the global flood is a myth
Debate Rounds (5)
We don't see anachronistic fossils. We don't see bunny rabbits in Precambrian rock layers. We don't see humans buried alongside dinosaurs. Why isn't this the case?
Why didn't even one dinosaur manage to make it to higher ground? Even the flying Pterosaurs couldn't do this.
Plants generally float. Why are they interspersed throughout the layers instead of all on the surface?
Why are there different fossil forests, all with upright trunks and in-place roots layered on top of each other?
Why is it that the majority of fossils we find are of marine animals? The flood would've killed every terrestrial animal whereas marine animals would've had a better chance at survival. The distribution should have been, at worst, about 50/50.
Here, you are arguing pro-myth and i am arguing that the global flood is not a myth. Neither of us can prove whether or not it was an actual event so we must look at the evidence. Of course this logical argument leads us to then debate the evidence. I won't list out all the flood related evidence preceding this debate as it almost certainly won't be received with any credibility. I don't think there is as much of a problem or issue with the idea of a global flood as much as there seems to be an issue with the cause of the flood. However, since the cause of the flood is not part of the proposed debate topic, i won't discuss it.
(1) What is probably most compelling argument in favor that a historical global flood did exist at some point in history are the countless numbers of flood "myths" throughout history from all continents. i hope i don't need to provide a list of these accounts on here. if you argue that other global flood myths do not exist throughout history, then i will gladly provide you some examples and references.
(2) Geological evidence of a global flood is the fact that crude oil exists. Did you know crude oil comes from organic matter? that should address where all the people and most the animals went. This should also address why so much of the world's oil is in the Middle East and Africa.
(3) Another example is where the ocean floor rips upwards in seams at different points on the oceans floors. once again arguments go either way. the sides of this argument are tectonic plate movements vs. water spewing forth from below the ocean surface (supported by the existence of hydrothermal vents). regardless of the side you choose, this fact is support in favor of the myth being an actual event because the point can be logically argued, and disproving this point, by proving the reality of an alternative point of view, is impossible.
For this debate, the burden is on me to provide evidence a global flood exists. above are a three examples supporting my side of the argument. these three examples cannot be definitively proven false. you may disagree with the evidence I presented if you so desire, but if you do disagree then I hope you have some overwhelming facts to support overturning the rationale i presented.
1. Floods happen. Hence there are flood myths.
Irregardless, prevalence of a certain trope within a myth is not evidence that it actually happened.
For example, you can talk with many people today who claim to have been abducted by aliens. Often people who have never met will recount very similar experiences.
But this doesn't mean we've been visited by aliens.
2. Global floods are not the only thing which can kill an animal. You'll notice that we haven't experienced a recent global flood and yet animals are still dying.
3. This is a non sequitur. I don't know what else to say. It's like saying that the fact that water comes out of my sink is evidence of a global flood. It doesn't make sense.
You: "1. Floods happen. Hence there are flood myths."
Me: This is a very poor argument to counter the historical evidence that people throughout time and all over the world have identified their versions of a global flood. The fact that floods happen now, is not evidence a global flood never occurred. I use historical stories to backup my claim that a historical global flood was likely. In order to counter my argument you must provide good rationale to counter the fact that all these stories exist dispersed and throughout time.
You: "2. Global floods are not the only thing which can kill an animal. You'll notice that we haven't experienced a recent global flood and yet animals are still dying.
Me: Again, this does not counter my claim that organic matter could, over time, break down and evolve into crude oil. People, animals, and vegetation all fit within this category or organic matter. The fact that animals, people, and vegetation are killed by something other than global floods is irrelevant. Your comment provides additional facts and does not counter my argument.
You: "3. This is a non sequitur. I don't know what else to say. It's like saying that the fact that water comes out of my sink is evidence of a global flood. It doesn't make sense."
Me: I understand that you must defend your position in this debate, but you should try to follow a logical sequence for your argument. For example, if I say "A" is true, then then logical argument is "A" is false because of "B". You cannot logically argue against "A" by stating "A" is a non-sequitur and not providing a valid contradiction of the proposed "A" augment.
My three arguments still hold.
Floods happen around the world. A large flood would, to an ancient person, appear "global" as his perspective was smaller than ours today.
The fact that ancient people had flood myths is not evidence of an actual global flood (which is contradicted by geologic evidence).
Similarly, the fact that many cultures have a myth of a cosmic tree is not evidence for the existence of a cosmic tree with branches in heaven and roots in hell.
2. [Again, this does not counter my claim that organic matter could, over time, break down and evolve into crude oil.]
This is not a claim in dispute. I agree. However, you seem to think that only global floods are capable of killing animals. That's stupid and that's wrong.
3. The "A" argument is irrelevant. I don't have to counter the claim because it in no way indicates a global flood.
When constructing a logical argument, you must make sure your conclusion necessarily follows from your premise.
A global flood does not necessarily follow from the existence of hydrothermal vents.
None of your arguments hold. They're facile ad hoc constructions to support a myth which you have already presupposed the validity of.
Two questions which you (or any other creationist) have failed to answer.
1. How did the flood manage to sort dead animals in such a way that seems to support the theory of evolution? Where are the Precambrian bunny rabbits? Why weren't humans buried alongside dinosaurs?
2. The White Cliffs of Dover are made from chalk which is deposited at a rate of only a few centimeters per 1000 years.
For the chalk beds to have formed during the flood (371 days), this would've required the deposition rate to increase by a factor of around 80,000X.
This is a massive problem, but it gets even worse. All of the churning floodwater and massive global currents would actually disrupt the formation of the chalk beds, as they only form in calm shallow water.
How then did the White Cliffs of Dover form?
You: The fact that ancient people had flood myths is not evidence of an actual global flood. (which is contradicted by geologic evidence).
Me: this is true but does not follow the logical sequence of this discussion. neither does this point counter my initial argument. The fact is that the flood stories of other cultures in the past exist. ergo, this fact, while not necessarily based on precise truth, does give rise to the strong possibility that a worldwide flood did occur, but only because of similar or related flood stories which occurred in many cultures spanning hundreds or thousands of years. Geologic evidence does not contradict a global flood. evidence can be swayed either way depending on who is articulating the argument.
You: This is not a claim in dispute. I agree. However, you seem to think that only global floods are capable of killing animals. That's stupid and that's wrong.
Me: First, i did not claim that only global floods are capable of killing animals. You may have misread what I wrote. What I stated was that a global flood would be supported by the fact that Crude Oil exists, especially in the middle east and Africa, which is where most of the world's crude oil comes from. Since Crude Oil only comes from organic matter, then the amount of crude oil in this region is a plausible and very likely result of a global flood, especially given the fact that the oil is located under the ground as well as the sea.
You: A global flood does not necessarily follow from the existence of hydrothermal vents. None of your arguments hold. They're facile ad hoc constructions to support a myth which you have already presupposed the validity of.
Me: hydrothermal vents are proof that water exists below the earth's crust. You can combine this with the fact that the earth ocean floor appears to have burst upwards at various points for thousands of miles all over the globe. this is evidence that large amounts of water was able to rise from below the earth crust to add to the existing presence of water. If this occurred then this further provides additional evidence that a global flood could have occurred, and certainly is a qualifying reason why the continental shelves appear to have been once above the present sea levels.
your proposed debate topic is arguing whether or not a global flood was a myth. I have provided solid evidence which supports the possibility of global flood, but absent the part of a story. Again, you may disagree with me, but thus far you have not provided the evidence required to counter the three pieces of evidence I am using to support that the flood itself (independent of any story) may not have been a myth after all.
icetiger200 forfeited this round.
If the global flood was a one-time event, then how could flood myths develop in cultures that were separated by hundreds or even thousands of years? If a culture didn't exist during the flood, then they could not have a flood myth. That's absurd.
In fact, the only cultures that you would expect to have a flood myth would be the culture (or cultures) that developed from the survivors on the ark. No other culture should have a flood myth. Why? Because they didn't experience the flood, obviously, so how could they have a myth about it! So if you have lots of cultures from all over the world and from many times periods that have flood myths, then that is not evidence for one global flood. That is evidence of many different localized floods that occurred at different times.A279;
I didn't mean to forfeit....I've been incredibly busy
Me: There are two possible answers to your question.
(1) The global flood probably did occur, but that does not eliminate the possibility that some people or small groups could have lived through that event.
(2) The time for the flood to recede may have taken a long time to "neutralize" or otherwise go down to the "new" normal for sea levels post-flood. In this case, within a few generations even, people would have been witness to the recession of the waters. In fact, the grandparent or great-grandparent equivalents may have been able to tell stories of when the global flood began to recede.
You speak very pointedly about the story of the ark (presumably Noah's Ark), and you seem to speak so certainly in your opinion that an event never occurred. In my opening statement, I reiterated the point that this debate is not on a particular flood story but rather whether a global flood was a myth or not, specifically, that the flood did or did not actually happen. My position holds that the evidence does exist, both geological and historical, which supports the probability that a global flood actually occurred. Neither one of us can strongly debate the stories and people mentioned alongside these historical flood accounts, but refuting the idea that a flood ever existed is quite inconsistent and irrational in respect to the evidence that is available to us today.
Other aspects of the historical flood event we cannot debate one way or the other with science, is how high the water levels actually were during the flood. Did they cover the tallest mountains in the world? maybe, maybe not. Could there have been other coinciding events which occurred during the flood? Maybe, maybe not. These additional questions are not required to determine the likelihood that a global flood occurred. A real global flood is supported by modern scientific and geological evidence as well as from the historical evidence recorded in many stories from many cultures over hundreds or thousands of years and across multiple continents.
I believe you have misunderstood the fundamental difference between evidence and proof. Proofs are not really debatable, but the fact we, as well as many others, debate this very topic should at least be a sign to you that the "proof" is not available. Where scientific proof is unavailable we must turn to available information which we can then use as evidence to support a given position.
Evidence is information a person can interpret to support one position or another. My position, from the beginning, has been to look at the evidence without any preconceived points of view. You and others tend to go wrong when you bring into account your preconceptions and bias assumptions around which you then try to rearrange your evidence. You should realize that a strong house on a shaky foundation will still yield in the same result, and the house will always come tumbling down.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.