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

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[Cmass]

Otseng wrote:

Of course. So, again, it should be very easy to present evidence to counter my claims. Rather, what is typically charged against me is practically everything else besides evidence.

Did you not read my last post? It is the NEW theory - especially one that claims fantastic things of supernatural origin - that requires new and MORE compelling evidence than the current theory. You are going down a (very) old road: Prove God doesn't exist. Or, in this debate, "prove the FM is wrong." Nope Otseng, you are providing the alternative theory that flies in the face of 99% of all current geologists conclusions so YOU or your cadre of professionals and experts must provide extraordinary and peer reviewed data to unseat the current status quo.
I am waiting.......

[Cmass]

OK folks, I found it!
I found the mother lode! Check out Christiananswers.net and see if you too can find the familiar sentences and paragraphs. I recognized a lot of it....

There is also a really nifty short video that explains the whole Flood in a nutshell. No need for further questioning once you have seen this gem! It has great special effects and beautiful photography. I encourage people to check it out. It brings new meaning to the expression "the dumbing down of America".
http://www.christiananswers.net/hope/thehope-c4.html

I'm still awaiting the punchline......

[Zzyzx]

.

The FM also proposes with equal evidence that comets result from the "gushing" of water out of "caverns" with such force that material was ejected into space.

Correction. The Hydroplate theory proposes this. The Flood Model (which I'm calling my modified version of the hydroplate theory) does not propose this.

I see. YOU are the originator of what you are calling the “Flood Model” BASED on Walter Brown’s “Hydroplate Theory”. Is that correct?

Is it correct that you reject parts of “Hydroplate Theory” -- the parts that propose that comets are formed from material ejected from the Earth by “gushing” water?

So, we have Earth processes being explained by a theory developed by a computer programmer / creationist with no training or study in Earth sciences, based on parts of a theory of Earth processes developed by a mechanical engineer / creationist with no training or study in Earth sciences (who claims that comets are formed by water "gushing" from subterranean caverns on the Earth).

Is that about correct? And, this is the theory that you are attempting to defend?

Do you realize that thousands of people do many experiments and field studies throughout a career – and almost unanimously reach conclusions opposing those of Mr. Brown and his one experiment?

Of course. So, again, it should be very easy to present evidence to counter my claims. Rather, what is typically charged against me is practically everything else besides evidence.

I realize that those who have weak arguments, particularly religionists, are prone to demand that their claims and theories be accepted and respected “unless proven false” (or “falsified”).

That is an argumentum ad ignorantum error in logic – Argumentum ad ignorantum I (Something not proven false has not been proven true). “Since you can not prove the absence of WMD’s in Iraq, we are justified in making a preemptive strike to prevent their use against us!”

Please refer to “Writing a Rational Essay” (and other sources) http://www.petrulionis.net/Writing%20a% ... 0Essay.htm

It is YOUR burden to support your theories. It is NOT my burden to disprove them. If you claim that you have a pink elephant in your living room, I am NOT expected to prove that you do not. If you claim that your FM successfully explains Earth conditions, it is YOUR burden to support the theory and to answer questions. It is NOT my burden to disprove your theories (or the theories of anyone regarding anything).

Do you understand and agree that the proponent of a theory is expected to prove that the theory is accurate?

Our debate had returned to being nothing more than a person with no training in Earth sciences, basing theories on theories of a person with no training in Earth science putting forth untested, unsubstantiated, unaccepted theories as though they are fact – unless they are disproved.

That is extremely weak defense of a literal flood. If the flood actually occurred “literally”, as you claim, you should be able to support your claim VERY solidly without resorting to second-hand theories and unsupported conjectures.

If a worldwide flood occurred a few thousand years ago, you should be able to cite irrefutable evidence.

You should not be “scrounging for support”, citing legends, talking about geology that you do not understand, attempting to make geological analysis from photographs, quoting creationist theories, making conjectures that you cannot support, etc – and demanding that I disprove your theories (instead of providing credible support for your own theories).

Where is your irrefutable evidence?

There is none. Your “literal flood” represents simple “belief” based on scriptures that you accept.

[wrekk]

OK folks, I found it!
I found the mother lode! Check out Christiananswers.net and see if you too can find the familiar sentences and paragraphs. I recognized a lot of it....

There is also a really nifty short video that explains the whole Flood in a nutshell. No need for further questioning once you have seen this gem! It has great special effects and beautiful photography. I encourage people to check it out. It brings new meaning to the expression "the dumbing down of America".
http://www.christiananswers.net/hope/thehope-c4.html

I'm still awaiting the punchline......

That was an .... entertaining video. WOW!!

[Fisherking]

Your personal opinion has no credibility. Kindly cite CONCLUSIONS of people who study the field to support the theory of rapid formation of coal.

the field evidence is consistent with catastrophic destruction and burial of vegetation during Noah’s Flood, and totally inconsistent with the slow and gradual swamp theory which prevails among geologists committed to the idea that ‘the present is the key to the past’, or geological evolution.
Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology

We see that many positive evidences have appeared which strongly support the allochthonous theory and the accumulation of many of the coal layers during the Noachian Flood Stuart E. Nevins has B.S. and M.S. degrees in geology

There are several indications that the process of making coal did not take millions of years. Trevor Major B.Sc and M.Sc in geology

There ya go--real life geologists who support the theory of rapid coal deposition.... does that mean the debate is over now and you are conceding that coal was deposited rapidly?

[Cmass]

Fisherking, this is hilarious! Give a man enough rope....

Here is some interesting info on Dr. Smelling:

Dr Alex Ritchie received his BSc. (Hons) in Geology and a Ph.D at the University of Edinburgh. He worked as a palaeontologist at the Australian Museum from 1968 to 1995 where he is currently a Research Fellow.
For several years, Australian creationists, representing the Creation Science Foundation Ltd, [now Answers in Genesis] have been publishing articles and addressing school and public groups on the topic of the age of the Earth. The theme of these articles and talks is that there is scientific evidence that the geological features of Australia are explicable within the context of an Earth which is only some 6-10,000 years old and that most such features can be attributed to a world-wide flood which occurred more recently still. The author of these claims made them with the authority of a BSc (Hons) in Geology and a PhD. However, in a recently published paper, this same author makes some very different claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.

These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.

Dr Alex Ritchie, palaeontologist at the Australian Museum, takes up the story.

There appear to be two geologists living, working and publishing in Australia under the name of Dr Andrew A Snelling. Both have impressive (and identical) scientific qualifications - a BSc (Hons), in Geology (University of NSW) and a PhD, for research in uranium mineralisation (University of Sydney).

Curiously, both Drs Snelling use the same address (PO Box 302, Sunnybank, Qld, 4109), which they share with an organisation called the Creation Science Foundation (CSF), the coordinating centre for fundamentalist creationism in Australia.

But the really strange thing about this is that the views of these two Drs Snelling, on matters such as the age of the earth and its geological strata, are diametrically opposed. This article, the result of my extensive searches through the literature, highlights this remarkable coincidence and poses some serious questions of credibility for the Creation Science Foundation and for either or both of the Drs Andrew A Snelling.

For convenience I refer to them below as follows:

(a) Dr A A Snelling 1 - creationist geologist, a director of CSF and regular contributor to, and sometime editor of, the CSF's quarterly magazine, Ex Nihilo (now CREATION ex nihilo).

(b) Dr A A Snelling 2 - consulting geologist who works on uranium mineralisation and publishes in refereed scientific journals.

Snelling 1 seldom, if ever, cites articles written by Snelling 2 and Snelling 2 never cites articles written by Snelling 1.

For the whole article:
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm

From his postscript:

Several years ago, in the Sydney Morning Herald, as one geologist to another, I publicly challenged Dr Snelling (the young-earth creationist version) to a public debate, before our geological peers, on a subject close to his heart - Noah's Flood - The Geological Case For and Against.

I've repeated the challenge several times since then and it still stands.

For reasons best known only to himself, Dr Snelling has declined to defend the creationist cause.

In the light of the above I suggest the reason is obvious. In his heart, and as a trained geologist, he knows that the young-earth model is a load of old codswallop and is totally indefensible.

- C

[Fisherking]

Fisherking, this is hilarious! Give a man enough rope

I merely "Kindly cited CONCLUSIONS of people who study the field to support the theory of rapid formation of coal". We aren't interested in their personal beliefs, only that they support rapid coal formation in their conclusions.

Now, in order for you to find what I say hilarious and say anything about rope, you need to have professional experience in comedy or ropemaking.....if not, your statements have no credibility.....

[Cmass]

Has anyone been to the Creationism Museum? It is, like, so totally cool! They explain The Flood too.
However, the most fascinating thing I found on their website was how they explain some of their own thinking - or lack thereof:

The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” Scripture. Instead, God’s Word is placed first and human reason is last.

Between these exhibits and the Creation Walk is a dark, graffiti-covered brick wall. It shows in stark detail the state of Western society. Abortion, gay marriage, school violence. The brick wall ends in a blatant expression of the prevailing social theory. No longer is absolute morality something that can be determined—even by humanity.
Who decides truth?

The Creation Museum shows that the problems in our culture aren’t the disease—they are merely symptoms of a much more serious cultural infection. Rejecting the biblical account of history led to the rejection of biblical authority in all other areas. By revisiting God’s Word in Genesis, we can realize the full breadth of Scripture and be ready to give an account for the hope we hold.

[wrekk]

The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” Scripture. Instead, God’s Word is placed first and human reason is last.

Is there a website with more info on this?

[Cmass]

Glad you asked. Here is where I got that quote. 5th paragraph down. However, the whole thing is absolutely hilarious:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article ... -an-excuse


And here is yet another piece from their website. The underlined is the kicker:

the museum demonstrates the difference between the evolutionary mindset and the mindset that Christians should have from Scripture.

And while trying to find the quote again I came across their tour of the Ark exhibit. I laughed out loud when I saw this. I am still having trouble believing that adults take this seriously. It is absolute childish fantasy and irrational by nearly any measure. Notice the saw job on the huge beams and railings as well as the fit and finish work on everything else. I asked this same question in another thread I started concerning Noah's gorgeous wife: Beyond the fantasy itself, why present scenes so far removed from the time? Why draw Noah's wife as a beautiful white woman and why make an Ark exhibit using sawn, planed lumber? It does not help the presenters of the fantasy one bit: