Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark

SUMMARY VERSION [OVERVIEW] Let's look to the resolution. It reads, Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark. Now, when I look through my opponent's case, I don't ever see an argument formed to prove the topic as true. Instead, I see points that affirm this: "The Genesis account of Noah's Ark and the Global Flood is reflected in geographical evidence". The difference between that and the actual resolution is quite simple: The resolution says that ‘the evidence points towards an X conclusion'. This is AKA the scientific method, as conclusions are formed after looking at what cumulative evidence points to. However, my opponent's case assumes that a certain conclusion is true, and then picks out the evidence that supports it. Simply put, his case is nontopical. As you have seen or will see, every single one of his points has a naturalistic explanation, and do not NECESSARILY point towards a global flood (and some can't be explained by floods to begin with), which is what the resolution asks him to do. I believe quite so that "the present is the key to the past", as I use that format (the scientific method) to show the evidence today does not point to a flood in the past. My opponent is supposed to believe that as well, as the resolution asks him to prove it is true. It's a pity that my opponent took the position that "the past is the key to the present" (and assumes a certain past is true to begin with). Again, I am only assuming that the Genesis account of Noah's Ark and the Flood are true. This by no means dictates that my position also accepts the Genesis account of the age of the world, the origin of the world, or anything else in the Bible for that matter. My position in this debate is to show that the evidence does not point towards the Genesis's Global Flood, and my opponent's is to show that it does. Since he also has the burden of proof, even if you don't buy anything I'm about to say, you still vote for me because his case is nontopical. THE LINE BY LINE Note: Unless I say otherwise, my referencing of other points is from within this round. Also, [*] still means it's in Wiki. MOUNTAINS 1) His last two links are exactly what they say they are: Ministries. Not the scientific community as a whole, and not even the majority of its views. If such a model were actually scientifically viable (meaning that there is actually such evidence), it would've been all over the media, as a catastrophic plate tectonics model would mean that the theory of plate tectonics, nay, GEOLOGY AS A WHOLE would need some SERIOUS revamping. In short: We would have heard about it. Well, we didn't. Conclusion: It was rejected by the scientific community. As for the second link and UHP's, my opponent doesn't argue anything with it (and neither does the link), so it can be dropped. 2) As for the ICR paragraph, I don't have anything to say against it, since it very nicely sums up what I was trying to say about plate tectonics. Then again, that section doesn't really do anything for him either, since he didn't use it to prove a point. 3) His entire first paragraph lacks a warrant. The Bible is not Geographical Evidence. 4) Himalaya's age is certainly not a debate for another day. His case claims that Earth's features today were all created about 2000 years ago, while scientific evidence clearly points to the contrary – IE, Himalayas formation starting ~70MYA. 5) Extend "Mountains" from R1 CANYONS 1) Improbable? Link me to the calculations please. As for the tens of millions of years of erosion, the Grand Canyon's formation was blocked for some time due to lava flow*. 2) Unless Noah's Flood existed 500-250MYA, the Paleozoic Strata clearly shows evidence to the contrary. As for "lifted a mile above sea level", we have an explanation backed by evidence for that. (Geology of the Grand Canyon)* 3) . http://home.comcast.net... STRATIGRAPHY 1) He doesn't claim anything, so you can drop the "points". Linking is not equal to debating. 2) The Dino doesn't show anything. It makes false claims such as: "Even though the animal was judged to have been young when it died it would still have been some 25 feet long. Its remains would have needed to be buried promptly to be preserved, and this would require a considerable quantity of sediment. " and then makes even more false claims to prove it. Nothing NEEDS to be buried promptly to be preserved, there's no evidence to believe that is true. Reapply "Mountains 1" here. 3) Extend "Obscenely wide layer". It flies unrefuted and already destroys his entire position. SEDIMENTARY 1) Scientific Evidence? Omg where! ?! ! 2) Reapply "Obscenely wide layer". 3a) "The soft sandstone of the Blue Mountains is easily eroded over time by wind, rain and rivers, and the cliffs surrounding the Jamison Valley are being slowly broken up. Formations like the Three Sisters are created when water seeps into small cracks in the rock, gradually enlarging them over time to form large indentations. Eventually, the Sisters will be eroded away completely. "* 3b) Which also means that the Three Sisters CANNOT have been formed by a flood, as the soft sandstone would have been completely blown away by waters that supposedly formed the Grand Canyon and the Himalayas. C,O,O 1) Oil forms over quite a few million years, not a few thousand. . http://earthguide.ucsd.edu... 2) Experiments? Omg where! ?! ! 3) Yes, transportation happens. It doesn't mean that there needs to be a flood, though. Different types of fruit trees are growing all around the world, does that mean that there was a flood to make that happen? No, of course not! There's other explanations for it: such as people planting them; animals eating fruit, then travelling, and then visiting Mother Nature for a few minutes; wind; water; among other things. 4) I don't know what he means "jive by our current status". It's not like the earth only existed for a few thousand years and therefore coal had to be created from the Flood. Therefore, extend "COO 2" from R1 5) Extend "COO 3" from R1 FOSSIL BEDS 1) The only difference between "fossil beds" and "single fossils" is the amount of organisms present. Which means if fossils can form today, so can fossil beds. 2) Reapply "Mountains 1" 3) Today's jellyfish are different from past jellyfish. It's not a reasonable to expect them to fossilize the same way. 4) Apply "Exceptions 1" from R1. OCEAN FOSSILS 1) Extend Rocky Mountains from R1. It flies unrefuted and destroys his entire position. 2) Continents has no claim warrant or impact, so you can drop it. 3a) Sure no problem; whatever "floats your boat". You're going to have to form an argument though. 3b) This is what I meant when I said he looks for evidence to fit the conclusion, instead of a conclusion to fit the evidence. EXCEPTIONS 1) Extend "Exceptions 1" from R1. If the flood really did happen, we'd be seeing that everywhere, not just in isolated pockets. I did not take anything out of context. THE REQUEST You can do whatever you want; I don't really mind. Just don't expect the voters here to think the same way: Some don't allow dropped arguments to be picked up again, and some think that debating in the comments is dishonest. Oh yeah, don't expect me to comply either. Extend everything. None of the things he provided point to the flood, as EVERY LAST ONE of the items date to before the flood took place. In this section alone I have won the debate, as this geographical evidence points AWAY from the conclusion of a global flood. As for his endnote, you can disregard it as he doesn't show us how the statistics actually point to a flood. He can say he did the math all he wants, but until we actually see some evidence, the point holds no weight. Finally, "could coincide" is very different from "pointing to".