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

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[Cmass]

Fisherking,
I would invite you to participate in a good Flood thread Zzyzx started. I think the OP is quite solid full of lots and lots of facts, calculations and evidence. Why not give it a try? I double dog dare ya.
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

Concerning the debate between Otseng and Zzyzx:

I have seen Otseng kick butt in other debates so I know he is quite capable of a good fight. He may be distracted trying to keep us all up and running due to the site hacker and other administrative issues but thus far, he has not had a stellar performance.

Otseng has weakened his positions considerably through the extensive use of cut and paste from Christian pseudo-science websites. These sites are provided by the Church for the sole purpose of defending the biblical accounts. They are not mainstream scientists. They are not providing theories for evidence they find, but instead they are looking for evidence for the dogma they inherited.

Otseng also uses links to outside sites as a primary source of argument content. While it is often important to cite your sources and give credit for the source of your ideas, it is also important to use your own thinking, logic and words. (This practice is also very annoying for the audience)

I am capable of clearing my head and reading debates only on the merits of the arguments. In fact, I have seen Micatala (a Christian) put a few atheists against the ropes including myself. Even when I was quite sure he was wrong he is a better debater than I will ever be. Thus far in this flood debate, Otseng has not convinced me that that his argument is more valid ..... nor has he convinced me that he even believes it himself .....

I do like the pretty pictures though. Great artistry and imagination!

[otseng]

Otseng has weakened his positions considerably through the extensive use of cut and paste from Christian pseudo-science websites.

OK, need to comment on this. The only Christian site that I've extensively copied from is Walt Brown's site, Center for Scientific Creation. What extensive Christian quotes are you referring to?

Otseng also uses links to outside sites as a primary source of argument content. While it is often important to cite your sources and give credit for the source of your ideas, it is also important to use your own thinking, logic and words.

Fail to use my own thinking and logic and words? I would disagree.

Thus far in this flood debate, Otseng has not convinced me that that his argument is more valid ..... nor has he convinced me that he even believes it himself .....

Of course I believe in it. The thread had almost approached 100 posts before the hack. I easily spend one hour researching and preparing each of my posts. Why would I invest so much time in something that I do not believe in?

As for not convincing non-Christians, it is to be expected. But, I will continue to present my case.

[Zzyzx]

.

I have seen Otseng kick butt in other debates so I know he is quite capable of a good fight. He may be distracted trying to keep us all up and running due to the site hacker and other administrative issues but thus far, he has not had a stellar performance.

I agree that Osteng is a very capable debater -- and very brave (or foolish) to attempt to defend the flood as a literal event. Everything about the story conflicts with nature and with common sense. Many (most?) theologians have given up attempting to portray the flood as literal in serious discussion – and leave it for bible study levels of storytelling. Children often accept without question.

Otseng has weakened his positions considerably through the extensive use of cut and paste from Christian pseudo-science websites.

OK, need to comment on this. The only Christian site that I've extensively copied from is Walt Brown's site, Center for Scientific Creation. What extensive Christian quotes are you referring to?

Walter Brown’s web site IS pure Christian pseudo-science. He is a Young Earth Creationist who has credentials in Mechanical Engineering – not anything related to Earth sciences. His agenda is VERY clear. He seeks to propose theories that appear to make creationism sound as though it was possible – by perverting science and by making totally unsupported assertions.

Pro-flood arguments in the Head to Head debate would be stronger if based on wider range of sources. Drawing all or most of one’s information from a single source greatly decreases credibility and increases the probability of error because it is depending heavily on that source to provide necessary and accurate information.

Using a single source heavily also indicates that a person’s understanding of the topic is shallow – otherwise they would be able to set forth their own ideas based upon wide support.

Instead of using a single source, it is good policy to base decisions and positions on “convergence of evidence” -- no matter what the subject. When information is drawn from a wide range of sources, any single source being in error or being discredited is of no great consequence; however, with a single-source decisions and arguments, there is total dependency upon information and arguments from that source.

Attempting to discredit all of geology, paleontology, archeology, zoology, etc on the basis of ONE theory advanced by a person from outside the areas of study is not a wise position to take or defend.

Otseng also uses links to outside sites as a primary source of argument content. While it is often important to cite your sources and give credit for the source of your ideas, it is also important to use your own thinking, logic and words.

Fail to use my own thinking and logic and words? I would disagree.

From the opposition side of the debate, it appears as though arguments presented have been those of Walter Brown with very little Osteng. Occasional illustrations come from elsewhere, but the arguments appear to be taken from Brown with little modification.

Discussions outside of Brown’s appear to be indecisive and tentative. Insistence on staying with geological aspects appears to indicate recognition of weakness in other arguments.

Thus far in this flood debate, Otseng has not convinced me that that his argument is more valid ..... nor has he convinced me that he even believes it himself .....

Of course I believe in it. The thread had almost approached 100 posts before the hack. I easily spend one hour researching and preparing each of my posts. Why would I invest so much time in something that I do not believe in?

I tend to listen when the audience speaks – both here and in PMs – and have made changes in response to constructive (and appreciated) criticism.

As for not convincing non-Christians, it is to be expected. But, I will continue to present my case.

If I was the one arguing the Literal Bible side of this issue, I would be very concerned that I convinced (and fairly represented) Christians – not whether I convinced Non-Christians. If I was a Christian viewing the debate, I would question the literalness of the flood tale even if I had not previously.

[Fisherking]

I agree that Osteng is a very capable debater -- and very brave (or foolish) to attempt to defend the flood as a literal event. Everything about the story conflicts with nature and with common sense.

The evidence presented in the debate in favor of the Flood Model has been far more explanatory than that of the standard model up to this point. Does it conflict with the standard model of geology? -- yes. Does in conflict with nature and common sense? -- I haven't seen any convincing evidence thus far that it does.

Walter Brown’s web site IS pure Christian pseudo-science. He is a Young Earth Creationist who has credentials in Mechanical Engineering – not anything related to Earth sciences. His agenda is VERY clear. He seeks to propose theories that appear to make creationism sound as though it was possible –

If Walter Brown is:
1. Christian
2. has a theory goes against what many of his fellow scientists believe
3. is a young earth creationist
4. has an agenda
5. is a mechanical engineer
has absolutely nothing to do with the evidence presented. One has free reign in a debate to debate the evidence presented. If one does not have an answer to the evidence their argument tends to turn to fallacious personality and credential attacks like those above.

Pro-flood arguments in the Head to Head debate would be stronger if based on wider range of sources. Drawing all or most of one’s information from a single source greatly decreases credibility and increases the probability of error because it is depending heavily on that source to provide necessary and accurate information.

Almost all of the evidence presented in favor of the Flood Model is from a wide range of sources -- almost all from standard model sites.
The source of the Flood Model Theory is of course Walter Brown. The evidence presented to support the Flood Model comes from everywhere.

Using a single source heavily also indicates that a person’s understanding of the topic is shallow – otherwise they would be able to set forth their own ideas based upon wide support.

Single source for what, the FM? The person who proposes a theory will be a single source yes. The evidence to support the theory comes from various sources.

Attempting to discredit all of geology, paleontology, archeology, zoology, etc on the basis of ONE theory advanced by a person from outside the areas of study is not a wise position to take or defend.

I'm sure this statement was not meant to be a lie, but maybe a mis-statement. The evidence presented does not attempt to discredit all of geology, paleontology, archeology, zoology, ect.
It may disagree with the explanatory power in some areas and agree with those in others. That is what a theory does.

I tend to listen when the audience speaks – both here and in PMs – and have made changes in response to constructive (and appreciated) criticism.

If one sticks to the argument and evidence itself, it makes a far stronger case in my opinion.

If I was the one arguing the Literal Bible side of this issue, I would be very concerned that I convinced (and fairly represented) Christians – not whether I convinced Non-Christians. If I was a Christian viewing the debate, I would question the literalness of the flood tale even if I had not previously.

If I were Walter Brown I would be honored to have someone as knowledgeable and competent as Otseng to argue his theory.

[otseng]

If I were Walter Brown I would be honored to have someone as knowledgeable and competent as Otseng to argue his theory.

I appreciate that Fisherking.

[Cmass]

ZZ / Otseng,

Get back into the ring!

I was under the impression this thread was for the audience to discuss your respective performances, not for you guys to debate your debate or debate the audience on what we think of your debate.

Now get back in there and wrestle or I'll move to the next theater.

- Chris

PS - Otseng ignored this part of my last post: "I am capable of clearing my head and reading debates only on the merits of the arguments. In fact, I have seen Micatala (a Christian) put a few atheists against the ropes including myself. Even when I was quite sure he was wrong he is a better debater than I will ever be. "

[otseng]

I was under the impression this thread was for the audience to discuss your respective performances, not for you guys to debate your debate or debate the audience on what we think of your debate.

Generally I don't comment here. But if there are allegations against me that I find to be in error, then I feel compelled to respond.

[Revelations won]

This has been an interesting subject to follow.

I think that some very good relevant issues have been at least partially discussed from both or several viewpoints.

A theory or view is only as good as it's foundation. IOW if one starts on a false or premise that is based on error, then the end result may also be flawed.

As I observe, many taking a view exclusively from a scientific point, have a tendency to base their conclusions based on their observations at present. This might be a valid and correct position if ALL FACTS are known and a correct and totally accurate understanding may be arrived at.

I also observe that many taking a religion based point of view tend to arrive at their conclusions by claiming a unexplainable miracle that "poof" the flood is caused by this means. Then as miraculously these waters just vanished.

My observation is that both sides may have "missed the boat" in this matter.

Granted, the account rendered in Genesis is fragmentary at best. It was probably not his purpose or also due to time constraints did not give greater detail on all the how's and why's and means that this was all accomplished.

Many religionists seem to take a rushed conclusion approach to the flood issue and the creation issue without carefully seeking to know all the facts.

A few of the false doctrines that are arrived at by failure to observe carefully what God has revealed are:

1. God created everything from nothing. Is there any clear definition in support of this doctrine in Genesis?

2. They have a tendency to falsely make the flood a scientifically impossible event by claiming some unexplainable miracle as the root cause of the flood and an unexplainable miracle to aswage the mighty flood waters. I ask. Is this supported by the scriptural foundations laid forth in Genesis?

3. False doctrine and error have a tendency to multiply when multiple errors are combined. Let me explain.

From the very foundation of the earth (this earth), we so note in Genesis that the earth was submerged in darkness (no light existed) Does this also suggest that the earth in it's primal state was very cold (like a universal ice age). This also might suggest to the mind that this earth at that unspecified time period may not even have been anywhere near it's present galaxy and orbit.

4. The topographical picture of the earth in it's actual organization is described in some detail. This description does not fit our present observations for several reasons.

Also there is strong indication that the earth in it's organizational stages was in all probability a very subtropical state.

5. Another false doctrine arises from the fact that many religionists have erred or have willfully ignored the fact that the scriptures clearly speak of major Geological and topographical changes that have occurred after the flood period. There are also accounts of other major topographical changes that occurred later. Thus we see that the face of the whole earth may have dynamically changed from that which originally existed at the time of Adam or Noah.

6. One of the major failures of many religionists is of such monumental proportions that substantial response is in order to recognize and understand in depth and breadth of how all this great flood actually was logically able to occur. I submit that the more clear answer lies in understanding the KEY ISSUES OF "WATERS ABOVE THE FIRMAMENT"

If there are some who want to learn more details of this theory and explanation, please so advise me and I will present for your edification: "Waters Above The Firmament".

[Zzyzx]

.

Another false doctrine arises from the fact that many religionists have erred or have willfully ignored the fact that the scriptures clearly speak of major Geological and topographical changes that have occurred after the flood period. There are also accounts of other major topographical changes that occurred later. Thus we see that the face of the whole earth may have dynamically changed from that which originally existed at the time of Adam or Noah.

Stories abound of “major changes” of all kinds happening during or since the proposed flood. What the stories have in common is that they are all conjecture – without basis in evidence.

If one wishes to propose that the climate or topography of the Earth were substantially different a few thousand years ago (religionists seem to have no idea when their flood occurred), there is a “burden of proof” for those making the claim. To be credible, their statements must be backed with studies, data, and reasons to believe that the climate and topography were actually different at that time period.

A typical religionist “support” of the idea of a more moderate climate existing before the flood (a few thousand years ago) is to cite evidence from “pick and choose science” that demonstrates that the climate was more moderate 75 Million years ago – as though that was evidence that their argument is valid. It merely demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the field of paleo-climatology. Similar positions are taken with respect to geology, hydrology, astronomy, etc.

[Goat]

What I found annoying is that two very contradictory facts are claimed to be explained by the 'flood model'

Claim 1) the flood model explains how the grand cannon got there

Claim 2) The flood model explains how layers of sedementary rock are formed.


What I can't see is how the flood model explains how the layers it claims were formed in the flood got layed at the same time that the grand cannon cut through those
very same layers of sediment.

Nor, does it explain why the different layers of sediment consistantly date different, w
the the layers of deeper rock date older than the upper layers (in undistrubed bedrock))