Was the Flood Literal? Osteng vs. Zzyzx One on One Debate

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[Biker]

.

The question should be why do creationist keep trotting out the same bunch of discredited arguments, again and again.

I suggest that there are several reasons

1. Dishonesty

2. Lack of valid arguments

3. Creationists new to debate

4. Faulty memory

5. Habitual parroting of dogma

Hmmm,
I was about to list these as several but incomplete reasons the naturalist/humanist religion uses in their secular myth mill (school system), as the likes of you brainwash our youth with atheist conjecture, but I would add one very important one, the fleecing of society to pay for your tripe!

Biker

[Fallibleone]

...but I would add one very important one, the fleecing of society to pay for your tripe!

Biker

While here in Britain I can make exactly the same comment and level it at Christians. How ironic. Fancy an exchange?

[Biker]

I really disdain the practice of supposed "scientists" and "teachers" parroting atheist dogma and presenting it as factual when the interpretation of data supporting their position is fairly seasoned with language such as this:
It seems
We surmise
In theory
The hypothesis is
Leads us to the conclusion
Our supposition is
Therefore we presume
In our learned opinion
Looks like
The suspicion is
The result of the thesis is
In our view
Our belief is
The assumption is
We speculate that
The majority of the scientific community postulation is
Causes us to infer
Our deduction is
Might be
Could be
Should be
Can be

Conjecture is to infer or predict from incomplete or uncertain evidence, of which Zzyzx's presentation is sprinkled with.
Which in of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, unless one is dishonest in that they present it as truth!
Such is the case.

Keep up the very fine presentation Osteng!

Biker

[Biker]

...but I would add one very important one, the fleecing of society to pay for your tripe!

Biker

While here in Britain I can make exactly the same comment and level it at Christians. How ironic. Fancy an exchange?

Just another reason our astute forefathers left England and started another country based on better principles direct from the inerrant Scriptures!

Biker

[Goat]

You guys take the liberty of ripping on I and little suzi collins with your rants and raves.

You latter day scoffers cry where is the evidence of the "waters above the firmament"? Wake up. It has been clearly stated that the waters above the firmament have FALLEN. You demand to see the evidence. Maybe you ought to open up your eyes and look.

The evidence that it had falled, huh? An event that catostrophic would have left marks of it's passing behind. Where are those marks? That much material would
have to go someplace, or stay where it is. We don't see it around today. Where
did it go? What is the evidence it was here, and where is it now?

So far, you have an unsupported claim. There is no evidence for it ever happening, and no physical mechanism proposed for it that matches our
known physics.

If the waters above the firmament have fallen, then you are wasting your time looking for them above the firmament.

BUt, where is the erosian, the layer of sediment that is the same age over all the world. The traces that should have been there if it happened are not there.

May I kindly suggest that you look down for a change, that you might actually see the evidence before you! If your eyesight is so poor that you don;t recognize it, that's your problem, not mine.

How many of you have flown over the grand canyon to view the characteristics of this mighty wonder? If you have, you will see formations that raise deep questions regarding this scene to be one caused merely by a river flowing through it.

The grand canyon is very well known from a geological standpoint. What evidence do you have that a single catastrophic event washed it away?? Particularly when
this same catastrophic event is also claimed to have caused the layering effect
that the grand canyon cuts through. That makes the two claims mutually exclusive. (actually, neither of them are a single short term event.)

Why don't you learn something about the geology of the Grand Canyon before making assertions that have been already falsifaied.

Have you so called scientists made yourself aware of how many billions of cubic feet of soil this incredible wonder has required to be eroded to form it as we see it today?

Tell me I pray. Where are the mighty deposits that have formed from this stupendous erosion? Where is the mighty delta that should have been formed by all this erosion?

Have you ever tried to read up on it? do you think that the over millions of years,
the delta also would not be washed away by the action of erosion?

I am so sorry you guys don't have the time to spend whipping your dead horse, cause your so busy carrying buckets of grand canyon erosion evidence away.

Oh my.. and you don't even bother to read up on real science books on geology
that discusses what the geology of the grand cannon is?

You might be ignorant of the answers, but your ignorance is not positive proof of a flood.

[Zzyzx]

.

I really disdain the practice of supposed "scientists" and "teachers" parroting atheist dogma and presenting it as factual when the interpretation of data supporting their position is fairly seasoned with language such as this:

Religion apparently needs no qualifying terms because it claims to possess Absolute Truth presented in a book of tales by Bronze Age storytellers. Absolute certainty is guaranteed by religious belief -- for those who wish to "believe on faith alone" what they are told to believe.

Religion is free to claim possession of absolute truth because it makes no attempt to verify its claims.

Those who actually pursue knowledge and truth do NOT start with a conclusion and look for data to support the conclusion and do NOT claim that they possess absolute truth. Therefore, conscientious researchers acknowledge the possibility that there are factors they did not consider or that different results might be produced under different conditions.

We leave it to the arrogant to proclaim that they know the truth beyond all doubt. We ask that they provide evidence that their “truth” is real – and evidence is not provided.

Keep up the very fine presentation Osteng!

Presentation?

[Beto]

I really disdain the practice of supposed "scientists" and "teachers" parroting atheist dogma(...)

What I don't understand when you use "dogma" followed by "atheist", is who exactly you think you're trying to convince. Someone who doesn't understand the meaning of either words? Are you trying to convince yourself that such a thing as "atheist dogma" exists? Perhaps in the same way you try to convince yourself that your god exists.

[Revelations won]

Biker, WELL said! I guess you got them pretty riled up. Cheerio!

Oh, by the way goat, I am so sorry that the ocean washed away your massive delta evidence

[Beto]

How many of you have flown over the grand canyon to view the characteristics of this mighty wonder? If you have, you will see formations that raise deep questions regarding this scene to be one caused merely by a river flowing through it.

The same lack of vision that makes it hard for some people to visualize a reptile-like creature evolve to a bird-like creature, makes it hard for them to imagine what 40 million years of erosion can create.

[McCulloch]

I really disdain the practice of supposed "scientists" and "teachers" parroting atheist dogma(...)

What I don't understand when you use "dogma" followed by "atheist", is who exactly you think you're trying to convince. Someone who doesn't understand the meaning of either words? Are you trying to convince yourself that such a thing as "atheist dogma" exists? Perhaps in the same way you try to convince yourself that your god exists.

For reference, the complete unabridged official approved statement of atheist beliefs:

1. There is no God.
2. There are no gods.

Any statement from an atheist beyond those two points is not atheist dogma.