The Great Flood Was an Actual Historical Event

However, there are several flaws in his arguments that will collapse it. These flaws come from both logical and factual flaws. I do not dispute Con’s points about the date of the Flood. Amount of water:I dispute, however, his calculations about the amount of water. This is simply because of the well known phenomena of catastrophic events increasing the rate of change (On which my sources touched upon. It seems that Con has ignored this). In this case, Con’s argument is factually flawed. This means that Con has not factored into account the catastrophic effects of a global flood before refuting it. This also means that Con’s argument is logically flawed. In conclusion, Con’s argument is both factually and logically flawed. Thus I need not reply to his rhetorical question. Human Race:My opponent’s argument here hinges on the assumption that Noah was a Jew. I have shown this assumption false very clearly. He is merely repeating a defeated argument. Thus this argument is logically invalid. It is also factually flawed. Why? As my opponent has brought in some new information in the last round, I feel it morally justified to bring in information of my own. The whole idea of human race is biologically unsound. To quote from [1], “Any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants. ” “. .. the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese. ”“. .. Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans. The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races that we think of in an everyday sense as identified by skin color, hair form, and nose shape. This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races. .. ” (Emphasis all mine)It can be clearly seen from these quotes alone, not even by reading the article, which all should do, that the idea of race is unsound. Con considers that human of the past are incapable of travel. This is simply not true. All of Con’s argument relating to this crumbles in the face of the vast evidence I have presented. Saltwater fish: Con’s arguments rely on the reader not being aware of outside facts. This argument basically ignores the fact that large aquariums have freshwater and saltwater fishes living in the same tank. It is one of their major attractions. Thus this argument is factually flawed. I will not address the issue of evolution being too slow. Why did I not reply to many of Con’s arguments? There is one simple answer to this. Con did not make an argument more than formulate a skeptical questionnaire. I do not respond to such types of non-arguments. Geology: My opponent has committed the grave offence of ignoring the argument. Quite simply, I have already explained this phenomenon in detail. So much so that I ran out of space. It is bad debating to ignore an argument. After all, debating is all about responding to an argument. Rebuttals that make no sense: Con’s rebuttals relies on quotations from wordpress blogs. This means that he is not quoting from the scientists themselves. Basically, he relies on a source which quotes Faux, not Faux’s own words. Furthermore, Con has once again ignored the evidence I presented, preferring that readers ignore it with him. I will not cite the vast evidence for my case again. Con has basically used a source ([13]) as his argument. If he wants to make an argument, he’d better write it out. Mt. Everest fossils: Like Con said, read my debate with Roy. Along with the comments. In Conclusion: Con has made the following errors:1. Con has ignored the argument.2. Con has made both factual and logical errors.3. Con has used a source as an argument.4. Con uses blog news as sources. This means that his sources is unreliable and should be discarded despite being more numerous. With all of these conduct violations, I would strongly urge the voters to be cautious in their voting. I will most certainly be heavily criticising any RFD that is insufficient. 1. . http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org...