Did Noah's Flood Occur as Depicted in Genesis

Lets get something straight here. In the last round, I was in no way trying to justify plagiarizism. Instead, I was trying to explain why I did NOT plagiarize in the first place. So let me elaborate.(wikipedia) Plagiarism is the "wrongful [borrowing]" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. In other words, it is taking someone else's work and passing it off as if its your own by NOT referencing it in some way.This means that Warp's definition of Plagiarism and application of it here is inaccurate. I DID reference every information I copied and pasted including the source in question. Moreover, there was nothing about that information I copied that would give the impression that it was my own thoughts and ideas because I mentioned the author of the study and provided a source to the study in regards to the Primary source. The secondary source and the author of it simply extracted the relevant information from the primary source that I did not have access to because it was a subscription journal. So ,at the most, this would simply be a case of improperly citing a source NOT plagiarism let alone intentional plagiarism that Warp claimed I committed. With that said, I probably could have paraphrased some of the language that the secondary source presented that maybe attributed to that secondary author. However, I still would not have changed that much of it in order to stay true to the primary author's argument. Again, he may have forgotten to put quotation marks, but if he didn't this isn't good. I didn't cite my sources for some paragraphs, though this is not plagiarism. I apologize for this laziness on my part. I am afraid Con DID in fact plagiarize according to Warp's inaccurate and abritrary definition of plagiarism: "You make no implications that these are quotations by either citing a source OR putting them in quote marks. And these are entire segments of your argument that you play out as if they are your own words."I then said worldwide and global are synonyms for each other, and that global is often an antonym for local. In the very beginning of the debate, I said my opponent must believe in a worldwide flood in the directions of the debate. My opponent is right, the resolution makes no mention of whether the flood was global or local, yet I clarified this in my introduction. I did not say this debate was about Noah's flood being worldwide or local in the book of Genesis? Let me clarify what I meant about holding to a Worldwide flood model. Hugh Ross who is a old creationist explains in his article why he describes his position on Noah's story as the worldwide flood:"At the extreme ends of the interpretive spectrum are these two positions: the global flood view and the local flood view. The global view says that the floodwaters covered the entire planet, destroyed every living thing, and generated all of Earth’s major geological features. The local flood view asserts that the event was a relatively minor one, affecting only a tiny fraction of the planet and of the human population. The RTB scholar team takes a view that differs from both of these, as will become clear in a series of three articles on the topic. Based on the meaning of the word [worldwide], “encompassing all members of a category or group,” in this case “all humanity,” our position can best be described as the [worldwide] flood view. " "The same is true of the Old—and New—Testament references to 'the world.' Modern readers instantly think of the globe. Ancient readers (mostly hearers, because manuscripts and reading ability were limited) never even imagined a terrestrial ball. 'Earth' or 'world' to them meant 'land' or implied people and societies..........Two familiar Old Testament passages narrate 'worldwide' events other than the Flood: Genesis 41:56–42:6 and 1 Kings 10. The same Hebrew word, ’eres, translated as 'the earth' in the Flood account, is translated as 'the world' in these passages. So their meaning is essentially interchangeable." "In all these and other Bible passages the words translated as 'all the world,' 'the whole world,' 'every nation under heaven,' and 'all over the world' refer to geographical or geopolitical regions somewhat less extensive than planet Earth’s entire surface. Therefore, one may reasonably conclude that references in Genesis 6–8 to “all the surface of the earth,” and “under the entire heavens” need not imply a globally extensive event. "http://www.reasons.org...There, this is essentially why I agreed to the debate since I am a creaitionist who believes in a worldwide flood, which is what Con required. Moreover, I got the impression that the debate was going to be about whether the story of Noah as depicted in the biblical book of Genesis was supported by science. I ,then, proceeded to provide empircal support for it as Con required from me in the introduction:" He can't use faith as a justification for belief, and must prove it with evidence. Of course, positive claims require positive evidence, and that is what I expect." I even addressed all the problems that Noah's story presented potentially. However, Con wanted to assume that there was only one interpretation of the Noah's flood story or dismiss the other model throughout the debate. He tried to justify this by appealing to secular definitions that suggest "Global" and "worldwide" mean the same thing, but this is not necessarily the case. Worldwide has additonal connotations to it that involve life forms, specificallly humans where Global is strictly referring to the earth. https://en.wikipedia.org...All in all, there is no reason why Con could not have just shifted his gameplan to accomodate the situation because ,ultimately, its his fault that he did not do enough research on creationists literature. Instead, he tries to restructure the resolution in a way that does not require him to argue for a global flood interpretation of Noah's flood story depicted in Genesis and force me to address his scientific arguments against a global flood. God could be stopped by chariots of iron (Judges 1:19), and the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years under divine guidance. This has nothing to do with the Noah's flood story, but I will entertain it anyways. Yes, God cannot do everything but can only perform acts that are consistent with his nature. For instance, It is impossible for God to allow his mercy to override his justice. His holiness never conflicts with his love. Thus, God must be true to "all" his attributes at once and is bound by them.What evidence do you have that Noah was the originator, rather than the Epic of Gilgamesh or such. Keep in mind that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates your book. Your source only says that language originated in Africa, and there are still many other myths.I don't see why this is relevant since I am not arguing that the story of Noah depicted in Genesis was divinely inspired in order to show that God exists. The resolution only required me to provide empirical basis for the flood, which is described in the bible as being an event that happened before the emergence of all other cultures. Thus, the story of Gligamesh would simply add more evidence that it happened, ESPECIALLY when Con himself argued in round 2 that both stories were virtually the same in regards to fundamental aspects.Gopher Wood"I really think you are reading in between the lines here, without reading the lines."If that is how Con feels, then let us just say its inconclusive because there is not enough textual evidence to determine which assumption is correct and just drop this point.Conclusion"For my opponent to win, he can't merely cite that man came from Africa, everyone has flood stories, and therefore Noah's flood is true"Despite what my opponent claims, I provided more evidence than this. He just did not respond to it so I will lay it out again.According to the science daily article, all humans were still located in Africa beyond some 50,000 years past during which a population bottleneck occurred: The number of humans plummeted, and the shrinking remnant became more genetically similar. Even though this study does not claim that the population bottleneck occured because of a flood, it essentially confirms everything else that can be confirmed about the story. As far as evidence that shows that this bottleneck occured by a worldwide flood, the livescience article I gave in round one revealed evidence that the Persian Gulf region was once a lush oasis, during the last glacial maximum. As Rose points out, the Gulf Oasis was watered by springs upwelling from subterranean aquifers. Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 7:11 identifies “springs of the great deep” as part of the source of the flood waters that wreaked havoc upon the ungodly of Noah’s generation, which would explain why today’s geography is different compared to the past. Thus, the Gulf Oasis vindicates the unique claims Genesis makes about the sources of water .