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

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[wrekk]

"Experts believe hippos arrived on Cyprus between 100,000 to 250,000 ago,..."

So you're saying that you agree with the earth being this old, if not much, much older?

[Goose]

"Experts believe hippos arrived on Cyprus between 100,000 to 250,000 ago,..."

So you're saying that you agree with the earth being this old, if not much, much older?

Changing the subject, eh? But, to answer your question I can live with that, if that's what the evidence suggests. I'm not a YEC.

Why won't you answer the question I gave to Zzyzx? Proposterous or not? No more dodging.

[wrekk]

"Experts believe hippos arrived on Cyprus between 100,000 to 250,000 ago,..."

So you're saying that you agree with the earth being this old, if not much, much older?

Changing the subject, eh? But, to answer your question I can live with that, if that's what the evidence suggests. I'm not a YEC.

Why won't you answer the question I gave to Zzyzx? Proposterous or not? No more dodging.

No, I do not think this particular example is preposterous. Given the scientific explanations and information behind it, why would I or anyone else believe it to be preposterous? Too bad the authors of the Bible themselves couldn't be this thorough huh?

How about posting the rest of the article too?

"Dwarf Hippo Fossils Found on Cyprus"

AYIA NAPA, Cyprus (AP) - An abattoir used by early Cypriots, a place where animals went to die, or a shelter that ultimately proved a death trap?

Cypriot and Greek scientists are studying a collapsed cave filled with the fossilized remains of extinct dwarf hippopotamuses - descendants of hippos believed to have reached the island a quarter-million years ago.

Paleontologists have unearthed an estimated 80 dwarf hippos in recent digs at the site just outside the resort of Ayia Napa on the island's southeastern coast. Hundreds more may lie beneath an exposed layer of jumbled fossils.

Scientists hope the fossil haul, tentatively dated to 9,000-11,500 B.C., could offer clues to when humans first set foot on this Mediterranean island.

``It's about our origins,'' said Ioannis Panayides, the Cyprus Geological Survey Department official in charge of the excavations in conjunction with the University of Athens. ``Knowledge of our geological history makes us more knowledgeable about ourselves.''

Until the Ayia Napa discovery, the earliest trace of humans on Cyprus dated to 8,000 B.C. But signs of human activity at the new dig could turn back the clock on the first Cypriots by as much as 3,500 years.

``That's very significant, but we can't be certain yet. The task of examining is laborious and time consuming,'' said University of Athens Professor George Theodorou, who is tasked with examining some 1.5 tons of fossils.

The dwarf hippopotamuses were herbivores, like their modern cousins, but were only about 2 1/2 feet tall and 4 feet long. Unlike modern hippos, whose upturned nostrils seem designed for swimming, Cypriot hippos had low-slung nostrils better suited to foraging on land.

Panayides said the fossils show the Cypriot hippos had legs and feet adapted to land, enabling them to stand on their hind legs to reach tree branches.

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.

Digs over the last century uncovered smaller numbers of dwarf hippo fossils at 40 locations across Cyprus. One cave found 20 years ago had evidence of fire, stone tools and scorched bones indicating dwarf hippos were hunted by humans.

Carbon dating on those hippo fossils showed the site dated to 8,000 B.C. Evidence of human activity at Ayia Napa means the island may have been settled by humans as much as 3,500 years earlier.

A human footprint at the Ayia Napa site could bolster the theory that the island's earliest inhabitants could have driven the dwarf hippos to extinction through hunting, said Panayides.

``If these new bones are found to be older than bones previously discovered and scientists can find an association with humans, then the discovery has the potential to tell us more about the island's first human inhabitants,'' said Eleanor Weston, a paleontologist at London's Natural History Museum who was not connected with the Ayia Napa discovery.

Panayides said indications that hippo bones at Ayia Napa had been crushed as if trampled by other hippos, suggesting successive generations came to the cave. Shelter is the most likely explanation, but Panayides didn't rule out the possibility the hippos returned to an ancient burial ground to die.

How about giving us all the information? Not just parts, huh?

[Goose]

No, I do not think this particular example is preposterous. Given the scientific explanations and information behind it, why would I or anyone else believe it to be preposterous? Too bad the authors of the Bible themselves couldn't be this thorough huh?

Sorry, I missed the "scientific" explanations and evidence in the article that demonstrated how or why some dwarf hippos would or could cross over to Cyprus. But, don't worry about that, the mere fact that you don't find this explanation proposterous is all I need to know.

How about posting the rest of the article too?

I provided the link. Is there something that I missed in my quote that sheds some additional light?

"Dwarf Hippo Fossils Found on Cyprus"

AYIA NAPA, Cyprus (AP) - An abattoir used by early Cypriots, a place where animals went to die, or a shelter that ultimately proved a death trap?

Cypriot and Greek scientists are studying a collapsed cave filled with the fossilized remains of extinct dwarf hippopotamuses - descendants of hippos believed to have reached the island a quarter-million years ago.

Paleontologists have unearthed an estimated 80 dwarf hippos in recent digs at the site just outside the resort of Ayia Napa on the island's southeastern coast. Hundreds more may lie beneath an exposed layer of jumbled fossils.

Scientists hope the fossil haul, tentatively dated to 9,000-11,500 B.C., could offer clues to when humans first set foot on this Mediterranean island.

``It's about our origins,'' said Ioannis Panayides, the Cyprus Geological Survey Department official in charge of the excavations in conjunction with the University of Athens. ``Knowledge of our geological history makes us more knowledgeable about ourselves.''

Until the Ayia Napa discovery, the earliest trace of humans on Cyprus dated to 8,000 B.C. But signs of human activity at the new dig could turn back the clock on the first Cypriots by as much as 3,500 years.

``That's very significant, but we can't be certain yet. The task of examining is laborious and time consuming,'' said University of Athens Professor George Theodorou, who is tasked with examining some 1.5 tons of fossils.

The dwarf hippopotamuses were herbivores, like their modern cousins, but were only about 2 1/2 feet tall and 4 feet long. Unlike modern hippos, whose upturned nostrils seem designed for swimming, Cypriot hippos had low-slung nostrils better suited to foraging on land.

Panayides said the fossils show the Cypriot hippos had legs and feet adapted to land, enabling them to stand on their hind legs to reach tree branches.

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.

Digs over the last century uncovered smaller numbers of dwarf hippo fossils at 40 locations across Cyprus. One cave found 20 years ago had evidence of fire, stone tools and scorched bones indicating dwarf hippos were hunted by humans.

Carbon dating on those hippo fossils showed the site dated to 8,000 B.C. Evidence of human activity at Ayia Napa means the island may have been settled by humans as much as 3,500 years earlier.

A human footprint at the Ayia Napa site could bolster the theory that the island's earliest inhabitants could have driven the dwarf hippos to extinction through hunting, said Panayides.

``If these new bones are found to be older than bones previously discovered and scientists can find an association with humans, then the discovery has the potential to tell us more about the island's first human inhabitants,'' said Eleanor Weston, a paleontologist at London's Natural History Museum who was not connected with the Ayia Napa discovery.

Panayides said indications that hippo bones at Ayia Napa had been crushed as if trampled by other hippos, suggesting successive generations came to the cave. Shelter is the most likely explanation, but Panayides didn't rule out the possibility the hippos returned to an ancient burial ground to die.

Nope.

How about giving us all the information? Not just parts, huh?

What information did I neglect?

[wrekk]

What information did I neglect?

So this article (or part of an article) that you posted earlier proves what? What is your point exactly?

The fact that ZZ states that animals getting off the boat (Ark) on Mt Ararat, and then mysteriously relocating to parts of the world for unknown reasons is "proposterous"? So you posted this little tidbit to prove how "unproposterous" it was?

But yet you somehow believe that the whole Ark story itself is not proposterous? That you will go out, and go to such great lengths to prove your faith in this story, but yet ignore all the other information?

If you're not a "YE creationist", then how old do you believe the earth to be? And how have you come to this conclusion? Science perhaps? The same science that totally dismantles the very Ark story itself? Why even go out and get these little articles on hippos, when all you need to say is "Goddidit"? Why ride the fence?

[Goose]

So this article (or part of an article) that you posted earlier proves what? What is your point exactly?

No need to get defensive. The article doesn't prove anything other than there is a double standard, that's the point. You don't see that, huh?

[wrekk]

So this article (or part of an article) that you posted earlier proves what? What is your point exactly?

No need to get defensive. The article doesn't prove anything other than there is a double standard, that's the point. You don't see that, huh?

This is a debate forum, so yes I do feel the need to be defensive. Don't you? Isn't that why you are here? To defend your beliefs? Why back down now? Why "dodge" my questions?

1. Do you believe the Ark story is literal?

2. How old do you believe the earth to be? And by what means have you come to this conclusion?

3. Why even go out and get these little articles on hippos, when all you need to say is "Goddidit"?

[Zzyzx]

.

So this article (or part of an article) that you posted earlier proves what? What is your point exactly?

No need to get defensive. The article doesn't prove anything other than there is a double standard, that's the point. You don't see that, huh?

Agreed, the article proves nothing. AND, it does not prove there is a double standard. I see noting “defensive” in Wrekk’s questions.

"The point" of raising the hippo issue could well be to distract attention from the obvious defects in the flood tale.

1. There are major issues that cannot be simplistically addressed. For instance, how were microscopic animals accumulated at the ark, cared for on the year-long cruise, and then returned to their habitats (some many thousands of miles from "Mt. Ararat") – by people without equipment to even know such animals existed? How were animals with very limited mobility collected and distributed without transport systems?

2. How were thousands or millions of animals collected from all over the Earth? How were they fed and cared for during the year aboard the ark? How could very diverse habitat requirements be met aboard a ship without climate control and with a single 17" window (as per "god's instructions").

3. How did fresh-water fish survive a flood that radically altered the environment?

4. Where did the water come from to flood the Earth “to the tops of mountains”? Where did it go after the flood?

5. If “god” desired to kill wicked people 1) How can infants and unborn be considered “wicked”? 2) After supposedly killing off all of humanity except one selected family left to repopulate the Earth, why did “wickedness” return – did god fail a second time (after making defective humans to start with)?

6. How did all of the Earth’s plants survive a year of flooding and deprival of sunlight?

7. Why are fossils very precisely sorted into layers in which NO complex life forms appear in strata lower in the stratigraphic column? If humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time (as claimed by many creationists) why are their fossils NEVER found together – or even close together in the rock layer sequence?

I can continue the list for many pages. Is anyone prepared to answer the questions, or is it prudent for apologists to duck questions that demonstrate that their “literal” biblical account, based on Bronze Age or Stone Age ignorance of the Earth, cannot stand scrutiny of modern knowledge?

[Fisherking]

1. There are major issues that cannot be simplistically addressed. For instance, how were microscopic animals accumulated at the ark, cared for on the year-long cruise, and then returned to their habitats (some many thousands of miles from "Mt. Ararat") – by people without equipment to even know such animals existed? How were animals with very limited mobility collected and distributed without transport systems?

What evidence do you have that microscopic animals needed to accumilate at the ark in order to survive? Where does the literal flood story say that the animals had to be returned to their habitats, that their habitats were thousands of miles from Mt. Ararat, that the people that let them out of the boat had to return them to some dreamed up distant habitat?

2 How were thousands or millions of animals collected from all over the Earth? How were they fed and cared for during the year aboard the ark? How could very diverse habitat requirements be met aboard a ship without climate control and with a single 17" window (as per "god's instructions").

Where does the literal flood story specify that animals were collected from all over the earth? Where does the literal flood story talk about how many animals there were? Why assume the habitat at the time was "diverse" or widespread? Was there a need for climate control in the first place?

3 How did fresh-water fish survive a flood that radically altered the environment?

Where does the literal flood story make reference to freshwater fish? If there were freshwater fish, one theory was explained here

4.Where did the water come from to flood the Earth “to the tops of mountains”? Where did it go after the flood?

One theory is covered here:Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

5. If “god” desired to kill wicked people 1) How can infants and unborn be considered “wicked”? 2) After supposedly killing off all of humanity except one selected family left to repopulate the Earth, why did “wickedness” return – did god fail a second time (after making defective humans to start with)?

Where in the literal flood story are infants and unborn referred to? Do you have any evidence that there were any infants or unborn in existence at the time of the flood? Are you able to see into the future to see whether or not the plan "failed" or not for creation?

6.How did all of the Earth’s plants survive a year of flooding and deprival of sunlight?

An explaination for this was introduced here

7. Why are fossils very precisely sorted into layers in which NO complex life forms appear in strata lower in the stratigraphic column? If humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time (as claimed by many creationists) why are their fossils NEVER found together – or even close together in the rock layer sequence?

Why are there large morphological gaps between fossil species? Why the sudden appearance or new fossil species? Why the apparent lack of evolution after the first species appears? What evidence is there in the literal flood story that suggests humans and dinosaurs were in close enough proximity to one another to be buried close to one another?

I can continue the list for many pages.

Anyone can rattle off a list of questions ---some which are valid, and many that are not. Many questions dealing with the Genesis flood are strawmen fishing with red herring bait.. Most of the time the only fish one can catch with this type of bait are suckers (Catostomidae)

[Zzyzx]

.

1. There are major issues that cannot be simplistically addressed. For instance, how were microscopic animals accumulated at the ark, cared for on the year-long cruise, and then returned to their habitats (some many thousands of miles from "Mt. Ararat") – by people without equipment to even know such animals existed? How were animals with very limited mobility collected and distributed without transport systems?

What evidence do you have that microscopic animals needed to accumilate at the ark in order to survive? Where does the literal flood story say that the animals had to be returned to their habitats, that their habitats were thousands of miles from Mt. Ararat, that the people that let them out of the boat had to return them to some dreamed up distant habitat?

Genesis provides the evidence that in order to survive, according to the story, animals had to be aboard the ark.

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

Gen 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life, from under heaven; [and] every thing that [is] in the earth shall die.

Gen 7:15 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein [is] the breath of life.

Gen 7:22 All in whose nostrils [was] the breath of life, of all that [was] in the dry [land], died.

Genesis also specifies where the only remaining animals were located after the flood

Gen 8:4 And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.

The real world specifies that animals presently exist worldwide. If all surviving animals were once located at Mt. Ararat (according to the tale) they MUST have somehow been dispersed. The mechanism of dispersing the animals is questioned.

Those who make the claim that all animals other than those on the ark were killed have the burden of demonstrating how surviving animals (including those of limited mobility) traveled from the proposed ark landing to where they now are known to exist.

Those who do not accept the fanciful tale of a worldwide flood have no need to invent tales of how animals got to a supposed “ark” and were returned to existing locations. They simply accept that animals had no need to survive a worldwide flood – and avoid the “tangled web” woven by those who attempt to make a story based in Bronze Age ignorance of the Earth and nature fit with modern knowledge.

2 How were thousands or millions of animals collected from all over the Earth? How were they fed and cared for during the year aboard the ark? How could very diverse habitat requirements be met aboard a ship without climate control and with a single 17" window (as per "god's instructions").

Where does the literal flood story specify that animals were collected from all over the earth?

Genesis claims that all animals not on the ark were killed. Thus, in order to survive, pairs of animals from everywhere on the Earth HAD to be aboard AND every one had to survive or the species went extinct.

If promoters of the ark story wish to demonstrate another means for survival not specified in genesis, they are certainly invited to do so.

Where does the literal flood story talk about how many animals there were?

Genesis does not specify a number – it only specifies a requirement that to survive animals had to be aboard.

Why assume the habitat at the time was "diverse" or widespread?

Animals are known to exist in certain habitats. Polar bears, for instance, are not tropical dwellers.

If someone proposes that the habitat “at the time” (a few thousand years ago) was significantly different from present conditions, they have a burden of demonstrating how and why.

Are you making that claim?

Was there a need for climate control in the first place?

Thousands or millions of animals aboard a ship, some of which can live only in dry conditions others only in wet conditions, some in hot others in cold, some in water others in forests, etc, etc – requires an ability to control conditions within the ark.

Kindly describe how thousands or millions of animals aboard a ship with a single window could survive.

3 How did fresh-water fish survive a flood that radically altered the environment?

Where does the literal flood story make reference to freshwater fish? If there were freshwater fish, one theory was explained here

Yes, an unsupported theory was presented. It was not effective then and is not effective now. Would you care to defend the theory?

4.Where did the water come from to flood the Earth “to the tops of mountains”? Where did it go after the flood?

One theory is covered here:Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

Are you willing to attempt to defend the cited “Flood Model” and “Hydroplate Theory”? I will be happy to debate the issue if you feel qualified.

5. If “god” desired to kill wicked people 1) How can infants and unborn be considered “wicked”? 2) After supposedly killing off all of humanity except one selected family left to repopulate the Earth, why did “wickedness” return – did god fail a second time (after making defective humans to start with)?

Where in the literal flood story are infants and unborn referred to?

Infants and unborn are included in the statement attributed to “god”, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth”. It is beyond debate that “man” includes infants and unborn UNLESS there is evidence to indicate that infants and unborn did NOT exist at the time of the flood.

Do you have any evidence that there were any infants or unborn in existence at the time of the flood?

Biblical accounts from prior to the flood refer to infants and unborn. Unless human reproduction had ceased (for which no evidence has been provided), infants and unborn existed at the time of the flood.

It is beyond debate that human reproduction involves unborn and infants. If this presents a problem in creationist theories, there is reason to doubt the accuracy of said theories.

Are you able to see into the future to see whether or not the plan "failed" or not for creation?

Genesis specifies that “god” sought to destroy the “wickedness” of humans.

Gen 6:5 ¶ And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.

It is not necessary to see into the future to see that “wickedness” exists presently among humans – and has NOT been destroyed. Thus, god failed to achieve the stated objective of destroying “wickedness”.

Are you attempting to suggest that destruction of wickedness was NOT the objective as specified?

6.How did all of the Earth’s plants survive a year of flooding and deprival of sunlight?

An explaination for this was introduced here

Citing an unsupported theory does not provide an explanation.

7. Why are fossils very precisely sorted into layers in which NO complex life forms appear in strata lower in the stratigraphic column? If humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time (as claimed by many creationists) why are their fossils NEVER found together – or even close together in the rock layer sequence?

Why are there large morphological gaps between fossil species? Why the sudden appearance or new fossil species? Why the apparent lack of evolution after the first species appears? What evidence is there in the literal flood story that suggests humans and dinosaurs were in close enough proximity to one another to be buried close to one another?

Those are interesting questions which I am willing to discuss. Let’s start with the question I raised about sorting. Can perfect sorting be accounted for in a flood tale that suggests that the Earth was flooded and all sedimentary rocks (including fossils) were deposited within a year? If not, the other questions are moot.

I can continue the list for many pages.

Anyone can rattle off a list of questions ---some which are valid, and many that are not. Many questions dealing with the Genesis flood are strawmen fishing with red herring bait.. Most of the time the only fish one can catch with this type of bait are suckers (Catostomidae)

Would you care to attempt in Head to Head debate to defend the flood tale as being literal?