Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[McCulloch]

Otseng and Zzyzx are debating Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

If and only if you have read the debate, please indicate in the poll how it is going.

If your position on this issue has changed, please post comments regarding which facts or evidence have been most influential in changing it.

[upallnite]

I have not changed my position but I feel it is important to note what I have gotten from reading the debate.

1. Zzyzx has given plenty of information on geology. I found it interesting and useful if I ever debate a global flood literalist. Giving solid evidence backed by years of research gave a solid foundation to the argument.

2. Demanding evidence (not conjecture) is very effective. Zzyzx pointed out many times that evidence given was not evidence and requested unsupported claims be retracted. This caused many unsupported claims to be abandoned and the topic changed. (I feel the topic was changed to avoid having to retract false claims.)

3. With in debate, Zzyzx is not a MoFo I would like to mess with. His constant demand for reasonable evidence will only server to make all of us better debaters.

[Zzyzx]

.
I am gratified that people indicate that they have learned from the “Great Flood Debate” (great meaning large – many lengthy posts).

My purpose in devoting time and thought to this debate is NOT to convince Osteng to change his position regarding the flood being literal – just as his objective is not likely to be to convince or convert me. We both realize that 180 degree changes are not likely to happen. Likewise, it is not my objective to “win” the debate (I don’t know about my opponent’s position in this regard).

My primary objective is to encourage readers to think about the information presented and to evaluate the merits of what is said by both sides – and to incorporate into their own thinking any information they find valuable.

A secondary objective is to provide non-believers with information that may be useful in discussing / debating the “literal flood”.

Another objective is to demonstrate that claims made regarding a “literal flood” cannot be substantiated and that creationist arguments are based in theology and pseudo-science (or faux science) that seeks only to “prove true” bible stories about “miracles” (in opposition to searching for truth).


I am interested in the comments of everyone, not just those who have changed their position.

What are particularly important issues learned or considered?

How could ideas be presented more clearly?

Which discussions or sub-topics are overdone?

What, if any, particularly convincing points have been raised by each side?


If anyone prefers to make comments with greater privacy than in open forum, please do not hesitate to send a PM.