True conversation. "X" is a well-educated, very intelligent lawyer who prides himself on his rational approach to Judaism. X considers himself Modern Orthodox, and often snickers at what he believes to be silly, naive statements by Chazal.
X: There cannot be any conflict between Torah and Science. And since basic principles of science don't change, any obvious conflicts must require a re-interpretation of Torah.
Me: OK, so what about the Mabul? We know that there wasn't a global flood 4500 years ago, and that all life wasn't destroyed and re-populated from Noah. It's obvious that this is a Mesopotamian flood myth - likely based on the experience of an actual catastrophic event - but the Torah is adapting it to its monotheistic outlook.
X: I agree that the story is mythical, but that God is using this method of discourse to teach us a lesson.
Me: Why would God use a myth to convey a theological message when it could be done without telling a fairy tale?
X: I don't know why God needed to tell a lie [note: he actually used this term], but there must be a reason why He chose to do so.
Me: Isn't it more likely that it isn't God speaking, and that man composed this story?
X: I cannot compromise on my belief that the Torah was given by God to Moses.
I had thought that the conversation began with an intellectual assertion by X, but on later reflection realized that the conversational show-stopper was contained within his very first sentence, and not the eventual explicitly stated unwillingness to compromise his core belief of Torah from Sinai. Really, there was no purpose for engaging in intellectual discourse once "There cannot be any conflict between Torah and Science" was stated - not as premise - but as fact.