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

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[Cmass]

OK, NOW this debate is actually getting funny!

Otseng, I have to be honest, you are now officially getting your butt kicked. I have tried looking at if from every angle and given you a huge amount of leniency in your explanations but ZZ has you pinned so badly you are throwing out things such as this:

As to why we see certain animals in certain layers, my theory is that generally, the higher layer animals have more mobility than the lower layer animals. Animals with less mobility would not have any method of escaping from a flood and would immediately be buried. Higher mobility animals would be able to postpone being buried by running to higher ground/water, or even running on sediments that were deposited.

Come on man, you have GOT to be kidding me!

[otseng]

Come on man, you have GOT to be kidding me!

Kidding you? Why would I do that? Why do you view my explanation as preposterous?

[Cmass]

Kidding you? Why would I do that? Why do you view my explanation as preposterous?

From everything I know about you from maintaining this site to fighting off hackers to your business etc... you are obviously a very bright fellow. I sometimes think you are kidding because some of your explanations simply don't square with this. I have a very good friend who is the same way: He is a technical manager, a wonderful father, great in conversation, witty and articulate. But when it comes to religious matters all of his logic and critical thinking skills are thrown out the door. It is painful to watch and I am embarrassed for him.

Review the last several exchanges with ZZ from a critical, detached position - as if you were evaluating the debate and not a part of it. Your explanations for separation of layers are not based upon any scientific studies or reasoned explanation from professionals - they are just opinion with an agenda.

[wrekk]

I have followed this debate from day one, page by page, word for word. I have enjoyed it immensely.

I too, would like to see Otseng present more data backing up his theories. His rebuttals are interesting, but with so little to back them up, it gets frustrating.

Just to clear something up, this debate is about:

A. A global flood being literal?

Or

B. The the specific global flood depicted in Genesis?

[Fisherking]

OK, NOW this debate is actually getting funny!

Otseng, I have to be honest, you are now officially getting your butt kicked. I have tried looking at if from every angle and given you a huge amount of leniency in your explanations but ZZ has you pinned ...

It is interesting how ones' personal philosophy affect how the data/evidence is interpreted. To me, It appears the other way around. Otseng's opponent has had very little to say about the evidence being presented. It seems that any evidence contrary to standard geology and the philosophy it is based upon is ignored and the counter arguement drifts off into an op-ed rant consistently appealing to authority and popularity. IF the flood model is so silly, it should be fairly easy to discredit it in favor of a better model. Saying the standard model is better because everyone that believes in the standard model says it better is a pretty weak position.

[Goat]

OK, NOW this debate is actually getting funny!

Otseng, I have to be honest, you are now officially getting your butt kicked. I have tried looking at if from every angle and given you a huge amount of leniency in your explanations but ZZ has you pinned ...

It is interesting how ones' personal philosophy affect how the data/evidence is interpreted. To me, It appears the other way around. Otseng's opponent has had very little to say about the evidence being presented. It seems that any evidence contrary to standard geology and the philosophy it is based upon is ignored and the counter arguement drifts off into an op-ed rant consistently appealing to authority and popularity. IF the flood model is so silly, it should be fairly easy to discredit it in favor of a better model. Saying the standard model is better because everyone that believes in the standard model says it better is a pretty weak position.

Well, you see, Ostengs is pure speculation.

He also has to explain why the different layers date differently , with the layers that are lower in an undisturbed geological column always dating older than the layers above it.

He also has to demonstrate the in a swirling watery environment, those that can be mobile better will be on top. From the observations of what happen during tidal waves and floods, that does not happen. He fails to demonstrate why his specuations do not match up with observations we have in floods today.

[wrekk]

It is interesting how ones' personal philosophy affect how the data/evidence is interpreted.

That is a great quote. Can I use it?

[Cmass]

Otseng refuses to answer direct, explicit requests to support his theories and has yet to provide scientific data to support them.
Fisherking wrote:

Otseng's opponent has had very little to say about the evidence being presented.

WHAT EVIDENCE?!?! That is the whole problem here - Otseng has not provided any evidence, only his personal opinions on what HE thinks MIGHT have happened.
Fisherking wrote:

It seems that any evidence contrary to standard geology and the philosophy it is based upon

What "philosophy" is standard geology based upon?
Fisherking wrote:

is ignored and the counter arguement drifts off into an op-ed rant consistently appealing to authority and popularity.

Again, WHAT EVIDENCE contradicts this standard geology?
Fisherking wrote:

Saying the standard model is better because everyone that believes in the standard model says it better is a pretty weak position.

That is NOT what is being said! That is only what YOU are saying. It is a Red Herring. ZZ is seeking evidence to back up claims that the FM was a real event. So far, none has been offered - only Otseng's and other creationists opinions about what MAY have happened - no evidence.

Here I have copied a sampling of ZZ's requests for evidence (this is only part of the last page!!) and then below them a sampling of the kind of answers Otseng offers. The debate is so lopsided I am still waiting for Otseng's punchline: "OK guys, I'm just kidding!"

1. The Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited during the flood. Evidence? Source?
2. The Sorting of fossils into separate strata during the flood. Evidence? Source?
I specified trilobites and mammals not occurring in the same strata. Could you explain why they do not – citing credible sources?
there is NO reason to conclude that creationists who do not study the subjects can make pronouncements that have credibility (except perhaps among other creationists who want to believe the same things). Note: Creationists have an announced agenda – proving scriptures to be correct – the antithesis of searching for truth (when one assumes they possess the truth and seeks to verify their a priori conclusions).
There is no mechanism known to geologists that would account for the sorting of fossils if it occurred simultaneously as proposed by those who maintain that the Earth’s sedimentary rock were deposited all at one time during the proposed flood.
Please explain, using credible sources if possible, how the flood could have wiped out life on Earth – AND carefully separated the fossils into separate layers instead of mixing them together as would be expected under such conditions.
Are you stating that there are multiple causes of sorting of fossils into discrete layers?
Is this personal opinion or conjecture -- or do you intend to cite supporting evidence?
Are you stating this IS a cause or are you speculating that it COULD be a cause?
Have you conducted any studies or experiments – or can you cite such investigations by others?
I am not asking you for guesses. You claimed that you would defend the flood as being literal – not guess that it was literal. A guess is worthless in discussion or debate.
Another guess???? Please cite evidence.
Another guess???? Please cite evidence.
Please discuss the exact mechanism by which tidal forces acting on sediments produce sorting.
This is a personal opinion of someone who has no knowledge of the field.
Can you verify your conjectures?
Please cite supporting information.
Interesting theory. Please provide documentation and evidence to verify the hypothesis. Show how mobility difference would produce sorting of fossils throughout thousands of feet of sedimentary strata.
Interesting theory. Please demonstrate that it applies as something more than a personal guess.
Specifically what is the prediction you are alluding to?

How are you qualified to make such analysis????
Where is the credible support for what you say? Or, is personal opinion all that you are offering?
Agreed. Please explain why that is true using your “literal flood hypothesis”.
How can the presence or absence of Billions of years of sediments be of concern in a theory that proposes that the Earth is not over 100,000 years old?????
The chart you provide is interesting. However, it does not seem related to the discussion. Perhaps you can explain its significance and how it supports whatever point you are trying to make.
1. WHY are human fossils found ONLY in the highest (Holocene) sedimentary rock layers?
2. WHY are dinosaur fossils found ONLY in Mesozoic sedimentary rock layers?
3. WHY are trilobite fossils found ONLY in Paleozoic sedimentary rock layers?
4. If all life was destroyed by the flood relatively quickly (within a year), WHY are fossils not found mixed together – if they were actually all killed within a year or less?

And here is how the answers are approached.
Repeated requests are met with more opinion. Otseng absolutely refuses to provide the information requested. Or, and this is MY opinion, is so frightened by the implications of the FM being wrong, is simply incapable of engaging ZZ in any other way:

would seem to me more plausible
why should discrete layers exist? Rather, I'd expect a smooth transition
my theory is that generally, the higher layer animals have more mobility than the lower layer animals
I would think what would be expected is that more life should be buried in lower layers than in higher layers.
I make the statement more as a prediction of the FM.
Suppose you have a stack of dry lasagna.

I read someone in a recent thread state "It is like beating up on your younger brother". Indeed.

[otseng]

From everything I know about you from maintaining this site to fighting off hackers to your business etc... you are obviously a very bright fellow. I sometimes think you are kidding because some of your explanations simply don't square with this. I have a very good friend who is the same way: He is a technical manager, a wonderful father, great in conversation, witty and articulate. But when it comes to religious matters all of his logic and critical thinking skills are thrown out the door. It is painful to watch and I am embarrassed for him.

I think this is indicative of the typical response. If you make an assertion that something I've said is wrong (or even preposterous), then evidence/reasoning needs to be presented. If however comments are simply leveled at me, then it does not show that my assertions are false.

Review the last several exchanges with ZZ from a critical, detached position - as if you were evaluating the debate and not a part of it.

OK ... looks like I'm winning.

Your explanations for separation of layers are not based upon any scientific studies or reasoned explanation from professionals - they are just opinion with an agenda.

Of course my explanation is not from scientific studies or from professionals. There seems to be a big hangup on this. If this was a requirement for debates, then we'd have to scratch out a lot of debating here.

The only requirement for debates is that they be backed by evidence/reasoning. And this is what I should all debates should be judged by, not by personal credentials, how well accepted a theory is, how many scientists accept it, how much formal training one has, what degrees the person has, etc.

It is interesting how ones' personal philosophy affect how the data/evidence is interpreted.

Yes, it is interesting.

[Goat]

From everything I know about you from maintaining this site to fighting off hackers to your business etc... you are obviously a very bright fellow. I sometimes think you are kidding because some of your explanations simply don't square with this. I have a very good friend who is the same way: He is a technical manager, a wonderful father, great in conversation, witty and articulate. But when it comes to religious matters all of his logic and critical thinking skills are thrown out the door. It is painful to watch and I am embarrassed for him.

I think this is indicative of the typical response. If you make an assertion that something I've said is wrong (or even preposterous), then evidence/reasoning needs to be presented. If however comments are simply leveled at me, then it does not show that my assertions are false.

Review the last several exchanges with ZZ from a critical, detached position - as if you were evaluating the debate and not a part of it.

OK ... looks like I'm winning.

Your explanations for separation of layers are not based upon any scientific studies or reasoned explanation from professionals - they are just opinion with an agenda.

Of course my explanation is not from scientific studies or from professionals. There seems to be a big hangup on this. If this was a requirement for debates, then we'd have to scratch out a lot of debating here.

The only requirement for debates is that they be backed by evidence/reasoning. And this is what I should all debates should be judged by, not by personal credentials, how well accepted a theory is, how many scientists accept it, how much formal training one has, what degrees the person has, etc.

It is interesting how ones' personal philosophy affect how the data/evidence is interpreted.

Yes, it is interesting.

The problem I see with the explanation for the separation of layers is that current examples in floods today do not support your explanation. The bodies of animals caught in floods to not immediately settle to the bottom, and they do not get sorted in the way you are describing.

You also have to explain the sorting of the isotopes of the various radioactive materials used to date the age of the rocks. You have speculation that is falsified by real world examples.