The literal interpretation of the flood,as reported in the Christian NIV bible, could have happened.

I would like to apologize in advance that when I am quoting my opponent's arguments, I have to cut it short off many times due to character limit. "Quite a lofty claim of TONS, no doubt spelled in all caps. It appears my opponent has resorted to intimidating..." http://www.talkorigins.org... "The flood is a controversy." It has been dismissed by the vast majority of the scientific community. I also find it quite interesting how only Christian scientists support this position. While many people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, many of whom consider it a form of pseudoscience. Though at one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology, this view is no longer widely held. http://en.wikipedia.org... "Those who oppose it would have to consider their origins, a God, religion, their sin, etc if the flood was proven." Most atheist's would WANT to see evidence of a God, of a place of eternal happiness after death. But we don't. It's not because we hate god, we just don't believe he exists. "My opponent suggests that I have not addressed 3 of his/her points. Only 2 of my opponents' points were labeled and I addressed them both. The 3rd? Its speculation..." => Also, even if the Ark was made, how could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on? => After a flood, how could many species survive with precious habitat destroyed? => What about short living animals, like the adult mayflies. They would've died on the Ark in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems. My opponent has failed to address these 3 questions I pose if the Flood were to happen. This is a strong reason to vote Con. "Unfortunately my opponent has claimed false data with out adequate support...The oldest living tree, in the 20th century, was 5000 years old. Any tree older than 5000 years old is destroyed, dead, or otherwise..." http://news.nationalgeographic.com... "My rebuttal is there doesn't need to be evidence in those civilizations. It is simply extraordinary that there are so many flood stories all over the world from ancient people..." My opponent has made two fatal flaws. First off, it seems that he has not even read my argument. I have shown why many civilizations have stories of flood myths. One, is that it is very common amongst early civilization. The thing is, that many times they are very different, accounts that are not similar. However, for the multiples that are similar, which is most important, this is because they were near the Tigris and Euphrates river. I have already posted this argument, and he has not refuted it. Another reason for voting Con. In the case of Egypt, they show now inscriptions of the Biblical flood, even though they have writings around 300 years before it happened. I have already posted this argument, and my opponent's only rebuttal is that just because one doesn't show, doesn't mean it discounts all the other ones. So now, I have shown evidence of Egypt never recording it (Egypt is an archaeology favorite) and of why the other civilizations have a flood in their history, vote Con. "My opponent also uses Mark Isaak as a reference. Mark Isaak has an extremely biased opinion; he has made it a life effort to attack Christianity with unsupported research..." My opponent uses obviously biased Christian sites most of the time. Mark Isaak has references in his page, so they are not unsupported. "My opponent has suggested I am referring to Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. I am not. I am simply suggesting that the geology of the Earth and where water was placed several thousand years ago could have been quite different than now..." Perhaps my opponent isn't using Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory, but his own is close enough. True, there are underwater water reservoirs. However, enough to cover the entire world to the highest peak? For such an amount, tons of water would have to be underground. We would find tons of evidence for such bursts of water. He has failed to refute three of my counterarguments. If as my opponent suggests that a worldwide flood happened from underground water, we would have to see multiple poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. "My opponent has only been able to offer speculation against a global flood. The study of Earths history, scientifically speaking, is not very scientific. You have to make assumptions and then make assumptions about those." I would like to point out to all readers that many times, my opponent has stated that we do not know what the condition of the Earth was like. He has stated that geology is not every scientific. Ouch, he's gonna need major ammo to back that statement up. Oh wait, he hasn't. "A worldwide flood would create large mountains, hills, and carbon-based products such as oil, natural gas, and coal from the large pressure associated with it. We have evidence of all of these things." The fossils and sedimentary rocks were formed quickly during the flood. Fossil-containing rocks which are closer to the surface will contain generally larger animals of all the species that have ever lived, while the deeper rocks will tend to contain more smaller species of animals. That is because the smaller animals would presumably drown first with the rising water level, while larger animals could survive longer before dying, and travel further from the rising flood waters. But there would be the occasional fossil from a large animal mixed in with the smaller animals deep in the fossil record. Remains of ground-hugging plants would tend to be in the deepest layers of rocks; larger trees would be in rocks closer to the surface. But there would be the occasional fossils of a fallen tree that would be trapped in a deep layer of sedimentary rock among "ground-huggers". In addition, as you excavated through layers of rock, you would occasionally discover signs of human habitation at the bottom layer -- cities, towns,villages, cornerstones, etc. -- which were covered first by the flood. Scientists would find shaped rocks that were once part of buildings; remains of campfires; fabricated tools; fabricated timbers, graves, corner stones, etc. at the bottom of the fossil record. http://www.religioustolerance.org... "A worldwide flood would cause mass extinction of aquatic and land life...." Refer to my previous argument. Things in the fossil record would be out of order if a massive flood happened. But we have seen it to be consistent. "A worldwide flood would create TONS of fossilized bones in massive amounts of sedimentary rock...." Again, refer to my previous argument. "A worldwide flood would create enormous pressures, which would cause or be caused by massive tectonic movement..." A flooding causing volcano eruptions and earthquakes? "If a worldwide flood occurred we would expect numerous past civilizations to make reference to this event in history..." Refer to my previous argument. "If a worldwide flood occurred approximately 5000 years ago I would expect that no living tree would be older than 5000 years old..." Refer to my previous argument. My opponent has failed to refute three of my arguments. His major argument is that we don't know Earth's history, but only can speculate. Um, we have geology.