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?

[Zzyzx]

.
Let’s talk about collecting animals. Supposedly eight people collected every “kind” of animal on the face of the Earth – from poles to tropics – without transportation – in a week.

That alone makes it obvious that the tale is a myth. That cannot happen in reality.
.

[otseng]

I respectfully decline to further discuss introductory level geology in this thread. After about 100 posts and ten pages the attempt to discredit geology in favor of the thinly supported “Flood Model” has evidently not been adequate – since an effort is being made to continue its discussion.

If you do not want to discuss introductory level geology, that is your prerogative. But, I believe it is relevant to this thread.

If the entire world was flooded, it would've surely left some evidence that we can observe now. And that is primarily what I would like to focus on, the evidence that we see in geology. However, the SGM has its own explanation of geological features. So, it will be necessary to show the weaknesses of the SGM and the strengths of the FM to account for these features.

It is similar to proposing any new theory. The new theory needs to show how it can explain observations better than the existing theory.

However, debating the topic on and on in an environment completely devoid of understanding of basic concepts is pointless.

If I state something in error, you are free to point out my flaw in reasoning.

Of course, the novice may be quite certain that he “has seen the light” and that he knows exactly how to go about programming as he read in an old programming book. He has never attempted to apply his theories – and has not discovered that they do not work at all.

I don't mind someone coming to me and showing me a different way to program. If it makes sense, I'll consider it. If it has problems with it, I'll tell him what the problems are.

I think it is strange that NO evidence is cited to verify that fish were actually able to “survive in a wider environment in the past”.

I used inductive reasoning to support my position. What kind of evidence should be provided?

If you seek for me to use empirical evidence to support my claims, then what we have at our easiest disposal is the geological evidence. That is why I believe the debate should focus on this.

As I have pointed out previously (more than once), citing myths that cannot be substantiated to support a myth that cannot be substantiated is circular reasoning.

References to Tessarakonteres do not state it is a mythical ship:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessarakonteres
http://www.fofweb.com/Onfiles/Ancient/A ... n=HLAG0360

References to Zheng He's also do not state it to be a myth, but real:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/artic ... ntid=10387
http://english.people.com.cn/200506/21/ ... 91504.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sultan/explorers.html
"However, in 1962, the rudderpost of a treasure ship was excavated in the ruins of one of the Ming boatyards in Nanjing. This timber was no less than 36 feet long. Reverse engineering using the proportions typical of a traditional junk indicated a hull length of around 500 feet. "

So, the burden is upon you to prove that Tessarakonteres and Zheng He's ships were myths.

[Zzyzx]

.

I respectfully decline to further discuss introductory level geology in this thread. After about 100 posts and ten pages the attempt to discredit geology in favor of the thinly supported “Flood Model” has evidently not been adequate – since an effort is being made to continue its discussion.

If you do not want to discuss introductory level geology, that is your prerogative. But, I believe it is relevant to this thread.

I agree that geology is relevant to this thread -- perhaps to the 10% level. It has now been the primary topic of discussion for approaching 100 posts. If after 900 posts on different subjects we have not exhausted the topic, I suggest we THEN return to geology in this thread.

In the meantime, I opened another thread in General Chat for the purpose of discussing the “Flood Model” directly.

However, debating the topic on and on in an environment completely devoid of understanding of basic concepts is pointless.

If I state something in error, you are free to point out my flaw in reasoning.

I respectfully decline to continue to do so since there has been no acknowledgement or change that would indicate that pointing out errors is understood or appreciated.

The whole Flood Model is a flaw in reasoning. I opened a separate thread to expose the errors of Mr. Brown’s theory and explain there why it is considered grossly invalid by those who actually study nature (rather that attempting to support creationist views with pseudo-science).

We agreed in this thread to debate whether the biblical flood is literal – NOT to debate Flood Model vs. Standard Geology or Creationism vs. Science or Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism. There are many aspects of the flood story that have little to do with geology. I suggest that we discuss more than a narrow area of the topic.

Of course, the novice may be quite certain that he “has seen the light” and that he knows exactly how to go about programming as he read in an old programming book. He has never attempted to apply his theories – and has not discovered that they do not work at all.

I don't mind someone coming to me and showing me a different way to program. If it makes sense, I'll consider it. If it has problems with it, I'll tell him what the problems are.

I have shown you exactly the same courtesy. If what you say makes sense, I would be happy to consider it. Repeating the same claims with NO support does not make them correct.

How long would you continue to “tell him what the problems are” when he continually ignores what you say and simply repeats that his method was better than yours – without being able to demonstrate that his method works in the real world (of programming)?

I think it is strange that NO evidence is cited to verify that fish were actually able to “survive in a wider environment in the past”.

I used inductive reasoning to support my position. What kind of evidence should be provided?

You used inductive reasoning based upon what evidence? You cited anadromous fish species and attempted to generalize to all fish species – with no justification for doing so. The fish you cited are not adequate to justify your claim.

Evidence to support the statements and conclusions would be appropriate -- research that shows that 1) pre-flood fish were adapted to salt AND fresh water environments, 2) post-flood fish have evolved rapidly in the 6000 (?) years since the flood, and 3) evolution produces different species of fish but cannot be considered more than “microevolution” (a term favored by creationists in an attempt to deny evolution).

According to your theories did sharks and rainbow trout evolve from an ancestor fish 6000 (?) years ago that was adaptable to both fresh water and salt water environments?

If you seek for me to use empirical evidence to support my claims, then what we have at our easiest disposal is the geological evidence. That is why I believe the debate should focus on this.

You are not bound by my requirements for evidence and are free to use whatever evidence you think is convincing to me or to readers. Citing geological evidence would be far more convincing if it were based in knowledge of geological materials and processes.

Again, I respectfully decline to repeat discussion of elementary geology.

As I have pointed out previously (more than once), citing myths that cannot be substantiated to support a myth that cannot be substantiated is circular reasoning.

References to Tessarakonteres do not state it is a mythical ship:

References to Zheng He's also do not state it to be a myth,

So, the burden is upon you to prove that Tessarakonteres and Zheng He's ships were myths.

The size of ships you mention is DEBATED – indicating there is no assurance of the claimed size – just as there is with the ark and other legendary objects. When there is debate about a matter that means that it is not certain what is true and what is false or exaggerated.

An unsupported claim does not support an unsupported claim

In logic and debate, the person who makes the original claim incurs the burden of proof. You stated that other ships had been built that were in the same size range as the ark. The references you cite are NOT more than unsupported suggestions that ships of such sizes were actually built – and were certainly a long way from “proof”.

When one has a particularly weak argument they often state a claim and demand that it be accepted as being true unless it is proved false. That is the logical error known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance". Asking for proof of non-existence of mythical ships is a classic example of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Perhaps using myths to support other myths is quite acceptable in theology; however, I am not a theologian. I am confident that our readers, at least astute readers, realize that tales of large ships that are not known to report accurate size are not justification for claiming that an ark “could have been” much larger than any wooden ship actually known to exist.


Let's talk about the famed olive leaf.

It seems impossible that an olive tree or a leaf would have survived the trauma of the flood and all claimed occurrences during a supposed year of worldwide inundation (hot water gushing forth, massive sedimentation and erosion, mountain building, continents rapidly shoved apart by water pressure, etc).

Where did the leaf come from?

A dove returning to the ark with a leaf is not typical dove behavior. Are doves known to carry leaves? Is there a reason why a dove would return to an ark? Is this a magic dove? What accounts for such radical departure from normal dove behavior?

It seems far more likely that the tale of the dove returning with an olive leaf is a romanticized fiction invented by someone who had little knowledge of vegetation (ability to withstand a year of flooding unscathed) and no understanding of dove behavior.

Is there evidence to the contrary -- evidence not conjecture?
.

[otseng]

I agree that geology is relevant to this thread -- perhaps to the 10% level.

If the entire world was flooded, I don't see how we cannot talk about geology. If there's any area it would have the most impact, it would be geology.

In the meantime, I opened another thread in General Chat for the purpose of discussing the “Flood Model” directly.

If others want to comment, they are free to participate in that thread. But, since we have agreed ahead of time to debate privately, I will concentrate on the flood debate here.

I respectfully decline to continue to do so since there has been no acknowledgement or change that would indicate that pointing out errors is understood or appreciated.

OK, you can decline to reply, but I will continue to post my comments about the SGM here.

If I am going to defend the flood being global, then I will use my own arguments to defend it. It will not solely be on attacking the SGM, but on also presenting the FM. Debates will naturally go back and forth about pointing out flaws and then addressing them. Just as you will point out apparent flaws with a literal flood, I will point out flaws with models that do not include a flood.

We agreed in this thread to debate whether the biblical flood is literal – NOT to debate Flood Model vs. Standard Geology or Creationism vs. Science or Catastrophism vs. Uniformitarianism.

It is all related. Unless of course you want to restrict this to a theological debate. If so, then I can abandon using scientific evidence to support the flood and only use Biblical evidence.

There are many aspects of the flood story that have little to do with geology.

If floods (I'm talking about floods in general) are to be placed into any discipline, it would be geology. So, I disagree that the Biblical flood would have little to do with geology.

Let me put it this way, if we are to approach this topic scientifically, what is the best way to do it? I would say it would primarily be through geology. Second would be biology. Then other areas like ship building and archaeology.

Also, since geology is the area that you are very knowledgeable in, I'm actually surprised that you do not want to concentrate on that area, but rather on other areas like biology and ships.

In logic and debate, the person who makes the original claim incurs the burden of proof.

True. But you made the claim that the Tessarakonteres and Zheng He's ships were myths. As you have stated, "As I have pointed out previously (more than once), citing myths that cannot be substantiated to support a myth that cannot be substantiated is circular reasoning."

Since you made the claim that they were myths, then I'm asking for you to back up the statement that they are myths.

The size of ships you mention is DEBATED – indicating there is no assurance of the claimed size – just as there is with the ark and other legendary objects.

What size were they then?

Repeating the same claims with NO support does not make them correct.

I strive to support all my assertions with evidence. So, I disagree that there is no support.

[otseng]

Evidence to support the statements and conclusions would be appropriate -- research that shows that 1) pre-flood fish were adapted to salt AND fresh water environments, 2) post-flood fish have evolved rapidly in the 6000 (?) years since the flood, and 3) evolution produces different species of fish but cannot be considered more than “microevolution” (a term favored by creationists in an attempt to deny evolution).

We are not able to go back in history and determine exactly how any animal was like in the past. So, point 1 would not be demonstratable. Point 2 is similar in that we do not know exactly what the fish were like that survived the flood.

For point 3, microevolution is a term regularly used by all biologists. It is not a term simply favored by creationists.

Also, why should it be OK for non-creationists to use microevolution to account for changes in life, but not for creationists to use the same explanation?

As far as I know, there are no major morphological differences between freshwater only fish, saltwater only fish, or fresh/saltwater fish. That is, there are no special organs that fish need to live only in saltwater or freshwater. Or to live in both. Microevolution then could account for fishes adapting to different environments.

According to your theories did sharks and rainbow trout evolve from an ancestor fish 6000 (?) years ago that was adaptable to both fresh water and salt water environments?

No, macroevolution would have no part with it. So, there was no common ancestor between sharks and trouts.

Let's talk about the famed olive leaf.

It seems impossible that an olive tree or a leaf would have survived the trauma of the flood and all claimed occurrences during a supposed year of worldwide inundation (hot water gushing forth, massive sedimentation and erosion, mountain building, continents rapidly shoved apart by water pressure, etc).

Where did the leaf come from?

It would have been a new olive leaf that grew.

There are several methods plants could have survived the flood.

1. Seeds
http://www.aboutdarwin.com/timeline/March.html

(Darwin) experimented with plant seeds, soaking them in sea water for up to months at a time, and then planted them. To the surprise of his fellow naturalists, nearly all of them germinated! He then corresponded with inhabitants of far off islands, asking them to examine the shoreline for any seeds or plants not native to the island. He was surprised to find that in some cases seed pods had floated thousands of miles across the ocean to the shores of distant islands.

2. Totipotency
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_tissue_culture

many plant cells have the ability to regenerate a whole plant (totipotency). Single cells, plant cells without cell wall(protoplasts), pieces of leaves, or (less commonly) roots can often be used to generate a new plant on culture media given the required nutrients and plant hormones.

http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/records/rec105.htm

Some scientists believe that ALL plant cells retain the ability to use all of their genes and thereby can produce any type of tissue and eventually whole plants. This ability to generate any cells from such starting tissue is the property of "totipotency".

3. Somatic embryogenesis
http://hugroup.cems.umn.edu/Archive/Res ... plant.html

Alternatively, the plant can be derived from a single somatic cell or a group of somatic cells. This regeneration process, which differs from the natural pathway, is called somatic embryogenesis.

[Zzyzx]

Evidence to support the statements and conclusions would be appropriate -- research that shows that 1) pre-flood fish were adapted to salt AND fresh water environments, 2) post-flood fish have evolved rapidly in the 6000 (?) years since the flood, and 3) evolution produces different species of fish but cannot be considered more than “microevolution” (a term favored by creationists in an attempt to deny evolution).

We are not able to go back in history and determine exactly how any animal was like in the past. So, point 1 would not be demonstratable.

That is a blatantly false statement. We know a great deal about animals as they existed in the past. The evolution of the horse over the past 50 million years or so is but one prominent example. The following give some indication of the intensity of study of this one animal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution ... lution.htm
http://horsecare.stablemade.com/article ... rigins.htm

[From Wickipedia] The evolution of the horse involves the gradual development of the modern horse from the fox-sized, forest-dwelling Hyracotherium. Zoologists have been able to piece together a more complete picture of the modern horse's evolutionary lineage than that of any other animal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_horse

Evolution of the fish is discussed at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4498049.stm
http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/st ... d-fish.htm
http://skywalker.cochise.edu/wellerr/st ... d-fish.htm

An example of the detailed knowledge concerning fish is presented at:
http://www.peripatus.gen.nz/paleontology/HigEvoVer.html

For point 3, microevolution is a term regularly used by all biologists. It is not a term simply favored by creationists.

Biologists tend to recognize that “microevolution” is NOT a separate process from “macroevolution”, but simply refers to changes that occur within limited time or range. Creationists place artificial limits upon time in order to fit their religious beliefs (not nature).

Also, why should it be OK for non-creationists to use microevolution to account for changes in life, but not for creationists to use the same explanation?

I have no problem with consistent use of the principles of evolution by anyone; however, I disagree with using information in an attempt to “prove” a point, then denying it in other applications. Doing so is typical of “pick and choose science” or pseudo-science used in attempts to verify non-scientific conclusions by non-scientists.

As far as I know, there are no major morphological differences between freshwater only fish, saltwater only fish, or fresh/saltwater fish. That is, there are no special organs that fish need to live only in saltwater or freshwater. Or to live in both. Microevolution then could account for fishes adapting to different environments.

The limitations on an individual’s knowledge do not form a limitation upon nature.

Claiming that “microevolution could account for fishes adapting” from fresh to salt water environments in the time since the proposed flood is a claim that is nothing more than a personal opinion unless verified by credible sources.

According to your theories did sharks and rainbow trout evolve from an ancestor fish 6000 (?) years ago that was adaptable to both fresh water and salt water environments?

No, macroevolution would have no part with it. So, there was no common ancestor between sharks and trouts.

Since this claim is diametrically opposed to what is generally known about fish (references above), what is the evidence that it is correct and that actual biological studies of fish are wrong?

Let's talk about the famed olive leaf.

It seems impossible that an olive tree or a leaf would have survived the trauma of the flood and all claimed occurrences during a supposed year of worldwide inundation (hot water gushing forth, massive sedimentation and erosion, mountain building, continents rapidly shoved apart by water pressure, etc).

Where did the leaf come from?

It would have been a new olive leaf that grew.

There are several methods plants could have survived the flood.

Gen 8:5 And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month: in the tenth [month], on the first [day] of the month, were the tops of the mountains seen.

In keeping with the story, the tops of mountains were not seen until the tenth month.
Question: Since the tops of mountains were supposedly not seen until the tenth month, an olive tree must have grown in less than two months which of the mechanisms of plant propagation mentioned do you proposed produced a tree with leaf in less than two months?

Is this another “miracle”?

If a dove managed to find a leaf, what about observed dove behavior would induce the bird to pick up a leaf and return it to the ark? That is not typical behavior for doves. Was this a “special” dove?

Is “god” cheating a bit to help make the tale sound true?

[otseng]

We are not able to go back in history and determine exactly how any animal was like in the past. So, point 1 would not be demonstratable.

That is a blatantly false statement. We know a great deal about animals as they existed in the past.

I'm saying that we don't know exactly how animals were like in the past. How can we know exactly their genetic makeup and exact environment that they can live in? Sure, we can have some degree of confidence of what animals were perhaps like, but we cannot know exactly how they were like because we are not able to examine them. The best evidence we currently have are fossil remains of animals. And there is a limit to what can be determined by fossil remains.

Biologists tend to recognize that “microevolution” is NOT a separate process from “macroevolution”, but simply refers to changes that occur within limited time or range. Creationists place artificial limits upon time in order to fit their religious beliefs (not nature).

Macro versus microevolution would be another big area of debate.

Since this claim is diametrically opposed to what is generally known about fish (references above), what is the evidence that it is correct and that actual biological studies of fish are wrong?

Again, this would fall in the macro vs micro debate.

In keeping with the story, the tops of mountains were not seen until the tenth month.
Question: Since the tops of mountains were supposedly not seen until the tenth month, an olive tree must have grown in less than two months which of the mechanisms of plant propagation mentioned do you proposed produced a tree with leaf in less than two months?

Where does the Bible say anything about an olive "tree"? It only mentions an olive "leaf".

A leaf is able to come from a young plant. It doesn't have to come only from a mature tree.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Olea ... lant01.jpg

If a dove managed to find a leaf, what about observed dove behavior would induce the bird to pick up a leaf and return it to the ark? That is not typical behavior for doves. Was this a “special” dove?

I don't know, perhaps it was trying to find some material for its nest?

I don't see the special significance of questioning why a dove would pick up a leaf for discrediting a global flood. I would think us looking at the geological evidence would be much more relevant.

[otseng]

.
Let’s talk about collecting animals. Supposedly eight people collected every “kind” of animal on the face of the Earth – from poles to tropics – without transportation – in a week.

That alone makes it obvious that the tale is a myth. That cannot happen in reality.
.

It was longer than a week.

In chapter 6, Noah was commanded to build the ark and to bring animals into it.

There is no indication of the time period between chapter 6 and chapter 7.

In chapter 7, verse 4, God gave the 7 day warning. So, it doesn't mean it only took one week to gather up all the animals since he was given the commandment in chapter 6.

Also, according to the FM, there were no oceans during that time as there are now. So, there wouldn't be any landlocked animals. The climate was more uniform and the polar regions were not as cold. Since the climate was more uniform, there was less of a need to go large distances to get representative animals.

[otseng]

A quick calculation of the volume of wood required for six inch thick sides of such a vessel, without considering ends or bottom would be approximately six million cubic feet of wood. If "gopher wood" weighs about 45 pounds per cubic foot (a reasonable amount for average wood -- some is much heavier and some is lighter), that would equal about 280 million pounds. Quite a lot for four men and their wives. Check my calculations, I may be off a few million pounds.

Let's assume the ark to be 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. It has thickness of 6 inches and it was box shaped.

Top and bottom would be 33750 cubic feet (2 * 450 * 75 * .5)
Sides would be 20250 cubic feet (2 * 450 * 45 * .5)
Front and back would be 3375 cubic feet (2 * 75 * 45 * .5)

Total would be 57375 cubic feet (33750 + 20250 + 3375)

Multiply by 45 lb/ft3 would give 2,581,875 lbs. Which is more than 277 million less than your number.

We can double check this be computing how much water would weigh for the given volume.

1181250 ft3 = 450 * 75 * 35
62.4 lb/ft3 * 1181250 ft3 = 73,710,000 lbs

So, your value of 280 million pounds is obviously in error.

[otseng]

Please explain how Noah and family could cut, transport, hue, place, align, secure the vast amount of “gopher wood” required to build a ship as long as one and a half football fields and as high as a five story building -- using only muscle power, no iron, no wheels, and none of the tools of shipbuilders even as far back as the Middle Ages.

According to the Bible, they had iron and brass tools before the flood.

Gen 4:22 And Zillah, she also bare Tubalcain, an instructer of every artificer in brass and iron: and the sister of Tubalcain [was] Naamah.

So, they had iron tools to build the ark.

They also had musical instruments before the flood.

Gen 4:21 And his brother's name [was] Jubal: he was the father of all such as handle the harp and organ.

So, if they were advanced enough to have musical instruments, a wheel cannot be out of the question.

They had also domesticated some animals.

Gen 4:20 And Adah bare Jabal: he was the father of such as dwell in tents, and [of such as have] cattle.

They could've also used animal power to assist them.

Also, there were other people that existed at the time. So, they could've been contracted out to help with building the ark.