Me vs Evan Phillips (NephilimFree) - Does the Evidence Support the Biblical Flood Account? 2015

( video | 1:05m )

Source.

Don't worry, this blog won't just be my debates. To make up for it, I'm going to post my friend's score of the debate. He used to score academic and competition debates so it'll be good.

Briefly, a few days ago I debated a known YouTube Creationist named NephilimFree. He's known for being long-winded, self-absorbed, and having a pleasant voice. This isn't the first time I've interacted with him and those interactions have always gotten heated but he never holds a grudge. The other thing that I should say about Neph is that he does stick to empirical evidence. He doesn't like just saying a miracle occurred. He also likes geology, like myself. The issue is that instead of just saying God did it, he gets a lot of science wrong or ignores/fails to look into other science.

I've been jonsing for a formal debate and finally got it. The issue is that I bombed this debate. You can read that in my friend Cliff's assessment below. I think I only came off stronger near the last half, especially my concluding statement. The problem is that it was just more obvious that I left some things Neph brought up unanswered and again, I blew my cross examination section. I messed that up so much, a friend of mine refuses to listen to the rest of it.

Cliff's Score

 

Opening - NephilimFree : 10 mins

-cites the hermit formation (hermit shale) as an example of falsification uniformitarianism, argues that the silicates necessary require a flood
-distinct boundary layers in strata can not be explained by slow continuous deposition

-makes ad hominem remarks that uniformitarianism beliefs are irrational

-cites bed with diverging gradients are impossible by wind, have to be a flood

-there are numerous visual aids which are referenced but not visible in the YT presentation

-cites anticlines as evidence that the layers had to be fluidic to explain bends in strata

Joe - Cross : 3 mins

-cites the pryamid and tower of babel and gets agreement from Nephilim that they require large amounts of people (1000+)

-gets agreement that non-pre Cambrian events are flood caused

-asks for an explanation of the varves in the Green River shale (alternate very fine layers which are growing season/dark and dry season/light )

Nephilim - 8 mins

-asserts that the Green River shale can not be explained under  uniformitarianism, cites polystrata fossils in varves

-makes another ad hominem (asserts that uniformitarianism arguments are figments of the imagination)

-brings up numerous arguments Joe didn't raise and then attempts to disprove them

Opening - Joe : 10 muns

-argues the flood is not a good scientific model (simple, fits with what we know, explanatory power, makes novel predictions)

-the layers show examples of situations such as  desiccation, fossil charcoal in the layer caused by the flood, yet these cause large time scales

-the only way to explain these are to provide a complex - ad hoc ideas

-Egypt and other civilizations are pre-flood and as well population models are contradicted by the flood (where did all the people come from to build the tower of babel)

-explanatory power is poor, cites the specialization of elephants in very short timescales and rapid divergence (position wise) of the population

-novel predictions seems to be lacking, fossils are not mixed up, where did all the diseases come from, all where host in Noah's family?

Cross - Nephilim : 3 mins

-how can millions of tons of silicates be transported without evidence of transport (erosion)

-how can anticlines form

-explain gradients

-complete fossils in chalk

-could parasites be in the animals

-human footprint on trilobites

Joe - Response : 8 mins

-actualists don't argue transport is wind only

-anticlines form under high pressure / high heat

-claims that the footprint is debunked

-recaps that Nephilim has not addresses his points made in the opening however the formats doesn't allow it

-does not address all of the questions raised

Nephilim : 5 mins

-claims trilobytes are not refuted

-charcoal is caused by volcanoes

-burrowing (bioturbbation), claims it is missing, argues Joe is presenting false information

-elephants problem is based on secular timeline

-against asserts anticlines falsify uniformitarianism (rocks can not bend)

Joe : 5 mins 

-notes again anticlines can form under high pressure / heat and uplift

-cites multiple examples of bioturbation 

-notes no response to desiccation, volcanoes can't explain charcoal due to the presence of other bioforms, ignored the other arguments (population growth)

-the elephant timeline comes from answers in genesis, not secular timelines

-notes again a lack of prediction of the flood model

Summary :

Both participants have examples of poor form. Joe criticizes Nephilim initially for failing to address his arguments in Nephilim's first 3 min response but that was a question time, not a rebuttal. Nephilim accuses Joe of being dishonest with no references, makes implications character references which are not rational argument and at best logical fallacies of emotional pleas or appeals to incredulity. This is neutral.

Both openings lay out a foundation, Joe's is slightly more organized but Nephilim's is also clear that there are multiple claims of geological events which seem to require a global flood. Neutral here.

The first round of questioning is strongly in Nephilim's favor. Joe seemed to be setting up Nephilim for future discussion vs challenging him on points raised in the opening. 

In the rebuttal both participants ignore arguments raised by the other. Joe for example ignores Nephilim's parasite argument to explain the source of all disease in people. Nephilim ignores desiccation events. This is neutral, no advantage to either.

Closing, this strongly favors Joe. He does a well executed summary and notes all points left unaddressed from the opening, clarifies a mistake Nephilim made in thinking the Elephant speciation was from secular timelines and again notes rebuttal arguments which were ignored (anticline explanation).

In short, I see this as close, but a very slight margin to Joe. It was however very close and if Nephilim had not made the mistake about the Elephant timeline and provided a concise description of all arguments uncontested he would have closed that gap.

 

My review

In general it just isn't a good debate. Neph and I talked past each other, Neph also insisted on a messed up debate structure based on his inaccurate understanding of the format of a Policy Debate, and it seemed too rushed.

A policy debate has this format:
Neph 10m, Me 3m questions, Me 10m, Neph 3m questions, Neph 8m, Me 8m, Neph 5m, Me 5m.

But Neph made it:
Neph 10m, Me 3m questions, Neph 8m, Me 10m, Neph 3m, Me 8m, Neph 5m, Me 5m.

This was weird and made the rebuttals worthless. Also the first 21 minutes are a slog.

Self-criticisms

I should have prepared more. I sounded nervous and was a bit all over the place and let Neph get away with a lot of crap. I also agree with Cliff that it was poor form to say Neph didn't address my points, though I don't agree with him so strongly. I did it because I was William Lane Craig'ing Neph, AND because I was trying to establish that my points were so critical that Neph SHOULD have addressed them in his opening.

Speaking of William Lane Craig'ing, that's probably what saved me. Listening to so many of his debates made me have the stronger case if not the strongest specific response. Like Craig, I framed the debate by saying Neph needed to meet a criteria in order to make his case. Also like Craig, I kept arguing with respect to that framework. AGAIN like Craig, my opponent didn't object to my framework, nor did he speak about his evidence with reference to it so, like Craig, I brutalized Neph for not doing that. I felt so slick calling out the arguments Neph failed to respond to, the claims he dropped, all that good stuff. That's what saved me, but BARELY.

I also gave too many arguments. I should have stuck to fewer and fleshed them out more.

Neph criticisms

People were telling me that he would be difficult in a formal debate because he could shotgun arguments but I knew the guy would fall apart if he debated someone who knew how to play the debating game right. I don't yet, but I can ape those guys who do, like Craig. Anyways, Neph shotgunned me but failed to answer many of my arguments.

Neph also was mean-spirited and caustic. He said I was being dishonest and that uniformatarians are delusional. He also sounded belligerent.

Another thing I had a feeling would happen but was surprised it was so damaging, is that Neph doesn't pay attention. In a formal debate you have to pay attention so you are giving a relevant response. But Neph didn't grasp that I was using the Creationist Young Earth timeline in my argument at all. This crushed him because he felt he didn't have to respond to my arguments about ancient civilizations and population growth because he thought I was arguing from the secular timeline, which is wrong. The reason why he said it was wrong was because the fossil record and dating are circular reasoning. That's technically wrong, but I never called him on it, but it doesn't matter because I was using his timeline and if he was paying attention he would have realized that he shouldn't wasted him time on an irrelevant topic.

Even in the after debate discussion this didn't seem to hit Neph. Not until an hour into that discussion did he realize I was saying he had to defend the Answers in Genesis timeline did he freak out and say I was being dishonest and putting words in his mouth and kick me. That debate was a crazy one and I would post it but Neph hosted it and deleted it. I knew he would delete it because he realizes now that he contradicts himself in it so I downloaded it but I'll only make it public if he's okay with it or continues to call me dishonest.

Anyways, for my first debate I think people will let it slide that I dropped the ball, but I won't. I get on atheists for not preparing for their debates and I was just as bad. No excuse. Next time I gotta rock the debate. If I don't, then maybe I do just suck at this. I was told I'm a bit better in an informal setting, maybe I should stick to that, instead.

One things for sure. You want to win a formal debate then follow William Lane Craig's lead. Seriously. Here's some good advice on the issue:

https://evaluatingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/04/13/advice-for-debating-william-lane-craig/