never come to complete harmony”

“True religion and true science will always eventually come to harmony”

“True religion embraces all truth regardless of it’s source”

I will herewith present a thesis on the flood. Comments and questions are most welcome, but would be welcome only after the full presentation thereof.



WATERS ABOVE THE FIRMAMENT

In his plan to prepare the earth for the habitation of man, God said “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters”. We understand by this expression that the primeval ocean was to be divided into two or more parts by the Hebrew rakia or firmament; which means simply an expanse. In some translations of the bible this word is rendered air, and the expression is, “Let there be air in the midst of the water, making a division between the two waters,” In the same connection it is further declared, that “God called the firmament Heaven”, and since the first inhabitants could recognize only these three things, viz: the earth, it’s seas, and the sky that surrounded them; and since their earth and their seas, were the same as our earth and seas, their firmament must have been the same as our sky or atmosphere. The idea of solidity and strength, which became associated with the Latin “firmamentum” was the invention of astronomers, who thought the heavens were a series of crystal spheres, and became thoroughly incorporated into the science of astronomy as Ptolemy’s theory of epicycle gained adherents. It’s original meaning thus became modified.

It is therefore evident that the firmament was the atmosphere and that it was so applied by the ancient Hebrews. There is no word in the Hebrew language designating the atmosphere from the rest of the expanse above, whence it is evident that the Hebrews knew of no such distinction. The firmament they considered to be an expanse about the earth, and beyond it was a great fund of waters: and the expression “waters above the firmament” means the waters above the atmosphere.

But where are the waters above the atmosphere? And how could the atmosphere of firmament cause a separation of waters? How are we to understand that a mere expanse, or a body of air, could become a partition between two bodies of water, one situated above it and the other situated below it? It is needless to say that this subject, like that of the deluge, is a most perplexing and difficult one to reconcile with scientific law. Nor have the various theories that have been proposed, been sufficient to allay the fierce animosities and disputes between the theologian on one hand and the scientist on the other.


The latter declares in favor of nature as it is, and the former declares in favor of the miraculous suspensions of nature’s operations, in order to explain phenomena alluded to in the Bible. As these individuals are traveling in opposite directions in their search for truth, permit me to take a middle course.

Away out towards the boundaries of the solar system, we may behold that beautiful clockwork of worlds, of which the planet Saturn is the center. In addition to his eight moons, three stupendous rings revolve about him, two composed of meteoric, and one (the inner) of aqueous matter. There 19,000 miles from his surface revolves an ocean 8,000 miles broad and many miles thick; and ocean above Saturn’s firmament or atmosphere. Were we situated upon that planet, in order to behold those revolving waters, we would have to look upward, and could readily understand how two bodies of water could be separated by a rakia, an expanse–by a firmament. If that aqueous ring were now over canopying our little earth , no person would say the firmament could not be a natural and philosophical partition between the divided waters. Every man would see a literal and true interpretation of that mysterious passage, inscribed on the very face of the heavens. The infidel would see himself confronted and denied by the book of nature of which he so confidently relies.

Well, then are we to understand that the earth was at one time surrounded by an aqueous ring or belt of waters? We turn again to Genesis: “And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so”. To him who stands by the integrity of the Mosaic account of creation, there can be no doubt upon this subject. The declaration is clear, that there were waters above and waters below. Those below were on the earth, for it was said “Let the waters under the firmament be gathered together that the dry land might appear”. Then the waters above were overhead. But the language of science, unimpeached and unimpeachable, is that no such body of water could possibly exist there, unless it should revolve about the earth as a ring, or belt..

That truthful, but much abused science, geology, tell us that there was a time when the native heat of the earth repelled vast quantities of vapor and mists from it’s surface. These could not avoid being thrown into belts by the rotary motion of the earth. In fact it might be said that such formations are the necessary consequences of the development of worlds from their primitive state.

The most eminent astronomers now living, claim, that both, Saturn and Jupiter are today repelling by their native heat, their waters into space. Both are characterized by the presence of aqueous belts, in double or multiple layers, that successively condense and fall as oceans upon those planets, when the heat that now holds them in space ceases to act. And I presume, that our oceans have many times been augmented by the successive precipitation of waters from space beyond our atmosphere. Perhaps this process has reached near total completion in our day.

Since then we have the plain declaration of scripture, that there were waters above and beyond the firmament; since we see waters so placed above the surface of other planets, and since such bodies of water must revolve about the central body, I claim that the earth in antediluvian times was surrounded by a huge belt of waters. That it was visible to the first inhabitants as the last remnant of waters falling to the earth. These waters originally formed in and repelled from the great laboratory, the primitive earth, skirted the boundaries of the vast and remarkable atmosphere with which the chemist, the geologist, and enlightened astronomer, are familiar. Well, such an object must have had a name. Mark, that the waters on the earth were called seas.
The alone remaining Hebrew word, which could refer to the waters, we render the “Great Deep”. It was so called because all mankind formerly believed that the clouds were fed from above. They beheld them grow dark and heavy, and expand until they rent themselves and emptied their contents upon the earth. The whole range of ancient writings, both sacred and profane abundantly prove this. So thoroughly were the Hebrews impressed with this belief, that we find it the belief of mankind thousands of years after the “Great Deep” had fallen to the earth.

[Revelations won]

The expression, “the breaking up of the fountains of the deep” or “depths” so frequently met with in ancient writings, meant the pouring of the fountains above the heaven into the clouds, through the imaginary windows set in a solid vault. That the ancients thought the vault or boundary of the firmament was solid will not be denied by anyone familiar with their writings. The Hebrews declare it was “strong as a molten looking glass” . They tell us, “By his knowledge the depths are broken up and the clouds drop down the dew” (rain). They said “Praise him ye waters that are above the heavens and deep calleth unto Deep at the noise of thy waterspout”. These quotations might be greatly multiplied. That they prove that mankind thought there was a great deep above, cannot be denied.



If, in comparatively recent times, after the Great Deep had fallen to the earth, mankind believed there was yet a body of water above the earth which was the source from which the clouds received their supplies, what must have been the belief of the first inhabitants, who beheld that body of water? The idea that the “Deep” referred to in Genesis was the terrestrial ocean, must be abandoned.

But if there was at one time a body of water above, where is it now? The sun shines, unobscured through a clear atmosphere, showing that there is nothing more dense than the air through which it’s rays have to penetrate.

Critical observation upon Saturn’s aqueous ring, shows that it is constantly undergoing important changes. Some scientists have even announced that portions of it have, at different times become detached from it and fallen into his atmosphere, floating away like huge clouds and uniting with his watery belts. A belt of vapor or water revolving in the outskirts of the atmosphere surrounding a planet, must inevitably lose it’s independent rotary motion, and thus gradually sink toward the attracting central body. Thus there is a perpetual tendency of such belts as we observe in the solar system, to fall , and fall they all must in time. There does no longer exist in the earth an appreciable repelling force, caused by the native heat of that body; and as a legitimate consequence it’s exterior waters have fallen. But we are not without important direct evidence on a question so momentous.

“For yet seven days and I will cause it to rain on the earth40 days and 40 nights, and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from the face of the earth.”
Such was the menace of the Almighty, against “all flesh that had corrupted it’s way”

I ask, was this intended to be a natural rain? We all know that the creator of heaven and earth, who holds the oceans in his palms, and balances the universe upon the tip of his finger, can do any and all things; but I ask in the name of science, did such a rain descend from the clouds? A rain powerful enough to destroy every created thing ; to be continued 40 days and nights, and falling from the clouds, demands a suspension or modification of every law of nature.

The laws of evaporation and condensation of moisture, the laws of heat, gravitation and motion, could not have been then as now, on the supposition that such a rain came from the clouds, and yet it would be preposterous for any man to deny that the above sentence was carried into execution.

Again we open the sacred volume and read: “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the same day, all the fountains of the deep were broken up, and the windows of the heavens were opened, and the flood was upon the earth 40 days and 40 nights.”

“And the waters prevailed and increased and all the high hills were covered” by the down pouring waters.

I ask the critical student (none else) to take into consideration the universal belief of mankind, when those waters fell, or if he choose when that declaration was penned viz: that all living waters came from a great deep, situated above the clouds: beyond , the solid shell of the firmament, through imaginary windows and then reconcile to it, if he can, the modern idea that the deep here referred to, was the terrestrial ocean. Because our ideas run thus, we must not conclude that they are the same that always have obtained. Ideas change with the birth and death of races. A multitude of facts, which I cannot now further refer to, when followed out, I am persuaded prove beyond a doubt, that the ocean was not at all referred to. Under these conclusions neither scientist nor theologian can claim that the deluge was a mere local flood. It must necessarily have been much more general than many have been accustomed to suppose.

A body of exterior waters, skirting the atmosphere, having it’s motion gradually diminished , would gradually descend toward the earth, and must have spread to the poles by the mere force of gravity. In the torrid and temperate zones there must have been a prolonged down-rush of waters: but at the poles a down rush of snow. The animals in the warmer regions would be drowned and carried away by retreating waters. Those in the polar regions would be suddenly entombed in snow, which in after times would be converted into glacier ice; and those animals would be preserved until released by the retreating mass containing them. Well, what are the facts?

Today may be found the skeletons of the hairy mammoth, imbedded “in pure clear ice” more than two hundred feet beneath the glacier surface, and forty feet above the surface of earth; the whole carcass preserved, their hair, skin and eyes; their flesh becoming the food of wolves and bears; the contents of their stomachs undigested, showing that they luxuriated in coniferous forests up to the very time, or day of their death. These facts give no room for speculation. Their history was written then, and from it we glean the incontestible evidence that they were suddenly overwhelmed by a downfall of snow. Cuvier declared that these mammals “were frozen up immediately after death.” He might have said , they perished in their graves.

From the retreating glaciers their remains have been falling for thousands of years. Whole cargos of elephantine ivory, and other fossils, are picked up from the surface, or dug from the frozen soil. There only are they found upon the surface. In medial latitudes they are always buried, and from this fact, that all surface remains of animals of the northern latitudes have been and are still preserved, we may draw the conclusion, that they have fallen from glacial ice. I ask scientists to show what other agency has preserved them.

During the fall of the waters here supposed, on the part of the earth sloping toward the north pole , there must have been a great rush of the same toward the latter. Every thing that could float would be swept thither.

The travels of Erman in northern Siberia, have proved that such a wave did sweep from the Altai Mountains to the arctic regions. Skirting the Northern ocean, he says, there are hills 300 feet high, made up in great part, of whole carcasses of mammoths and other mammals, “cemented together by layers of frozen mud and ice. Driftwood piled equally high; trees with their trunks thrown upon each other in the wildest disorder, forced in spite of gravitation, and with their tops broken off, or crushed as if they had been thrown with great violence from the south on a bank and there heaped up.”

The testimony of other explorers adds to this chain of evidence, from which we must draw the conclusion that whatever may be said of former revolutions that desolated the world, this last was a visitation sudden, and perhaps universal and complete.


There is much collateral evidence which bears upon this question, that would not be proper to introduce here, yet I cannot refrain from noticing one or two most significant facts.

Such a belt of waters, as it approached the earth, perhaps during a vast lapse of time, must have widened or expanded as it came under the influence of the atmosphere, and thus have gradually effected the climate of the whole earth. The sun’s heat could readily penetrate such a body and augment the temperature of the atmosphere, but not so readily return into space. This increase of temperature would cause the temperate and torrid zones to become one stupendous greenhouse–the waters above acting like a glass roof. Well, is it not a fact, that immediately previous to the deluge, that such a climate as is here supposed, did actually obtain? Have we anything but confirmatory evidence that primeval man dwelt naked in that terrestrial paradise? What other satisfactory reason can we assume for this remarkable change in the climactical conditions of the globe, which but a short time previously, was but a scene of universal death–a world chained in ice? What caused the earth to issue again from it’s glacial fetters, and bloom afresh? What caused man and beast to possess the earth again? I presume it cannot be accounted for by solar changes. The cause is more immediate and nearer home–more transient in general effects, and yet without subjecting the earth to those violent extremes of excessive heat in summer and cold in winter, that must necessarily attend an increase in solar heat. Something modified those extremes and in a measure prevented the change of seasons.

Is it unreasonable then to ask, what else than an aqueous ring, descending into the atmosphere and spreading out in the form of a huge belt, could produce this change? And again what else than it’s fall could have produced the universal destruction of those animals whose remains are found in the modified drift? What else could for the last time have caused the northern glaciers to again increase, and move further south? These perplexing problems, I trust are approaching a solution.

I believe most bible commentators agree that the 9th chapter of Genesis shows that antediluvian man never saw a rainbow. Now if no rainbow occurred before the deluge, it was because something so intercepted and modified the sun’s rays as to prevent it’s formation. Is there any probability that there was any intervening body between the earth and the sun, except “the waters above the firmament”? What else could have caused such a hindrance? The impurities of a chemical atmosphere had been stored away.


Aqueous matter was the last to descend to the earth. But the most remarkable thing in this connection is the fact that the bow was made a sign. A sign of what? “I do set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a token of covenant between me and the earth.” It was a sign that there “should no more be a flood to deluge the earth” – a sign of perpetual security from a repetition of this catastrophe. Was it a sign that no more great rains should come from the clouds? Such rain occur all the time. Was it a sign that the earth was not to be devastated by in influx of the ocean? If so, where is the philosophy of such a sign? Such devastations have occurred many times, and the bow cannot be a sign of security of such an ordeal. Then it is a sign of what? Not of our security from rain from the clouds; not from an influx of the terrestrial waters. Is it not an infallible sign that there can be no more floods from exterior waters? Is it not a philosophical sign that the “great deep has fallen”?

So long as man lives upon the earth and beholds yonder bow in the cloud, he has a sign of security from a deluge. I presume this token of Omnipotence will forever remain unexplained unless we admit the former existence of a terrestrial ring of waters that prevented the formation of the bow before the deluge.

Now, it is a well known fact, that during the reign of the mammoth and his contemporaries, England was a part of the main continent. The English Channel, in all probability, did not exist, and North America and Asia had land communication. The same species of animals inhabited both lands. Many of our continental islands have been separated from the mainland in modern geological times. The evidence on this point is abundant and conclusive. So general a change in the topographical features of the three continents cannot be reasonably attributed to a subsidence of the land, but rather to the augmentation of the oceanic waters. What, but a fall of exterior waters could have made this increase?

There was a time when a great part of the land of the earth was covered by a vast moving glacier. It’s track is seen in every continent. In many places it must have been more than a mile in depth. It scraped the sides and summit of Mt. Washington, more than 6000 feet high. I am persuaded that nothing but a fall of snow could have formed this mighty mass. That snow could not have been formed from vapor raised by solar heat, for that solar heat would have prevented the fall of snow and the formation of the glacier.


It was not caused by a withdrawal of solar heat, for water then could not have evaporated to form into snow. That snow must therefore have fallen from space. Thus, a succession of rings approaching and then expanding by the force of gravity, into belts, and finally falling, would seem to account for those great cataclysms of modern geological times, which have time after time, swept the earth with the “besom of destruction”. If this point be denied, whence then, came the waters of the ocean? It rests with those that oppose this theory to satisfactorily account, for the fact, that the oceans are now on the earth; and also for the fact, that they have been many times augmented. They must account for the fact that the ocean fauna has at different times suddenly disappeared from a great part of the globe.

I ask the reader to put these links together .

First, the waters above the firmament. Then, the forty day’s rain, and the disappearance of those waters from above . The great cemetery of antediluvian animals at the poles. The climactical changes contemporary with the deluge, and the bow as a sign. When he has done this , he has a chain, from which hangs a key, with which he may unlock some of the most perplexing questions of science.

[McCulloch]

Also in the utter absence of light, temperatures would be very cold, therefore, I would suggest that the waters covering the earth were very possibly in a frozen state. This ice age condition would also render the earth essentially without form and void. (Even void of vegetation or other life forms).

Not the ice ages as most geologists refer to them, which occurred long after the beginning of life.

If one carefully observes what is taught in Genesis, it should also be so noted that the original light that appeared was not that of our present solar system. One cannot totally dismiss the possibility that this original light source was from other than the sun. Thus the earth in it’s early developmental or formative time periods could have been located at some far distant place in the galaxy. This time period could have extended for even millions of years. The final preparation or creative periods or days could also have taken additional thousands of years.

This is an amusing speculation.

In Genesis 1:10-14 It appears that a very large river flowed out of Eden and parted into four other large rivers, which watered the whole face of the earth. The source of water for these massive rivers is not stated, but could have been a gigantic spring or artesian well system.

Without the water cycle, it is hard to imagine a sustainable river source.

I would suggest that this being the case, then the highest topographic location on the earth at that time may have by it’s very description, been at an elevation very close to sea level.

The modern equivalent of the flat earth theory? Quite amusing. Is there any geological evidence to support this idea?

The earliest recorded record of major changes in the earth’s ocean and land surface structure occurred long after the flood as stated in the “days of Peleg” when the earth was divided and continents were then formed, perhaps somewhat as we see them this day.

Is there any evidence that this process can take place so rapidly?

[...] It is needless to say that this subject, like that of the deluge, is a most perplexing and difficult one to reconcile with scientific law. Nor have the various theories that have been proposed, been sufficient to allay the fierce animosities and disputes between the theologian on one hand and the scientist on the other.

You got that right.

[Goose]

I read an article from yahoo recently and it reminded me of this post in the debate. From post 62

While you are at it, would you please explain how the animals were transported from Turkey (Mt. Ararat) to Antarctica, Australia, Oceana, North and South America.

I think what you are driving at is how can animals that cannot swim could have reached land areas that are surrounded by water?

So, if the animals originated in Turkey, how can land animals reach Antarctica, Americas, and Australia?

First the easy one, Antarctica. All native animals in Antarctica can swim or fly - whales, penguins, seals, sea birds, etc.

Are you proposing that a pair of each Antarctic animal swam or flew from Turkey to Antarctica?

Are you serious?
Why would animals do that?
Each individual of each resident species survived a swim or flight of a minimum 7500 miles????
Does that include the microscopic resident species in Antarctica?

Do you realize how preposterous that sounds?

Taken from the article:

"Recent Dwarf hippo fossils found on Cyprus..."

"Experts believe hippos arrived on Cyprus between 100,000 to 250,000 ago, and likely got smaller to adapt to the hilly island landscape. But scientists do not know how the animals reached Cyprus, which has never been physically linked to another land mass.

Panayides said paleontologists theorize hippos may have swum or floated here during a Pleistocene ice age from land that is now Turkey or Syria. They may have clung to tree trunks and other debris during the crossing.

Lower sea levels at the time made Cyprus much larger than its present 3,570 square miles, meaning it was much closer to other lands. By some estimates, what is now Syria was a mere 18 miles away."

I guess theorizing these types of "preposterous" things is ok as long as it doesn't support anything Biblical and sounds possible.

[Fisherking]

I read an article from yahoo recently and it reminded me of this post in the debate. From post 62

While you are at it, would you please explain how the animals were transported from Turkey (Mt. Ararat) to Antarctica, Australia, Oceana, North and South America.

I think what you are driving at is how can animals that cannot swim could have reached land areas that are surrounded by water?

So, if the animals originated in Turkey, how can land animals reach Antarctica, Americas, and Australia?

First the easy one, Antarctica. All native animals in Antarctica can swim or fly - whales, penguins, seals, sea birds, etc.

Are you proposing that a pair of each Antarctic animal swam or flew from Turkey to Antarctica?

Are you serious?
Why would animals do that?
Each individual of each resident species survived a swim or flight of a minimum 7500 miles????
Does that include the microscopic resident species in Antarctica?

Do you realize how preposterous that sounds?

Taken from the article:

"Recent Dwarf hippo fossils found on Cyprus..."

"Experts believe hippos arrived on Cyprus between 100,000 to 250,000 ago, and likely got smaller to adapt to the hilly island landscape. But scientists do not know how the animals reached Cyprus, which has never been physically linked to another land mass.

Panayides said paleontologists theorize hippos may have swum or floated here during a Pleistocene ice age from land that is now Turkey or Syria. They may have clung to tree trunks and other debris during the crossing.

Lower sea levels at the time made Cyprus much larger than its present 3,570 square miles, meaning it was much closer to other lands. By some estimates, what is now Syria was a mere 18 miles away."

I guess theorizing these types of "preposterous" things is ok as long as it doesn't support anything Biblical and sounds possible.

Don't forget you have to be an"expert" for anything you say to be taken seriously

[Goose]

I read an article from yahoo recently and it reminded me of this post in the debate. From post 62

While you are at it, would you please explain how the animals were transported from Turkey (Mt. Ararat) to Antarctica, Australia, Oceana, North and South America.

I think what you are driving at is how can animals that cannot swim could have reached land areas that are surrounded by water?

So, if the animals originated in Turkey, how can land animals reach Antarctica, Americas, and Australia?

First the easy one, Antarctica. All native animals in Antarctica can swim or fly - whales, penguins, seals, sea birds, etc.

Are you proposing that a pair of each Antarctic animal swam or flew from Turkey to Antarctica?

Are you serious?
Why would animals do that?
Each individual of each resident species survived a swim or flight of a minimum 7500 miles????
Does that include the microscopic resident species in Antarctica?

Do you realize how preposterous that sounds?

Taken from the article:

"Recent Dwarf hippo fossils found on Cyprus..."

"Experts believe hippos arrived on Cyprus between 100,000 to 250,000 ago, and likely got smaller to adapt to the hilly island landscape. But scientists do not know how the animals reached Cyprus, which has never been physically linked to another land mass.

Panayides said paleontologists theorize hippos may have swum or floated here during a Pleistocene ice age from land that is now Turkey or Syria. They may have clung to tree trunks and other debris during the crossing.

Lower sea levels at the time made Cyprus much larger than its present 3,570 square miles, meaning it was much closer to other lands. By some estimates, what is now Syria was a mere 18 miles away."

I guess theorizing these types of "preposterous" things is ok as long as it doesn't support anything Biblical and sounds possible.

Don't forget you have to be an"expert" for anything you say to be taken seriously

Only if you're a creationist. If you're a creationist you have to quote "experts" that aren't creationists to support your position because non-creationists are the only real"experts." But, then a creationist that uses non-creationsit data or quotes is just a quote miner and probably taking the quote or data out of context anyway. And of course a creationist can't quote other creationists or use creationist data because creationists are wrong and they are wrong because they are creationists.

[Revelations won]

Responses from Mc Culloch (M)

Revelations won wrote:
Also in the utter absence of light, temperatures would be very cold, therefore, I would suggest that the waters covering the earth were very possibly in a frozen state. This ice age condition would also render the earth essentially without form and void. (Even void of vegetation or other life forms).

“Not the ice ages as most geologists refer to them, which occurred long after the beginning of life.”

Revelations responses (®)

May you so note that I never made a statement that “this ice age condition” occurred before the beginning of life. Your assumptions are unfounded.


Revelations won wrote:
If one carefully observes what is taught in Genesis, it should also be so noted that the original light that appeared was not that of our present solar system. One cannot totally dismiss the possibility that this original light source was from other than the sun. Thus the earth in it’s early developmental or formative time periods could have been located at some far distant place in the galaxy. This time period could have extended for even millions of years. The final preparation or creative periods or days could also have taken additional thousands of years.

(M) “This is an amusing speculation.”

®) You say this is an amusing speculation, how so? May I suggest you follow the sequence of the creative periods as shown in Genesis. May you so note that the first light source appearing was at some creative period prior to that of the sun, moon and stars creative period. Tis’ not I but you who are the one making false assumptions and speculating.


Revelations won wrote:
In Genesis 1:10-14 It appears that a very large river flowed out of Eden and parted into four other large rivers, which watered the whole face of the earth. The source of water for these massive rivers is not stated, but could have been a gigantic spring or artesian well system.

(M) “Without the water cycle, it is hard to imagine a sustainable river source.”

®) Again you fail to follow the chronology of events. The rivers spoken of are after the other creative events occurred. Even today, can you pinpoint the source of all artesian water sources?


Revelations won wrote:
I would suggest that this being the case, then the highest topographic location on the earth at that time may have by it’s very description, been at an elevation very close to sea level.

(M)”The modern equivalent of the flat earth theory? Quite amusing. Is there any geological evidence to support this idea?”

®) Your above comment is very speculative and without foundation. I have stated nothing relating to a flat earth theory.


Revelations won wrote:
The earliest recorded record of major changes in the earth’s ocean and land surface structure occurred long after the flood as stated in the “days of Peleg” when the earth was divided and continents were then formed, perhaps somewhat as we see them this day.

(M) “Is there any evidence that this process can take place so rapidly?”

®) Is there any evidence that this process cannot change rapidly due to volcanic action and/or, earthquakes, etc.?


Revelations won wrote:
[...] It is needless to say that this subject, like that of the deluge, is a most perplexing and difficult one to reconcile with scientific law. Nor have the various theories that have been proposed, been sufficient to allay the fierce animosities and disputes between the theologian on one hand and the scientist on the other.

(M) “You got that right.

®) Seems like you are afraid to address all the issues in “Waters Above the Firmament” and how they relate to the flood.

[Zzyzx]

.

Only if you're a creationist. If you're a creationist you have to quote "experts" that aren't creationists to support your position because non-creationists are the only real"experts." But, then a creationist that uses non-creationsit data or quotes is just a quote miner and probably taking the quote or data out of context anyway. And of course a creationist can't quote other creationists or use creationist data because creationists are wrong and they are wrong because they are creationists.

Yes, creationists SHOULD cite other creationists who also know nothing about the subject of debate, who have not actually studied the topic of discussion, and who have an agenda of defending religious beliefs rather than seeking truth. Citing such sources makes creationist arguments seem so sophisticated and profound.

Creationists citing each other trust the knowledge of Bronze Age storytellers (who know all about “gods” and “miracles”) more than they trust evil scientists (who MUST be conspiring against religion because they keep coming up with things that disagree with the bible). Those nasty scientists like Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton are heretics who hate god because they say things that dispute what religionists KNOW without study.

Nature MUST be wrong when it opposes scripture.

Creationists study theology and magically know about aeronautical engineering, geology, brain surgery, genetics, and archeology. Their ONE reference tells them everything they need to know. Being a religionist qualifies a person to be an expert and to speak with authority on all subjects. The very worst scientists are <shudder> geneticists who study <shudder> evolution. Their theories dispute the very basic and very true story of Adam and Eve and their talking snake. How DARE they cast doubt on god’s own story?

Non-creationists and their stupid experts MUST be wrong because they have wasted their time actually studying the subject of debate – instead of doing something significant like studying the bible.

Yes, creationists should continue to cite other creationists who know nothing about the subject under discussion. Doing so discredits their arguments in the eyes of discerning and discriminating readers and fools only the “faithful” and the gullible. Fighting rearguard, retreating battles against modern knowledge separates creationists from the real world studied by scientists. That their arguments do NOT square with the real world is obvious to others.

Repeating such statements as, “the bible is true because it says it is true” and “it must be true if the bible says so”, as the basis for creationist “arguments” demonstrates the poverty of creationist “evidence” and “study”. They should continue to expect non-creationists to bow down to such statements of ultimate truth.

Yes, creationists should continue to discredit themselves and the religion they promote. They should continue to “preach to the choir” (speak only to those who believe in the same invisible super beings and the same magic tricks). They should continue to resist the advancement of knowledge and make themselves look foolish (but “saved”). They should pray for guidance instead of learning about nature.

That should help make religion irrelevant in the eyes of educated people. I applaud those who promote religion with a know-nothing attitude of opposition to modern knowledge.

[Revelations won]

Responding further to McCulloch:

Revelations won wrote:
[...] It is needless to say that this subject, like that of the deluge, is a most perplexing and difficult one to reconcile with scientific law. Nor have the various theories that have been proposed, been sufficient to allay the fierce animosities and disputes between the theologian on one hand and the scientist on the other.

(M) “You got that right.

With all due respect I am glad to see that at least you and I are in agreement on the concluding statement given in “Waters Above the Firmament”. I do however suggest that you observe more carefully, all that has been set forth therein though.

[Goose]

<Zzyzx's soap-box sermon snipped>

...That should help make religion irrelevant in the eyes of educated people. I applaud those who promote religion with a know-nothing attitude of opposition to modern knowledge.

You ignored the relevant part of my post and responded to my little sarcastic tongue-in-cheek rant instead. That, in-and-of-itself speaks volumes. Anyway, I have a question for you. Do you find "preposterous" the explanation/theory for the arrival 100-250k years ago of dwarf hippo's on Cyprus that is given by paleontologists in the article that I quoted? Or in this case is it a credible theory that at least two dwarf hippos (male and female, or at least a pregnant female) for some unknown reason decided to swim at least 18miles(30kms) to Cyprus while possibly clinging to some tree trunks and debris?

I'll quote the article again.

"Recent Dwarf hippo fossils found on Cyprus..."

"Experts believe hippos arrived on Cyprus between 100,000 to 250,000 ago, and likely got smaller to adapt to the hilly island landscape. But scientists do not know how the animals reached Cyprus, which has never been physically linked to another land mass.

Panayides said paleontologists theorize hippos may have swum or floated here during a Pleistocene ice age from land that is now Turkey or Syria. They may have clung to tree trunks and other debris during the crossing.

Lower sea levels at the time made Cyprus much larger than its present 3,570 square miles, meaning it was much closer to other lands. By some estimates, what is now Syria was a mere 18 miles away."

Preposterous or not?