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

[otseng]

Zzyzx and I have agreed to do a head-to-head debate on the Biblical flood.

The question for us to debate:
Was the flood described in the bible literal or not literal?

[otseng]

1) When was the Earth formed?

Another complex question. I can't nail down specific times for you. But, relative to Earth time, on the order of 10s of thousand years ago (10,000 - 100,000 YA). Relative to space time, on the order of billions of years ago. More on this in this thread.

2) When did the flood occur?

Between 100,000 to 5,000 years ago with leanings towards the latter date.

3) When did humans first occupy the Earth?

Humans occupied the Earth prior to the flood.

4) Did dinosaurs exist until the time of the flood?

Yes.

[otseng]

• The atmosphere was very different than it is now? When?

Because of the fossil record, we know that plants and animals grew to large sizes in the past. In the FM, all of the life that was fossilized existed prior to the flood and was all fossilized at one time.

We know that something was different in the past. We do not have plants and animals growing to the large sizes now as was in the past. So, the question is, what was different? It is doubtful that gravity was any different since that would require the mass of the Earth to change. Basic life composition and processes were probably not different and most likely based on DNA and utilized oxygen and carbon dioxide. I think the only thing left is that the atmosphere/climate must've been different.

As to when, the atmosphere was different prior to the flood compared to now.

• The temperature was more uniform and more tropical? When?

It was more tropical prior to the flood.

Warm climate life found in the Arctic region:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1773.html

"About 49 million years ago, azolla grew all over the Arctic Basin," said Kate Moran, an oceanographer and engineer who visited Fairbanks recently. "It describes the Arctic Ocean at a time when it was warm and fresher than today."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084253.htm

"We were able to clarify that dinosaurs large predatory dinosaurs and a great variety of plants lived in the High Artic,"

Alaska was once warmer:

http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF17/1737.html

By examining fossil pollen, leaves, and wood, scientists have found that northern Alaska was a much warmer place at the time of the dinosaurs, possibly with average annual temperatures well above freezing, Fiorillo wrote.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articl ... 414B7FFE9F

Seventy-five million to 70 million years ago, a group of hardy dinosaurs thrived in the harsh climate of what is now northern Alaska

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ai_3911436

The 65-million-year-old bones of at least three dinosaur species and two prehistoric reptiles have been recovered from a site in the Alaskan tundra by a team of researchers from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.

N latitude, fossils and other geologic evidence suggest that the site was a coastal swamp with a subtropical to temperate climate.

Greenland was once tropical:

http://ku-prism.org/polarscientist/lost ... Boston.htm

Nn the midst of a land of everlasting ice they have been digging up fossil palms, tree ferns and other remains of tropical vegetation--a time when Greenland had a climate like that of Egypt today

Antarctic was once warmer:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/02 ... index.html

The 70 million-year-old fossils of the carnivore would have rested for millenniums at the bottom of an Antarctic sea, while remains of the 100-foot-long (30 meter) herbivore were found on the top of a mountain.

They would have lived in a different Antarctica -- one that was warm and wet,

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1 ... a----.html

Although the fossils were found at about 85 degrees South in the Transantarctic Mountains, about 500 kilometres from the South Pole, when the animals lived there the land was nearer 65 degrees South, about 1000 kilometres south of Cape Horn. Other dinosaur fossils have been found closer to the ancient poles. The presence of several different types of animal - including the first high-latitude pterosaur - suggests that climate in Antarctica during the mid-Jurassic was warmer than today.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/w709din.htm

A geological expedition has unearthed what project leader Dr. Jim Martin of the Museum of Geology in South Dakota called ''huge deposits'' of dinosaur-age bones in the remote Vega Island, Seymour Island and Antarctica Peninsular areas.

It also shows that Antarctica was once much warmer than it is now.

[Zzyzx]

.

My summary of what you are saying is (please correct me if I misunderstand):

A) The Earth is 10 to 100 thousand years old relative to “Earth Time” but billions of years old relative to “Space Time”.

B) The Flood occurred between 5000 and 100,000 years ago (in Earth time?).

C) Humans and dinosaurs coexisted prior to the flood (both evidently since the Earth began?)


One of the “Deadly Sins of Science” (and of reason and logic) is to attempt to make observations fit conclusions.

Learning is based on exactly the opposite – drawing conclusions based upon observations.

A person who is adamant about their favored conclusion is no longer open to learning, regardless of the evidence presented. They are very inclined to accept evidence that supports their conclusion and are very resistant to accept evidence that disputes their conclusion. They will construct elaborate “explanations” to make their conclusion appear to “fit” the evidence or observations.

In a very simple example: To “solve a crime” investigators can assume that “the butler did it” and seek to prove that conclusion. When they conduct an investigation with that conclusion already in place they naturally favor evidence that fits the conclusion. Evidence that contradicts the conclusion tends to be seen as in error, misleading or false – and is ignored. The actions of the prosecutor in the recent Duke rape case are a perfect example.

A reasonable and logical approach to “solving the crime” is to NOT assume that “the butler did it” but to gather all evidence without regard to its implications, have several independent people study the evidence and suggest theories, subject the theories to “cross examination” by those who disagree, weigh the merits of the various theories and tentatively decide which is best – and base conclusions on the best available evidence (subject to modification if necessary based on new evidence or new thinking).

The “butler did it” approach provides for an outcome that was decided before evidence was examined – and the value of evidence is assigned by how well it supports the initial assumption. Sure enough, the decision is that the butler did it. We "knew" that to start with, whether it was true or not, so it is not surprising that our "study" verified our conclusion.

In the case of learning about Earth history, if one begins with a conclusion that everything is accurately explained in an ancient book, one MUST dismiss or attempt to discredit evidence and conclusions that do not fit the “explanation” provided. This is a classic case of making the evidence fit conclusions previously drawn.

A person who is “invested” in a given conclusion is highly resistant to change. Those who subscribe to Christianity are VERY invested in the Genesis accounts (and biblical accounts in general) because they form the basis of the Christian belief system.

All, or almost all, of geology, anthropology, archeology, geophysics, etc MUST be dismissed as being in error when it differs with existing theistic “explanations”. The theistic “explanations” are assumed to be true and “support” is gathered from any source that appears to be in general agreement with the pre-conceived conclusions (based on Bronze Age knowledge).

“Let us reason together.”


1) On the basis of what evidence, exactly, do you propose that the Earth is 10 to 100 thousand years old?

2) Are you fairly sure that dinosaurs and humans existed on the Earth at the same time? Why? Are you open to consider that they did not?

3) Please explain how “Earth time” is different from “Space time”. Is there evidence to support the idea that two time “systems” exist?

4) Are geologists, geophysicists, anthropologists, physicists, paleobotanists all WRONG when the conclusions drawn from their studies are different from the accounts in Genesis?

5) Is there ANY chance that the accounts in Genesis are wrong?

6) Is a book written with the level of understanding characteristic of the level of knowledge of people living thousands of years ago – one book – RIGHT and all disputing evidence and conclusions WRONG if they disagree with the book’s pronouncements (which are offered with no independent verification)?

.

[otseng]

A) The Earth is 10 to 100 thousand years old relative to “Earth Time” but billions of years old relative to “Space Time”.

Yes.

B) The Flood occurred between 5000 and 100,000 years ago (in Earth time?).

Yes, Earth time.

C) Humans and dinosaurs coexisted prior to the flood (both evidently since the Earth began?)

Yes.

One of the “Deadly Sins of Science” (and of reason and logic) is to attempt to make observations fit conclusions.

Learning is based on exactly the opposite – drawing conclusions based upon observations.

Certainly.

A person who is adamant about their favored conclusion is no longer open to learning, regardless of the evidence presented.

Well, I will say this. My view of the FM has adapted over the years, so it's not entirely a stagnant belief. As new evidence arises, I'm willing to consider the evidence and make changes to how I view the FM.

But, I think the most important part in the discussion is in regards to the FM itself. Exactly what evidence counters the model? To simply assert that me or anyone is "no longer open to learning" doesn't falsify the model.

Evidence that contradicts the conclusion tends to be seen as in error, misleading or false – and is ignored.

This is where the debate lies, in the evidence. I'll present evidence to support the FM. You are free to present evidence to falsify the FM.

All, or almost all, of geology, anthropology, archeology, geophysics, etc MUST be dismissed as being in error when it differs with existing theistic “explanations”.

It is true that the FM is in direct opposition to many other fields that you mentioned. And this is what makes this topic very complex. And I'm willing to explore those other fields. And as a matter of fact, we have already in the other threads that I mentioned in the fifth post of this thread.

[Zzyzx]

“Let us reason together.”

This is where the debate lies, in the evidence. I'll present evidence to support the FM. You are free to present evidence to falsify the FM.

I agree that the essence of debate lies in the evidence presented. However, I am not inclined to accept an invitation to “prove my theory false”. I will continue to ask for verification and justification of claims and assertions. I will expect that you will answer the questions OR admit that you cannot (as appropriate in ethical debate).

Thus far, a few of my questions have been answered; however, I have asked several very significant questions that have gone unanswered. I will repeat them here with the expectation that they will be addressed openly and honestly.

[From Post #10]

Several questions occur with regard to your description of “the Earth before the Flood”. [Rephrased for clarity]

1) What is the evidence to indicate that the atmosphere was very different than it is now? When?
2) What is the evidence to indicate that the Earth was covered by “some sort of water canopy”?
3) What is the evidence to indicate that it did not rain?
4) What is the evidence to indicate that major mountain ranges did not exist?
5) What is the evidence to indicate that mountains were smaller?
6) What is the evidence to indicate that oceans did not exist pre-flood?
7) What is the evidence to indicate that water was in chambers ten miles below the surface

Note: Reference your reply to, “The temperature was more uniform and more tropical? When?”: I agree that the Earth has been warmer at times than it is now, and it has been cooler. I agree that some places that are cold or arctic now have been tropical – but not necessarily for the reasons or at the times suggested by the Flood Model.

[From Post #13]

1) On the basis of what evidence, exactly, do you propose that the Earth is 10 to 100 thousand years old?

2) Are you fairly sure that dinosaurs and humans existed on the Earth at the same time? Why? [This asks for evidence]. Are you open to consider that they did not?

3) Please explain how “Earth time” is different from “Space time”. Is there evidence to support the idea that two time “systems” exist?

4) Are geologists, geophysicists, anthropologists, physicists, paleobotanists all WRONG when the conclusions drawn from their studies are different from the accounts in Genesis?

5) Is there ANY chance that the accounts in Genesis are wrong?

6) Is a book written with the level of understanding characteristic of the level of knowledge of people living thousands of years ago – one book – RIGHT and all disputing evidence and conclusions WRONG if they disagree with the book’s pronouncements (which are offered with no independent verification).

The above is the type of evidence that lends support to claims and theories and upon which meaningful debate rests.

Note: I complement you on your willingness to open discussion by putting forth a complex theory that requires a great deal of supporting evidence to be credible.

[Zzyzx]

I have difficulty accepting as literal the claim that 40 days and 40 nights (960 hours) of rainfall (even supposedly augmented with water from the interior of the Earth) could produce the flooding described in the Genesis account. All mountains would have to be covered to meet the criteria supposedly set by god “every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” (7:4), “and the mountains were covered” (7:20).

Given the current heights of the mountains and that if the water only came from rainfall, I would agree that it could not possibly explain how all the mountains could be covered by water.

I see no evidence to suggest that mountains are substantially different today from what they were a few thousand years ago. Yes, someone can propose, “The mountains might have been much lower” in which case they incur the burden of proving that was the case (not just supposing) if they use the idea in a logical argument.

I cannot accept radically different elevations (offered to “explain” or “make possible” the biblical account) without supporting evidence that mountains were actually “lower”, specifically at the time in question. Which brings up another problem, determining when the flood supposedly occurred (at least within reasonable range).

Ancient writings could not have been based upon understanding of the true dimensions and characteristics of the Earth – because such knowledge was simply not available to storytellers of that era.


Point #2 The total amount of water required

The amount of water required to “cover the mountains” is approximately one billion cubic miles of water -- three times the total volume of water in and on the Earth -- in the oceans, lakes, rivers, aquifers -- total.

Five and a half mile deep water is required to flood Mt. Everest, which is 29,028 feet above sea level. Multiplying 5.5 times the surface of the Earth in square miles (196,940,400 square miles) equals 1,083, 172, 200 cubic miles

Subtract continental mass above sea level (half mile average elevation of continents multiplied by the surface area of all continents, which is approximately 57 million square miles) = 28,500,000 cubic miles of continent above sea level.

Total volume of water required to flood earth to top of Mt Everest = 1,054,562,200 cubic miles – over one Billion cubic miles.

That is water in excess of the Earth’s total water supply – added water – a “blanket” of water over everything, including oceans, deserts, rainforests, mountains, continents, islands, poles, etc -- five and a half miles deep. By comparison, the average ocean depth is 2.5 miles and its deepest parts (which occupy relatively small area) are only about six miles deep.

Where did the water come from? It represents many times the Earth’s total water supply. Where did it go after it had served its purpose? There is no place for it to drain for the oceans would have also had five and a half mile deep water over them. It doesn’t make any sense. Genesis claims that a wind came up and dried the Earth (dried 5.5 miles deep water). The process by which wind “dries” the Earth is by evaporating water, taking it into the atmosphere – not making it disappear from the system. That “explanation” makes even less sense.


NOTE: If one intends to challenge these calculations, which are based upon actual measurements of Earth surface features (not abstract theory), by maintaining that a few thousand years ago the features were substantially different, they incur the burden of demonstrating 1) the nature of the features proposed at the given time, 2) the mechanism of change responsible for producing present features from what was proposed for the past, 3) the energy source to explain the process of change theorized, and 4) the time frame in which the changes theoretically occurred.

[otseng]

I agree that the essence of debate lies in the evidence presented. However, I am not inclined to accept an invitation to “prove my theory false”. I will continue to ask for verification and justification of claims and assertions. I will expect that you will answer the questions OR admit that you cannot (as appropriate in ethical debate).

Yes, I will continue to provide evidence to support my position. But I'm not sure why you are not inclined to prove my theory false. This is the nature of debating, to provide evidence for and against a position.

Thus far, a few of my questions have been answered; however, I have asked several very significant questions that have gone unanswered. I will repeat them here with the expectation that they will be addressed openly and honestly.

No need to repeat them. It will take time to adequately respond to your questions. And also I do not have a lot of free time now. But, rest assured that this thread will be given the highest priority out of all the threads on the forum that I participate in. I will attempt to answer your questions openly and honestly and to the best of my ability.

[otseng]

2) When did the flood occur?

Between 100,000 to 5,000 years ago with leanings towards the latter date.

Here are some supporting evidence that the flood occurred around 5000 years ago:

Oldest living things
Oldest living thing is the Bristle Cone Pine at 4,767 years old
http://sonic.net/bristlecone/

"The giant sequoia is the most massive tree in the world, with 30-foot diameter trunks not uncommon. They reach ages of over 3,000 years. The coast redwood is the tallest tree in the world, averaging about 300 feet high. The oldest known redwood lived to be 2,200 years old."
http://www.sos.ca.gov/museum/redwood.htm

Niagara Falls
Niagara Falls originated around 12,000 years ago
http://www.iaw.com/~falls/origins.html

Oil and gas under pressure
Since oil and gas are under enormous pressure, it is more likely that it has not been there a very long time.
http://www.geomore.com/Oil%20and%20Gas% ... essure.htm
"When the sandstone or limestone containing the oil or gas is penetrated by the drill bit, , the oil and gas can blast out of the well with great force."

Ancient civilizations
Ancient civilizations all arise around the 7000-2200 BC timeframe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

Mehrgarh 7000–3200 BC
Sumer 3500–2334 BC
Indus Valley and the Indian subcontinent 3200–1700 BC
Ancient Egypt 3200–343 BC
Elamite (Iran) (2700–539 BC)
China 2200 BC–present
Norte Chico 3000-1600 BC

Ancient Calendars
Ancient civilizations have their year 0 set to around 6000-3000 BC.

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-ancient.html
Egyptian calendar starts at 4236 BC

http://webexhibits.org/calendars/calendar-mayan.html
Mayan calendar starts around 3374 - 3114 BC

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0855470.html
Babylonian calendar starts at 3113 BC

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777385.html
"The year 2007 translates to the Jewish year 5767–5768"

http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/cal ... inese.html
"Chinese New Year in 2000 marks the beginning of the Chinese year 4637 or 4697."

Mitochondrial DNA
mtDNA point to origin of man 10,000 years ago
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

The three researchers went even further -- they estimated the age of the ancestor. To get the estimate, they made the assumption that the random mutations occurred at a steady rate. And since they now had an idea of how much the mtDNA had changed from the ancestor's, all they needed was the mutation rate to determine the age of the ancestor. For instance, if they took the mutation rate to be one in every 1,000 years and knew that there was a difference of 10 mutations between the mtDNA of people living today and the mtDNA of an ancestor who lived long ago, then they could infer that the ancestor lived 10,000 years ago.

Population Growth Equation
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =3171#3171

The population in 2000 AD has been stated as 6.4 billion. In 1 AD, the population estimates vary from 150 million to 300 million. For the purposes of this discussion, I will use 200 million as the population at 1 AD.

The exponential growth rate equation is:

N(t) = N(0) * e ^ (r*t)

Where:
N(t) is the population after t time
N(0) is the initial populuation
r is the population growth rate
t is elapsed time

Solving for r, with:
N(t) = 6.4 x 10E9
N(0) = 2 x 10E8
t = 2000 years

r comes out to be 0.00173 (or 0.173%). So, this is the growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD.

How reasonable is this number? By comparing to population growth numbers of all the countries it certainly falls within acceptable range. Currently it varies from 7.77% (0.0777) on the top end to -3.55% (-0.0355) on the bottom. The calculated number roughly matches the growth rate of Finland at 0.15% (0.0015).

Also, this number factors in things that wiped out populations. (The Black Death killed between 25% to 50% of Europe.) So, r=.00173 would be considered the upper limit.

Solving for t, with:
N(t) = 2 x 10E8
N(0) = 8 (assuming 4 couples survived the flood)
r = 0.00173

t comes out to be 9846. So, using population growth rate from 1 AD to 2000 AD, the population could've started with 8 people in 9846 BC. Bear in mind that this is the upper limit.

Using this chart of world population number, I calculated the rates and applied them to determine the flood date.

N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=2.52E+09, end date=2000, start date=1950, t=50, r=0.018672553 --> Flood date=912 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.66E+09, end date=2000, start date=1900, t=100, r=0.013518929 --> Flood date=1260 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=1.27E+09, end date=2000, start date=1850, t=150, r=0.010808172 --> Flood date=1576 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=7.95E+08, end date=2000, start date=1750, t=250, r=0.008342845 --> Flood date=2041 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=5.00E+08, end date=2000, start date=1650, t=350, r=0.007284129 --> Flood date=2338 BC
N(t)=6.40E+09, N(0)=4.50E+08, end date=2000, start date=1200, t=800, r=0.003318507 --> Flood date=5133 BC

(I assumed N(0) = 8 and N(t) = 2 x 10E8 for the Flood date calculation)

So, using world population data and the population growth equation, it shows that the entire world was populated by 8 people between 9846 BC and 912 BC.

[Zzyzx]

“Let us reason together”

The position you are attempting to defend:

Declares that tales told by Bronze Age speakers and later writers (whose biases and motivations and even identities are not known) are CORRECT while it:

1) Voids basic knowledge within the fields of geology, geography, geophysics, astronomy, physics, chemistry, meteorology, climatology, paleobotany, paleozoology, anthropology, and archeology. Declares much of the fundamental knowledge in all of those fields WRONG because it conflicts with the Bronze Age tale.

2) Invents a new system of “Earth Time” (meaning “religious time” or “biblical time” or “creationists time”??) that is different from what is called “Space Time” (which evidently equates to real time – time as it occurs on the real world we inhabit).

3) Declares that the Earth is relatively young – tens of thousands of years old – with no evidence other than the Bronze Age tale and related assertions. This disputes strongly documented studies and convergence of evidence from a number of fields of study that indicates that the Earth’s age is measured in millions or billions of years.

4) Describes an Earth that is very different from the Earth we know – just a short time ago (a few thousand years). Mountain ranges “didn’t exist” and mountains “were lower then” (with absolutely NO evidence to support the assertion).

5) Proposes that humans existed in the “pre-flood” era and survived the vast catastrophic changes required to transform the imagined “pre-flood” Earth to the Earth that we see now.

6) Proposes an atmosphere pre-flood as being “some sort of water blanket” with “no rain”. Not only is this inconsistent with all we know about nature and the atmosphere but it is inconsistent with biblical tales of events that supposedly happened “before the flood” (when civilizations “became evil and wicked” and “displeased god”). Evidently pre-flood people existed within such an atmosphere (without a word being mentioned in Genesis), raised crops and animals, and made no mention of the supposed “water blanket atmosphere” and the total absence of rain.

7) Proposes that “oceans didn’t exist as we know them now” and the “about half the water was in interconnected chambers about 10 miles below the earth's surface – in spite of pressures at that depth being about ten million pounds per square foot (easily calculated from the weight of common Earth materials times the proposed depth).

8) Proposes that Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas were a connected land mass – during the time that humans inhabited the Earth (and must have survived the cataclysmic separation). The connected land mass is not questioned – but the timing (within human tenure on Earth) is very suspect.

9) Proposes that dinosaurs and humans existed on the earth at the same time – including immediately prior to the proposed flood (which supposedly accounts for extinction of the dinosaurs – in direct opposition to all that is known by people who spend lifetimes studying the animals, the conditions under which they lived and their eventual extinction).

10) Requires that the processes that occur on the Earth that shaped its surface during and after the flood CANNOT be the processes that we observe presently because there is not sufficient time allowed by the tale for the processes to produce the features we see. Given sufficient time, common Earth processes CAN produce the present features.

11) Requires that Earth features be created quickly (in ways that cannot be demonstrated or evidenced) in keeping with a long discredited theory known as “Catastrophism” -- a quasi-scientific, quasi-religious “explanation” of Earth processes and features developed to avoid conflict with biblical tales (and without other merit and with no evidence).

12) Discredits the theory known as “Uniformitarianism” that successfully explains Earth features as the product of processes we can observe today acting over sufficient time (and requiring NO “new” or imaginary processes to explain what we see). The ONLY reason to attempt to discredit the theory is because it conflicts with the Bronze Age tale. No “miracles” are required by modern geological thinking and theories.

13) Proposes that oceans did not exist pre-flood (though humans were present according to the tale – at least one of which lived for days inside a large fish) and that vast underground cavities existed to contain the Earth’s water that later became oceans – with absolutely no evidence of such “cavities” or “voids” and in direct conflict with what is known about internal Earth conditions learned from mining, drilling and seismic studies.


All these gymnastics are proposed, without supporting evidence, ONLY to attempt to fit the Earth to the Genesis tale of the flood using a non-scientific “Flood Model”.

Osteng, if any theory that I proposed required such a great number of unsupported assumptions and “explanations”, I would realize that there was something wrong with the theory and would consider alternative explanations – based upon evidence (not conjecture, wishful thinking, or ancient tales).

The “Flood Model” you propose is NOT supported with evidence to justify its assumptions. Conjectures and graphics do NOT produce credibility – they produce only questions that cannot be answered with knowledge, experience, reason, logic or common sense.

The ONLY reason I can envision for anyone to propose or accept such a fanciful “explanation” is because it attempts to support a bible story about a flood that cannot be shown to have ever happened. One must set aside all that is observed and known about the Earth and nature to accept the “Flood Model”.

The Flood Model is diametrically opposed ot many (or all) fields of science, common sense, reason and logic -- for the SINGLE purpose of attempting to defend the flood tale as being literal. Many well educated, knowledgeable, and devout theologians have acknowledged that the tale is not literal. It may be time to agree with them.

[Zzyzx]

Perspectives:

Forty plus years ago I examined the evidence presented by a wide range of investigators in support of, and in opposition to, the theories related to Plate Tectonics (as outlined in the “comments on this debate” thread), when the topic was “cutting edge” research. I understand the concepts and the data upon which the studies are based. I concluded that the evidence is solidly in support of Plate Tectonics (which may not be prefect or complete, but it represents the best information and analysis available at the present time, In My Considered Opinion). I have seen no evidence in the past few decades that credibly argues against the theory.

In related areas of study, since you mention glacial erratics, I have personally observed, touched and studied glacial erratics and striations, alpine glacial valleys, cirques, arêtes, glacial moraines, outwash, drainage patterns, drumlins, eskers, etc. I have done original research of glacial materials and mechanics of deposition directly from seismograph records. I and a fellow researcher mapped pre-glacial topography beneath till in a large section of Indiana based on geological survey seismology records (and some very early computer mapping techniques –using punch card era computers) to disprove an earlier theory regarding glacial deposition.

I have hiked to the bottom of Grand Canyon to personally observe the configuration of the valley, the rock strata and the Colorado River. I have spent time backpacking, exploring, studying, and camping in Yosemite Valley, Glacier National Park, Zion and Brice National parks, Yellowstone and Grand Teton, Devil’s Tower, Mt. Saint Helens and many other outstanding examples of natural features of the United States. In each instance, I observed critically what I saw on the landscape and compared it to various theories of origin and development proposed by studies in geology and geomorphology.

Are you prepared to tell me that everything I learned or concluded is WRONG because it disagrees with theories about invisible beings and nature-defying events told or written by people living several thousand years ago – and promoted in modern times primarily by religionists?

The ancient story tellers and writers displayed no evidence in their stories or writings to indicate an understanding of the universe, the solar system, or the nature of the planet we inhabit. Yet – they are supposedly right – and I am supposedly wrong – because they claim (without verification) to be speaking about or for gods????? Their theories are, according to many religionists, supposedly more valid than mine that are based upon personal observation and research and upon the work of tens of thousands of other researchers.

Are the theories of theologians, popes, prophets, priests, mystics and magicians concerning the universe, the solar system and the Earth (based upon bibles) more valid than observations, theories and conclusions of researchers who spend lifetimes studying the actual phenomena being discussed? Is this because the latter refuse to confine their thinking to religious dogma and because their findings may at times disagree with god theories?

What reason is there for an intelligent, informed person to conclude that millennial old writings are more valid than modern research – or that religionists KNOW for certain that modern geology, geography, geophysics, astronomy, archeology, etc are WRONG in their major conclusions and that one of the multitude of god theories and claims is right?