GYM DEBATE COMMENTARY: Flood Models (grmorton vs. dytler)

[Amazing Rando]

A Gym debate thread is opened to debate the following issue:

The Messinian Flood is a more satisfying way of handling biblical and scientific data than the Recolonization model.

grmorton will be defending the affirmative and dtyler will be defending the negative. This debate will begin as soon as grmorton makes his first post. The debate will last 10 rounds.

This debate is taking place here ( http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?p=820409#post820409), and this thread is opened for the commentary on the debate.

[dizzle]

this debate is off and running

[Amazing Rando]

This one's gonna be 10 rounds, it would appear. If all the posts are as long as Glenn's we're infor the longest debate in Tweb's history.

[shunyadragon]

It seems that dtyler present his case and did not respond to Glenn's argument. I hope dtyler will post a better response to Glenn's argument, before the debate goes much further.

I know Glenn will ripe this post by dtyler. It would appear that dtyler proposes that there is no evidence of any preflood existence because of some kind of extreme meltdown. This type of occurance would make it questionable that anything could survive including the inhabitants of the arc. The surface of the world would be steralized, sanitized and vaporized in this type of an event. The world would likely appear like the surface of Venus today in the wake of such a catastrophic release of energy.

The shear amount of energy released by the event described by dtyler would make hell and the surface of Venus look like a heat wave in Miami.

[dizzle]

I moved this thread to cosmogony since it is between two theistic guys on issues within Christian theism. Atheistic commentators may start an independant thread in Nat sci.

[CatholicSage]

Ah, geology. The most boring of the sciences to me, but I might as well trudge through the debate :smile:

I know that grmorton's expertise is geology, but is this the case with dytler as well?

[shunyadragon]

Ah, geology. The most boring of the sciences to me, but I might as well trudge through the debate :smile:

I know that grmorton's expertise is geology, but is this the case with dytler as well?
As far as I know dtyler is not a geologist. Despite gmorton's expertise, he did make some errors in the geologic information he presented, but these errors are not crucial to the argument.

[kuboes1831]

I moved this thread to cosmogony since it is between two theistic guys on issues within Christian theism. Atheistic commentators may start an independant thread in Nat sci.

Where can those who are not Christian theists nor atheists go?

A serious question

[Abigail]

It seems to me that Glenn still uses the present as being the key to the past when speculating on pre-flood senarios. He makes the parallel that when the North American Indian folk expelled a member of their tribe it was sure death. Yet we know from the Bible that man was only authorised to eat animals from after the flood and so though I am sure they did eat them before the flood(being evil as they were)there would have been adequate provision for those who chose to follow God ie the land foliage was probably much more abundant for food. I think the whole pre-flood earth was different and did not have the hardships we face after the flood so appealing to parallels between mortality rates before and after the flood is not as accurate and assessment as Glenn would portray. If anything what we do know about pre-flood people is that they were violent and if anything that would precipitate diaspora. When people around me are violent I tend to put distance between them and myself.

[shunyadragon]

It seems to me that Glenn still uses the present as being the key to the past when speculating on pre-flood senarios. He makes the parallel that when the North American Indian folk expelled a member of their tribe it was sure death. Yet we know from the Bible that man was only authorised to eat animals from after the flood and so though I am sure they did eat them before the flood(being evil as they were)there would have been adequate provision for those who chose to follow God ie the land foliage was probably much more abundant for food. I think the whole pre-flood earth was different and did not have the hardships we face after the flood so appealing to parallels between mortality rates before and after the flood is not as accurate and assessment as Glenn would portray. If anything what we do know about pre-flood people is that they were violent and if anything that would precipitate diaspora. When people around me are violent I tend to put distance between them and myself.I have heard this before, but not from Glenn, I do not feel this reference to a practice of expelling tribe members near death is representative of the nature of the Native American Cultures. It is true that this was the case in some instances. It is also known that the ritual of dieing among the elderly and severely ill was to ritually fast to death.

I started a thread comparing what is really known of different cultures, but it got only a few weak challenges from apologists who failed miserably to refute my contention that some Native American Cultures had moral and ethical systems equal to or superior to anything in the Judeo/Christian history. Like in any other place in the world Native Americans represented a wide range of cultures. My central example was the Iroquois Six Nation Confederacy of the Eastern United States. The historical and archeological evidence points to a culture that was exceptionally advanced and represents the oldest longest existing democracy in the world that still exists today. This culture did not practice slavery and did not kill women and children in warfare. They adapted them into the tribe. Archeological evidence supports the view that the elderly were revered and kept in the tribe and given a reverent burial.

It is a myth that in any time in the past humans were not meat eaters. All the archeological evidence known clearly shows humans as opportunistic omnivores. In other words they would eat everthing that was edible that did not eat them first.

[Abigail]

I have heard this before, but not from Glenn, I do not feel this reference to a practice of expelling tribe members near death is representative of the nature of the Native American Cultures. It is true that this was the case in some instances. It is also known that the ritual of dieing among the elderly and severely ill was to ritually fast to death.

I started a thread comparing what is really known of different cultures, but it got only a few weak challenges from apologists who failed miserably to refute my contention that some Native American Cultures had moral and ethical systems equal to or superior to anything in the Judeo/Christian history. Like in any other place in the world Native Americans represented a wide range of cultures. My central example was the Iroquois Six Nation Confederacy of the Eastern United States. The historical and archeological evidence points to a culture that was exceptionally advanced and represents the oldest longest existing democracy in the world that still exists today. This culture did not practice slavery and did not kill women and children in warfare. They adapted them into the tribe. Archeological evidence supports the view that the elderly were revered and kept in the tribe and given a reverent burial.

It is a myth that in any time in the past humans were not meat eaters. All the archeological evidence known clearly shows humans as opportunistic omnivores. In other words they would eat everthing that was edible that did not eat them first.
I am talking about PRE-flood as opposed to POST-flood senarios. I have no idea whether the Native American Indians did as Glenn writes or not but my point was I dont think Glenn can contrast post-flood senarios with pre-flood ones by making use of post-flood data on mortality rates. Just look at the differences in mortality rates between 1st and 3rd world countries - conditions that abound definitely play a role. The pre-flood world was different

[shunyadragon]

I am talking about PRE-flood as opposed to POST-flood senarios. I have no idea whether the Native American Indians did as Glenn writes or not but my point was I dont think Glenn can contrast post-flood senarios with pre-flood ones by making use of post-flood data on mortality rates. Just look at the differences in mortality rates between 1st and 3rd world countries - conditions that abound definitely play a role. The pre-flood world was different
You cannot differentiate between pre-flood and post-flood in current archeological evidence because most place like China and many American Native civilizations show continous habitation of the same cultures without a break that would indicate a catastrophic flood event for over longer period of than would allow for a flood.

[Abigail]

You cannot differentiate between pre-flood and post-flood in current archeological evidence because most place like China and many American Native civilizations show continous habitation of the same cultures without a break that would indicate a catastrophic flood event for over longer period of than would allow for a flood.
:sigh: We are commenting on Glen's criticism of Dave Tyler's flood model. Dave Tyler's view of which periods of the column are pre or post flood is the context. You cannot criticise the logical consistancy within his model by just ignoring his context and replacing it with your own.

[kuboes1831]

:sigh: We are commenting on Glen's criticism of Dave Tyler's flood model. Dave Tyler's view of which periods of the column are pre or post flood is the context. You cannot criticise the logical consistancy within his model by just ignoring his context and replacing it with your own.

D Tyler's view of pre and post flood aspects of the geological column are just laughable and depenedent on ignoring 90% of geological evidence and distorting the rest.

I don't think there is enough material in early Genesis to identify the locality or the extent of the flood except that it was ANE.

I reckon both Glenn and Dave are barking up the wrong tree, except that Dave's ideas are simply absurd and Glenn's don't hold enough water to be valid!!

[shunyadragon]

D Tyler's view of pre and post flood aspects of the geological column are just laughable and depenedent on ignoring 90% of geological evidence and distorting the rest.

I don't think there is enough material in early Genesis to identify the locality or the extent of the flood except that it was ANE.

I reckon both Glenn and Dave are barking up the wrong tree, except that Dave's ideas are simply absurd and Glenn's don't hold enough water to be valid!!
My biggest problem with Glenn's argument is he tries to tie down the flood to one event in the Mediterrainian that would some how fit very closely to the Biblical flood in order to remain faithful to scripture. I do not believe records and the memories of Stone Age humans or relatives would be that accurate. It is more plausible that it was a collective memory of the many catastrophic floods that occured around the end of the last major period of glaciation.

[lodity]

In Glenn's latest post in the debate, he states: "You and all the YECs make up some imaginary barrier which limits the morphological change, but then never say what that barrier is." The barrier is assumed because of Biblical text (which, from a Christian viewpoint, is the first and highest authority), and that assumption has been verified by the evolutionist's inability to empirically show that "kinds" can morphologically change from one type into another (e.g. such as dogs inheriting a new trait that isn't commonly found in dogs). Fossils don't show this, at least not in a way that is clear to someone who doesn't see the evidence with a preconceived notion that evolution's a fact.

I think the assumed "morphological barrier" is justified by both the Bible and science.

-lodity

[Assyrian]

I've just come across the Morton v Tyler debate. Amazing work bring it all together.

originally posted by grmorton
Your model has to have superfast evolution for 2000 years and then nothing much for the next 2000 years. Why David, what stopped speciation dead in its tracks?
originally posted by dtyler:
This is an overstatement. You may be aware that Basic Type biologists are interested in designed mechanisms for fast rates of change. Slowing the pace is not such a problem, because speciation reduces the gene pool and reduces the potential for further variation. This leads to an understanding of extinction that has not emerged via Darwinian theory.
That make sense. There was a bigger gene pool in the beginning, dividing into species narrowed each gene pool down. Once you hit poodle there is little room left for variation, if you don't believe in beneficial mutations.

The problem is with the unclean animals, Noah only brought two of every kind. A breeding pair doth not a deep gene pool make.

Assyrian

I'll get the hang of these quote thing yet. :teeth:

[grmorton]

The problem is with the unclean animals, Noah only brought two of every kind. A breeding pair doth not a deep gene pool make.


Wish I had thought of that argument. It is a good one.

[kuboes1831]

Wish I had thought of that argument. It is a good one.

You need at least 5 to survive, seven is better!!

[Assyrian]

Wish I had thought of that argument. It is a good one.Thanks Glenn, a compliment indeed!

I was also wondering, what were the 'clean animals' Noah brought with him? The biblical definition is that it has cloven hooves and chews the cud. But if the flood was precambrian or earlier when do hooves actually appear in the fossil record? Or do recolonists have to appeal to incomplete fossil records :teeth:
This option fails to capture the violence and the immediacy of the occasion. Rather, it does not really matter what is land and what is sea – the cataclysm affects both. Because land is somewhat elevated, the Mabbul would quickly wash everything belonging to the Antediluvian world into the sea.Recolonisers today emphasise the destructive power of the Mabbul – something beyond our experience of geological forces. We emphasise the focus of destruction as the antediluvian land. Our understanding of the base of the Flood is that it is lost in the Hadean.Not having read much about recolonist ideas before, I tend to be a bit dubious when people start transliterating Hebrew words instead of using the normal translations. Does Mabbul mean absolute destruction? Or is it simply a very old Hebrew word for flood?

If the Mabbul ground everything to paste, where did the fresh olive leaf come from? I realise this is an old question, but the concept of an all destroying Mabbul makes it even more puzzling.
Furthermore, in the Bible, the waters retreated. The Ark comes to rest by the mountain of Ararat. In the Messinian Flood, the waters do not retreat – the Basin stays full of water and the ark drifts to the side of the basin where it grounds on a beach.That doesn’t really do justice to what I suggested David—shame. I discuss that problem in Foundation, Fall and Flood and note that there would be seismic events due to the added weight of the water in the basin. That would cause Tsunamis and that would drive floating things ashore, from which the water would drain away. But then, that is a detail. I do note you like looking at details when it comes to my theory but fail to do so when discussing yours. Interesting way to live.I think we might need to reread the flood story after the what we saw in the news on Dec 26th. Gen 7:18 The waters prevailed and increased greatly on the earth, and the ark floated on the face of the waters. Prevailed: We think sat on top of. But the word also means 'mighty'. What does increase mean in the context of waters being mighty?

Gen 7:19 And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered.

Two words that can be translated mighty now. How about: the mighty waters were so vehement...

Gen 7:20 fifteen cubits upwards have the waters become mighty, and the mountains are covered;
Now was Noah leaning over the edge dropping a line into calm waters? Or was he cowering inside watching 10 meter Tsunamis sweep the ark along over the hill tops? I don't know any Hebrew apart from what I read in Strongs, but doesn't the word 'upwards' also mean high?

I think a lot of problems with the Genesis flood disappear when we realise it is an eye-witness account. When Noah said 'all the tall mountains under the whole heaven were covered', he was talking about what he saw around him from horizon to horizon, not commenting on the fate of Everest and K2. The 'mighty waters prevailing' is beginning to sound like : "Oh Lord help us here comes another one, Japheth strap down the wildebeest! :eek:

Assyrian

[rogero]

The clean/unclean specification of YHWH to Noah is fascinating to me, and I thank Assyrian for bringing up this general issue.

I'm no Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but weren't these terms defined in the Mosaic law, which was given many centuries later? How would Noah have known what animals were clean or unclean? Perhaps this is simply evidence that the source documents were written a long time after the fact, but this pre-Law cognizance of the cleanness of animals has been a curiousity for me for some time.

[grmorton]

Thanks Glenn, a compliment indeed!

I was also wondering, what were the 'clean animals' Noah brought with him? The biblical definition is that it has cloven hooves and chews the cud. But if the flood was precambrian or earlier when do hooves actually appear in the fossil record? Or do recolonists have to appeal to incomplete fossil records :teeth:

They don't appear very early. When I was a YEC I wrote a small article for cRSQ about horses in the Permian based upon a hoof-like fossil. Morton, G. R. (1984). Horses in the Permian. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 20:235-236.

I was an amateur in paleo at that time. and an incompetent one at that. Here is what it was.

“As recent studies have shown in addition to the obvious brontosaur tracks, limestone surfaces in this region also contain horseshoe-shaped traces that are attributed to burrowing invertebrates, possibly shrimp-like arthr0pods. Such traces have been named Rhizocorallium by invertebrate ichnologists. in other parts of the world, such horseshoe-shaped traces have been mistaken for the tracks of hoofed mammals, such as horses and their relatives, and have provided fuel for creationists hoping to use such features as evidence that paleontologists have made fundamental mistakes in their interpretation of the evolutionary record.” Martin Lockley and Christian Meyer, Dinosaur Tracks and Other Fossil Footprints of Europe, (New York: Columbia University, 1999), p. 166

Hoofs appear in the Jurassic but I don't know how much earlier http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Dinos/evolution_of_dinosaurs.htm


Not having read much about recolonist ideas before, I tend to be a bit dubious when people start transliterating Hebrew words instead of using the normal translations. Does Mabbul mean absolute destruction? Or is it simply a very old Hebrew word for flood?

I think the latter.

If the Mabbul ground everything to paste, where did the fresh olive leaf come from?

From the paste??? :lol:

[maudman]

The clean/unclean specification of YHWH to Noah is fascinating to me, and I thank Assyrian for bringing up this general issue.

I'm no Biblical scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but weren't these terms defined in the Mosaic law, which was given many centuries later? How would Noah have known what animals were clean or unclean? Perhaps this is simply evidence that the source documents were written a long time after the fact, but this pre-Law cognizance of the cleanness of animals has been a curiousity for me for some time.


That is an excellent Observation RogerO,

Peace RoG "O"