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

[Zzyzx]

Place any comments about our debate here.





.

[wrekk]

Experiments

uhhh... how is this supporting your case? Please explain....

[otseng]

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...

It could be anybody - scientists, professionals, laymen, high school students, whoever.

It would be very intriguing to see some experiments performed to validate your FM theories.

Brown did an experiment with sediment layering.

[wrekk]

Brown did an experiment with sediment layering.

Now I can probably theorize that the water in the jug to the right came from a water facet, where do you theorize the water that was inside the earth came from?

Their sorting and later fossilization might give the mistaken impression that organisms buried and fossilized in higher layers evolved millions of years after lower organisms.

So all the independent testing of fossils currently in practice are false? This proves it?

[otseng]

Now I can probably theorize that the water in the jug to the right came from a water facet, where do you theorize the water that was inside the earth came from?

The origin of the water is not dealt with in the FM.

So all the independent testing of fossils currently in practice are false? This proves it?

Are there experiments where fossils are produced?

[wrekk]

The origin of the water is not dealt with in the FM.

So how am I supposed to take it seriously then?

Are there experiments where fossils are produced?

That doesn't answer my question, but to answer yours... no I guess not, or else the whole "fossil fuel crisis" would instantly be solved.

[otseng]

The origin of the water is not dealt with in the FM.

So how am I supposed to take it seriously then?

The FM simply asserts that there was water in subterranean chambers. A model doesn't have to go back to time 0 and explain everything that happened ever. You can go on an infinite regress here. Does geology likewise explain the origin of all minerals on the Earth?

Are there experiments where fossils are produced?

That doesn't answer my question, but to answer yours... no I guess not, or else the whole "fossil fuel crisis" would instantly be solved.

So I'm not clear then by what you mean by "all the independent testing of fossils currently in practice".

[Goat]

The origin of the water is not dealt with in the FM.

So how am I supposed to take it seriously then?

The FM simply asserts that there was water in subterranean chambers. A model doesn't have to go back to time 0 and explain everything that happened ever. You can go on an infinite regress here. Does geology likewise explain the origin of all minerals on the Earth?

What is the evidence of this? Exactly, what it the mechanism that allowed it to ge up into the atmosphere, and rain down. Where is this water now?

Where is the forensic evidence of this occurring?

Also, what happened to the caverns once this water went forth? What replaced the water in the caverns? WHat happens when you suddenly have an empty space that used to have lots and lots of water in it? Why weren't there any sinkholes by the roofs collapsing?

[Zzyzx]

.

The origin of the water is not dealt with in the FM.

The Origin of the water is not dealt with by FM.

The EXISTENCE of the water is not dealt with by FM

The Origin of the supposed vast "caverns" ten miles below the surface is not dealt with.

The EXISTENCE of said caverns is not dealt with by the FM.

The FM ASSUMES all of the above with NO evidence or support.

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.

The FM also proposes that “gushing” water pushed continents apart at a rate that must have equaled ten miles per day – that the Earth’s sedimentary rocks were deposited within a year – that “mountains were lower then” – that erosion of the Earth’s features happened in a year --

That attests to the credibility of the FM and its author.

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...

It could be anybody - scientists, professionals, laymen, high school students, whoever.

What verifiable evidence (not assertions) has been presented to support the FM? How has the evidence been verified? By whom? Please cite actual sources of verification of the existence of water filled caverns, of gushing water, of

One can draw information from any source. The QUALITY of the information may differ between that drawn from a kindergartener and a professional in the field. If one is searching for useful and accurate information regarding computer programming, for example, are they well advised to quote a grade school student or an experienced programmer?

If a grade school student claims that he knows more than professional computer programmers, but cannot produce evidence or results, is the information he provides regarded as credible? Such claims are not taken seriously by those who study nature – they ask for evidence. Perhaps creationists prefer to believe the grade school student – provided that his “evidence” appears to support bible beliefs.

Among those who actually pursue knowledge, “evidence” provided by a person who has no demonstrated knowledge in the field, and who cannot substantiate claims and theories is regarded as without credibility.

Walter Brown, originator of the “Flood Model” has NO credibility as an Earth scientist of any kind. His study was in the field of mechanical engineering. His stated objective is to promote creationism. Powerful arguments are not based upon theories advanced by those who have not studied the field in question – particularly when they have stated a bias in favor of promoting a particular belief system.

It would be very intriguing to see some experiments performed to validate your FM theories.

Brown did an experiment with sediment layering.

Do you accept Mr. Brown’s ONE experiment as proving his theories?????? 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?

[Cmass]

All quotes are from Otseng:

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

Show the mechanism for how this happened and cite extensive studies that show how this extraordinary claim is likely true. You don't have to be an expert, but to be believable, you should cite experts and well-documented studies. As you know, documentation and peer review are a critical part of good scientific evaluation.

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.

You will be up against some very knowledgeable scientists on this one in a complex field of study. I hope you are prepared and have your own cadre of peer-reviewed professionals to back up whatever claims you will make.

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

Great! Then where is it?

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."

That has not been the entire content of his argument. However, if you are going to challenge the worldwide scientific community by presenting something as extraordinary as the FM, you had better be prepared with some extraordinary evidence. Any evidence from anyone simply doesn't work - you must know this.

People need to go an additional step and show how the predominant theory better explains challenging theories.

Otseng, you should know better. It is the challenging theory that needs to give reason to unseat the prevailing theory! And the prevailing theory was developed due to the evidence. Your theory was in existence before the data was gathered and is only now looking for evidence to keep it alive.
Where is the peer reviewed evidence that will unseat the currently theories on geology?

If the predominant theory has more explanatory power, then it should be quite easy to present the evidence.

First of all, this is a false assumption. Would it be easier for me to explain the theory of pressure waves in modern aircraft wings (not every detail is known) or tell you God holds airplanes up in the sky with his big hands? Second, evidence has been presented and is relatively easy access. It is YOU who need to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary claims that challenge the prevailing theories.
Where is this extraordinary evidence and the peer reviews that were associated with them?

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

There is not a legion of scientists who study or even publish studies on dragons and talking donkey's either. Why do you think that is? These things are in the bible, so why no scientists studying them?

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.

I have evidence there are dragons - my evidence is verifiable and includes the fact that I have seen fire breathers before. I have my own dragon society that studies such things too. You can get evidence from me if you want. No need for experts in zoology or any other field. You can just get it from me!

It could be anybody - scientists, professionals, laymen, high school students, whoever.

My Aunt Bernice has some excellent evidence of dragons too.

The origin of the water is not dealt with in the FM.

Why not? Too much magic for one theory to hold? It is one of the basic requirements for this "theory" to exist. Why not deal with this most central issu?

Are there experiments where fossils are produced?

Nobody is asking you to run an experiment that recreates The Flood. It is important, however, to run numerous peer-reviewed studies to obtain various pieces of credible evidence and then have that evidence critiqued by peers. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence that can withstand the scrutiny of peer review

It is easy to worm out of the need for peer review by simply stating the "peers" are somehow in collusion with each other concerning the prevailing theory and so they don't count - or comparing those peers with Mr. Brown's church peers and claiming they are the same thing.

The FM simply asserts that there was water in subterranean chambers.

What evidence led to that conclusion? Or, is it a conclusion that is seeking evidence?

A model doesn't have to go back to time 0 and explain everything that happened ever. You can go on an infinite regress here.

Nobody is asking for infinite regress. Just evidence that an extraordinary event took place.

I'm still waiting for the punch line....

[otseng]

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.

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.