The Global Flood in the Christian Religion occurred.

These arguments presented by my opponent have a rational ring to them. Others have noticed that as well, for these are the usual statements presented against creationists. Withal, in this round I will soundly disprove each of them as well as strengthen mine in the process of doing so. Argument 1 Biblical contradiction at the sight.This argument presented seems quite reasonable. If the world was covered by water, no living plants would survive. A living plant couldn't survive the flood, but the seeds of it could. And that's exactly what happened. If you look at a seed, you can see that it can survive most circumstances. Being underwater wouldn't effect them to a degree of becoming unusable. Also, when the flood waters receded, it seems a though you expect the waters to drain at the same time. David Wright from Answers in Genesis (I'll discuss them in the next round) writes an idea that most of us should agree with. He writes,"The period of time was possibly shorter since it would have taken many weeks for the entire earth to be covered (including the high hills and mountains), and then some land would have been present long enough for the olive plant to have grown and produced leaves. So this time span could probably be shortened to six or seven months."[1]This would give the olive tree and other plants to sprout and grow leaves. As for the ground being basically a salty dump, common sense will explain this. The concentration of salt in today's ocean wouldn't be the same as it was before the flood. Today's oceans have had a massive flood to start their salinity plus 4344 years of erosion and stream deposits to gather the amount of salt we see today. After the flood occurred, it wasn't as uninhabitable as you think. In addition to the ground being fertile enough to grow plants, the olive tree itself is an extremely hardy plant. [2] The olive tree is able to grow in a multitude of climates. Therefore, the olive tree seed have a very good chance of surviving in the flood and growing after it. Argument 2Jumbled fossils FOUND.Actually it's rather humorous that this topic has been mentioned. In here the fact of no sign of intermixed fossils has been long disproved. For on example of many, consider Cumberland Bone Cave. What is so interesting about this simple location is the fossils that have been found in it. It was found to contain remains of dozens of mammal species together with reptiles and birds. The types represented included creatures native to Arctic, temperate, and tropical zones, and both dry and moist habitats. A graveyard that could easily explained by a catastrophic flood.To add another point onto my argument, I would like to take a step back and present a bird's eye view on our exploration of Earth. Throughout the years man has hunted, dug, and dived to gain knowledge of our home for thousands of years. With all of our research with and without modern technology, I have found a accurate estimate of what we have explored. The list of it is as follows:"Throughout history, the ocean has been a vital source of sustenance, transport, commerce, growth, and inspiration. Yet for all of our reliance on the ocean, 95 percent of this realm remains unexplored, unseen by human eyes" [6]"We’ve only explored about 0.4% of the Earth’s total mass... For all of human history, Earth’s explorers have been—quite literally—just scratching the surface." [7]"In some of these places, scientists are also discovering new species! For example, in 1992, a new mammal species called the saola was discovered in the thick forests of Vietnam." [8]The ground has been scarcely been searched for fossils. It's just like (not referring to my opponent) a toddler tired of searching for a lost toy and declaiming its existence. Once the strata layers have been thoroughly searched, we then can make that judgment. Argument 3Water laid fossils at sky level.In my argument I was presenting the fact that the ocean has indeed been above the mountains or more likely they were created by it. A global flood does have the answer to this. In fact the flood with its force and catastrophic result would have been able to create major plate tectonic movements. If we try to explain it otherwise, it completely fails. If the ocean didn't rise onto the continents, then the only other explanation would be that the continents sank below today’s sea level, so that the ocean waters flooded over them The continents are made up of lighter rocks that are less dense than the rocks on the ocean floor and rocks in the mantle beneath the continents. The continents, in fact, have an automatic tendency to rise, and thus “float” on the mantle rocks beneath, well above the ocean floor rocks. This explains why the continents today have such high elevations compared to the deep ocean floor, and why the ocean basins can hold so much water.[9] So a flood covering and creating mountains makes sense. Argument 4Globally spread sedimentary layers. In AIG, they do condemn radiometric dating. What they do say about it, is that is fallible and can predict inaccurate results. Nevertheless they do not entirely exclude it. Concerning the global spread of sedimentary layers, the result are rather surprising. In your argument you disprove my case by claiming that a flood wasn't needed to lay out large slabs of sediments. The only thing they prove is that the previous body of water was rather large. However I have a case to pose, which might indeed prove a stumbling block to explain. Consider the following pictures, s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="" /> s://cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...; alt="Kwagunt Creek" width="201" height="118" />Obviously we can see that the issue with these sedimentary layers are bent. How these got here can be explained by the layers being bent while they were still soft. How evolutionists explain this leaves an insurmountable problem. The conventional explanation is that under the pressure and heat of burial, the hardened sandstone and limestone layers were bent so slowly they behaved as though they were plastic and thus did not break. However, pressure and heat would have caused detectable changes in the minerals of these rocks, tell-tale signs of metamorphism. But such metamorphic minerals or recrystallization due to such plastic behavior is not observed in these rocks.[10] The sedimentary layers themselves proclaim a global flood.Argument 5Water all around us."And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good." (Genesis 1:6-10) [3]In this verse from the bible, what do we see? we see the earth being entirely enveloped in water before the land was created. So there was enough water to cover the earth a fist time, and it could cover it again. The origin of where the waters came from is quoted in the bible. It says that the fountains of the deep were opened up and the windows of heaven rained on the earth. Dr. Tas Walker backs up this idea. He writes,"We read in Genesis 7:11 that ‘all the springs of the great deep burst forth’. It’s likely that this water came from the earth’s mantle. Geologists calculate that the rocks in the mantle still contain within their mineral structure enough water to fill the oceans at least ten times over. They also recognize that material has come out of the outer part of the mantle, which they call the 'depleted mantle'"[4]In this evidence we see that water is everywhere. If there was enough water to cover the earth at one point, then where did it all go? The answer is simple. All you have to do is take an drive (or flight) to the nearest ocean. Since the flood did have enough force to create major tectonic plate movements, the water simply had to recede into the new ocean floor. Consider this quote. " The hypsographic (Gk. hypsos=height) chart shows the amount of the earth’s surface at (or higher than) various elevations.1 It illustrates that if the ocean basins were pushed up 5 km and the mountains shaved off, water would cover the entire earth. Such tectonic movements seem huge to us, but compared with the radius of the earth, (6,378 km), the movement is tiny, less than 0.1%."[11] In a global flood perspective we, speculate that the mountains and ocean floor was created by the flood. ConclusionIn this round I hopefully explained your arguments considering how skimpy they were. Unfortunately I have run out of available character and will refute your attack on Answers in Genesis. I eagerly await my opponent's next arguments. Sources[1] https://answersingenesis.org...[2] http://www.olivegrovenurseries.co.uk...[3] https://www.biblegateway.com...[4] http://creation.com...[6] http://oceanservice.noaa.gov...[7] http://mysteriousuniverse.org...[8] http://www.amnh.org...[9] 4.J. P. Davidson, W. E. Reed, and P. M. Davis, “Isostasy,” in Exploring Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997), pp. 124–129.[10] Ref. 8; G. H. Davis and S. J. Reynolds, “Deformation Mechanisms and Microstructures,” Structural Geology of Rocks and Regions, 2nd ed. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996), pp. 150–202.[11] http://creation.com...