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

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[McCulloch]

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.

When someone provides evidence to back up a claim and that evidence is part of a well defined field of study then whether the experts in that field agree with your interpretation of the evidence should be taken into account. If you present an interpretation of the evidence that is universally rejected by all experts in a well defined field of study, then your argument should be held to a stricter level of proof and be looked at more skeptically than if your interpretation of the evidence is in agreement with those who have made it their life's work to understand and examine that field of study. N'est-ce pas?

[wrekk]

Of course my explanation is not from scientific studies or from professionals.

The only requirement for debates is that they be backed by evidence/reasoning.

Wait a minute. You lost me. Where does one go to get evidence then?

[otseng]

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.

The mechanism would be different. In the FM, animals would not "settle" to the bottom, but rather be buried by sediment.

You also have to explain the sorting of the isotopes of the various radioactive materials used to date the age of the rocks.

We might address this sometime in the future.

[otseng]

When someone provides evidence to back up a claim and that evidence is part of a well defined field of study then whether the experts in that field agree with your interpretation of the evidence should be taken into account. If you present an interpretation of the evidence that is universally rejected by all experts in a well defined field of study, then your argument should be held to a stricter level of proof and be looked at more skeptically than if your interpretation of the evidence is in agreement with those who have made it their life's work to understand and examine that field of study. N'est-ce pas?

Certainly. I understand that a significant amount of evidence will need to be presented in order to challenge a predominant theory.

What I'm saying is that it is not sufficient to simply state, "My theory is better because it's accepted by the scientific community and yours is not." People need to go an additional step and show how the predominant theory better explains challenging theories. If the predominant theory has more explanatory power, then it should be quite easy to present the evidence.

[otseng]

Of course my explanation is not from scientific studies or from professionals.

The only requirement for debates is that they be backed by evidence/reasoning.

Wait a minute. You lost me. Where does one go to get evidence then?

What I'm saying is there is not a legion of geologists who study or even publish on theories of a global flood.

As to where I can go to get evidence, I think I should be able to get it from anywhere, as long as the evidence is verifiable.

[wrekk]

As to where I can go to get evidence, I think I should be able to get it from anywhere, as long as the evidence is verifiable.

By who? Scientists or professionals maybe? Please clarify...

[Goat]

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.

The mechanism would be different. In the FM, animals would not "settle" to the bottom, but rather be buried by sediment.

You also have to explain the sorting of the isotopes of the various radioactive materials used to date the age of the rocks.

We might address this sometime in the future.

Can you show an experiment where anything, when in such the turbulent water that a world wide flood would entail, that this would occur? Could you show any experimental data that would have something with the inconsistency ,of lets say, trilobites settling down in a layer and being buried before something the consistency of dinosaurs? Why did the different types of dinosaurs, even those of similar body mass, settle in distinct layers rather than get mixed up?? What is the experimental data that would lead to that conclusion, rather than the current observations that yearly sediment happens in layers.

Why does matter behave differently in the flood model, rather than what we observe today?

[wrekk]

Can you show an experiment where anything, when in such the turbulent water that a world wide flood would entail, that this would occur? Could you show any experimental data that would have something with the inconsistency ,of lets say, trilobites settling down in a layer and being buried before something the consistency of dinosaurs? Why did the different types of dinosaurs, even those of similar body mass, settle in distinct layers rather than get mixed up?? What is the experimental data that would lead to that conclusion, rather than the current observations that yearly sediment happens in layers.

Why does matter behave differently in the flood model, rather than what we observe today?

Goat makes a great point. It would be very intriguing to see some experiments performed to validate your FM theories.

Please don't take this as sarcasm, or poking fun either. I'm serious. For the sake of this debate, it would be great for a series of experiments to be performed to test your theories. Since these are plausible theories on your behalf, and for the sake of science, I would like to see these tested. Of course on a small scale, nothing too elaborate. Kinda like how Jamie and Adam do it on Mythbusters.

What do you think?

[Fisherking]

Can you show an experiment where anything, when in such the turbulent water that a world wide flood would entail, that this would occur? Could you show any experimental data that would have something with the inconsistency ,of lets say, trilobites settling down in a layer and being buried before something the consistency of dinosaurs? Why did the different types of dinosaurs, even those of similar body mass, settle in distinct layers rather than get mixed up?? What is the experimental data that would lead to that conclusion, rather than the current observations that yearly sediment happens in layers.

Why does matter behave differently in the flood model, rather than what we observe today?

Goat makes a great point. It would be very intriguing to see some experiments performed to validate your FM theories.

Please don't take this as sarcasm, or poking fun either. I'm serious. For the sake of this debate, it would be great for a series of experiments to be performed to test your theories. Since these are plausible theories on your behalf, and for the sake of science, I would like to see these tested. Of course on a small scale, nothing too elaborate. Kinda like how Jamie and Adam do it on Mythbusters.

What do you think?

Experiments

[Goat]

Can you show an experiment where anything, when in such the turbulent water that a world wide flood would entail, that this would occur? Could you show any experimental data that would have something with the inconsistency ,of lets say, trilobites settling down in a layer and being buried before something the consistency of dinosaurs? Why did the different types of dinosaurs, even those of similar body mass, settle in distinct layers rather than get mixed up?? What is the experimental data that would lead to that conclusion, rather than the current observations that yearly sediment happens in layers.

Why does matter behave differently in the flood model, rather than what we observe today?

Goat makes a great point. It would be very intriguing to see some experiments performed to validate your FM theories.

Please don't take this as sarcasm, or poking fun either. I'm serious. For the sake of this debate, it would be great for a series of experiments to be performed to test your theories. Since these are plausible theories on your behalf, and for the sake of science, I would like to see these tested. Of course on a small scale, nothing too elaborate. Kinda like how Jamie and Adam do it on Mythbusters.

What do you think?

Experiments

Yes, and how do those support the alleged 'Flood Model', and how do those explain the distribution of fossils?

From a look at the experiments, it looks like it falsifies the Flood Model pretty damn well to me.