The Biblical Flood occurred

Thanks again, Envisage.I disagree that his BOP is high. I acknowledge that MY BOP is high, and his BOP is light. Remember, I said that Con is NOT allowed to make any contentions. Since contentions are synonymous with the word "assertion" (15), he does not have such a huge burden, considering that one who makes the assertion (which is me) is the one with the BOP. Since I told him that he is only allowed to make refutations, Con's job is easier. Affirming the ConsequentWhat Con is trying to do is that my proofs don't really have to be results of Noah's flood. Con says that my second proof is a strong case of it. However, if I prove that there CANNOT be ANY other explanations for the historical proofs and fossils in the mountains besides the biblical flood, then Con's arguments shall be negated.A. Mathematical ProofTo prove that my mathematical reasoning was circular, he tried to use another example with the number "7,000". If I could show that equation 1 is not the same as equation 4, then Con's claim of circular reasoning will be dismissed. All it takes is common sense to display that. My equation #1 was 1. 7,000,000,000 = 6e^r4500, alright? As obviously conveyed by the equal sign, my equation is saying that 7,000,000,000 IS 6e^r4500.For equation #4, my answer ended up with 6,670,066,345.47. This is obviously not the same as equation one.All Con did was just use 7,000 as a starting population and use the formulas I used, for which he got 6,853,406,732 as an answer. 6,853,406,732 is not the same as his equation #1, although he contradicts himself by saying "6,853,406,732 people is pretty much the same as we started with". In order for Con to show that equation #4 is the same as equation #1, he must show that the number "6,670,066,345.47" is part of equation #1. ONLY THEN will it be CIRCULAR mathematical reasoning, for you would then end up where you began. Then again, that's obviously not true. I have no idea what Con is trying to convey. I understand that Con is struggling to prove how it is circular (as indicated by his very own words "It will be somewhat complicated to show exactly how it is circular"), but I would still appreciate it if he could elaborate on this a bit more. B. Sea creatures in high altitudesOnce again, if I show ONLY the biblical flood can the be explanation behind these fossils, then con's replies can be dismissed. Con tried to use an alternative explanation, which said that the fossilization occurred long before (and therefore GRADUAL). If I can show that these creatures were RAPIDLY buried (the result of the Biblical flood), then I can win this part of the debate.Thousands of fossilized jellyfish (16) show that they are soft and fleshy (17-18), implying that they didn't undergo much decomposition. In other words, the burial was so rapid that they had no time go through decay (19-20).Moreover, many fossils of sea creatures show that they died in contorted and twisted positions, showing results of rapid and violent burial.If we go under Con's presupposition that these things were fossilized long ago, then that pretty much goes against the very conditions required for fossilization. Fossilized remnants of organisms imply that they were preserved well enough to not be consumed and deteriorated by scavengers , bacteria, oxygen, etc (21). If those had SUCH A LONG TIME to be there (as opposed to rapid burial), then they would have deteriorated into nothingness eventually. Simply put, fossils require rapid burial, lest they decay.Look at these pics (22): Here is a picture of a fish swallowing another fish. Thousands of them have been discovered (22). This goes to show that the burial and the fossilization process must have been quick enough to capture this moment. Here is a picture of a fish digesting its food. Digestion is fast, so think about how much faster the fossilization could have been! Here is a fossilized dragonfly wing. The wing is delicate, meaning that it would have decayed fast if it took a long time.Also, Envisage, I am not using Genesis ITSELF to say that the flood occurred. I am just using the Genesis account to match it with the scientific evidence today. Plus, the fountains of the deep (the NIV Bible says SPRINGS of the great deep BURST forth) can only refer to the what made the water rise because there is no other way that the marines could be on mountain tops. Also, seabeds themselves contain largely oceanic limestone, but the way the fountains were broken up exposes the DEEPER layers of the earth to release the molten rock.Moving, Genesis says that the waters receded (meaning that the waters went back to the oceans), so the impacts are more concentrated on the mountain tops (where fossils are present) as opposed to the valleys.Con: ". . . we would expect to see them to have been laid in various orientations on the mountain"REMEMBER: They were fossilized ALIVE (it was RAPID burial). They didn't just die normally, lay there for a while in all those orientations, and then get fossilized (cause then that's not RAPID).Also, it seems that Con got these arguments (they sound really similar) from Yahoo Answers (unreliable site), and then just cited Stephen J. Gould (23). So, voters, consider this while reading the debate. C. Historical ProofsCon: "1. We have abundant evidence that local floods do occur, in virtually every continent and in virtually every country"Irrelevant. Again, the point is that regardless of differences (whether they describe global or local floods), they hold the kernel of what's common. I will explain why these common (the main ideas) things are what ultimately matter below (as opposed to local or global floods).And #2, obviously everyone but Noah and family would have survived. The point is that the VERY NEXT generations after Noah's family noticed the devastation of the flood (which would have still remained at their time since it would be recent at that time) and learned of their encounter with the deluge. That makes it GOOD historical data.Now, that "concession" I made is not a concession at all, because the discrepancies are MINOR, not MAJOR as Con said with no supporting evidence (24). The thing is that although lots of people talk about the same WITNESS ACCOUNT of it, the thing is that the ancestors must have SURELY EXPERIENCED THE EVENT if MANY SEPARATE cultures share the common things of their respective flood stories despite geographical isolation. This is still a good thing historically.The question is: If the flood didn't happen, then why do so many isolated cultures have their own versions of it? How would they manage to invent the same types of stories on their own despite the isolation? Con's Spider-man analogy is nothing more than a straw-man because the number of people talking about it doesn't mean that it all came from a common ancestor like the flood story.Conclusion:I have shown..- That Con has not corroborated how my math is circular- That fossilization is rapid, and that requirements of fossilization implies that the flood occured.- That many flood stories could not have been composed by so many different civilizations if they don't have a common ancestor that experienced such a violent event. It is good historical proof to for the newer generations to hear the flood story from their very own ancestors. Sources:15. http://tinyurl.com...16. James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology, Vol. 30, February 2002, pp. 147–150.17. Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–71718. Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989), pp. 61–6219. David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–2220. Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–22521. http://tinyurl.com...22. http://tinyurl.com...23. http://tinyurl.com...24. http://tinyurl.com...