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

Zzyzx · Post by **Zzyzx** » Sun Aug 05, 2007 1:26 am

Place any comments about our debate here.

.

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:54 am

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!

Post by **otseng** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:33 am

Cmass wrote: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 · Post by **Cmass** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:00 pm

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 · Post by **wrekk** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:43 pm

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 · Post by **Fisherking** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:54 pm

Cmass wrote: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 · Post by **Goat** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:54 pm

Fisherking wrote:
Cmass wrote: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 · Post by **wrekk** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:12 pm

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

That is a great quote. Can I use it?

Cmass · Post by **Cmass** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 3:14 am

Post by **otseng** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:56 am

Cmass wrote: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.

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

Yes, it is interesting.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Thu Oct 25, 2007 9:02 am

otseng wrote:
Cmass wrote: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.

Fisherking wrote: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.