Noah's flood story is based on historical evidence

Thanks Pro for some interesting insights:Rebuttals: Con stated: " however scholars no longer believe that any borrowing occurred (1). Most scholars hold this view (2)."Con's sources are somewhat fallacious and the statement by Con: "Most scholars hold this view" is unsupported by evidence and thus a Hasty Generalization Fallacy and a Bandwagon Fallacy or a False Authority Fallacy by the Author, demonstrating the author is more about Apologetics (nonsense) than truth. Though I do believe Pro should review the dates of his Sources.Rebuttal on Pro's first source: "New Babylonian 'Genesis' Story. A. R. Millard" was produced in 1966.There has been thousands of new discoveries since that article was produced and most evidence has proven Millard wrong.The similarities between the Sumerian tales and the Genesis accounts are too much the same to be discounted as having no relation, since the writers of Genesis were captive in Babylonia during the time that they evidently wrote those accounts in the 4th Century BCE. The likes of Ezra the scribe who was attributed with compiling the Torah/Pentateuch. Since there are no similar myths on the other side of the Israelite story, or the Egyptian/Persian empire.The only correlating myths are the Akkadian/Sumerian legends.Once you discount these myths as being unrelated, you can consider the Genesis myth as null and void.as all myths need support or correlation from other cultural myths to be considered valid, remove the correlation and you remove the historical validity, making the myth unsupported and imaginary. This is how studying history works. We can only go on what is supported by the myths of surrounding cultures. Thus the Genesis legend, must be directly related to the Sumerian legends to remain a viable legend, or else it becomes useless vapor as there is no archaeological nor geological evidence supporting any other floods in their region in the boat building period of human existence.There is no geological evidence for a Global Flood, thus it had to be a local flood and since this is the only regions the Israelites inhabited, the flood must be in this region, during the boat building and pitch using period of human history. This means it must correlate with the Sumerian legends as these are the only floods there is geological evidence to support in this period.So if Pro is not going to consider that the Sumerian Flood as being the source of the Genesis Flood, then he may as well just state that the Genesis Flood never happened at all, as there cannot be any evidence for it.These are the only flood myths ever found where the stories match perfectly, a man saving his family and many animals in a boat from a devastating flood which had them stranded with no sight of land for a reasonable period of time.Source: http://www.youtube.com...Though the most recent findings (translations) for the flood now has the Ark as a circular vessel, which is more like a wheel where animals are housed in segments of this wheel. This source, dated JANUARY 25, 2014, is far more recent than Pro's 1966 source and even Pro's 2007 source.Excerpt: "A 4000-year-old tablet from ancient Mesopotamia contains the specifications for an ark pre-dating the story of Noah"And: " IT'S a few notches on a 4000-year-old clay tablet. But what it reveals about the ancient biblical story of Noah's ark has scholars crowing the world over. The British Museum yesterday put the recently deciphered clay tablet from ancient Mesopotamia - now Iraq - on display. It's claimed to be one of the most important archaeological discoveries ever. What it contains are specifications for the legendary Ark which was said to have saved two of each animal - and a handful of humans - from a catastrophic flood. But some of the details are different to the generally known version. It describes a circular vessel known as a coracle, not the rectangular vessel of modern mythology."Source: http://www.news.com.au... Rebuttal on Pro's Second Source:Pro's second source is From Biblical Archaeology, which as many Genuine Archaeologists know is Biased towards supporting the Bible, thus much of their claims are fallacious, due to My-Side-Bias. Real Archaeologists rarely consider the work of Biblical Archaeologists.Besides, the Author, David T. Tsumura PhD, has his PhD in Old Testament Scholarship, not in Archaeology. So essentially he is an Old Testament Apologist, rather than a Genuine Archaeologists, even though he works in a museum with Archaeology.So we need to read his works, with a realization of Bias towards the Bible.Thus there are likely to be fallacies introduced by his bias.Thus Tsumura is not an Authority in Archaeology, only O.T. scripture.Source: http://en.wikipedia.org...Finally Pro's last Source is likely Fallacious, as Arnold Mendez is only a UCG elder with qualifications in Biology and Chemistry, and has no Qualifications in, Geology, Archaeology, Astrophysics, Cosmology, nor Palaeontology yet makes false claims on these topics, nor does he have any qualifications in structural engineering (ark building), thus Pro cannot assert that Source has having any Validity as far as Authority goes.Arnold Mendez is a typical Creationist, holds some scientific qualifications, but rants and holds seminars in fields that he has no real knowledge no authority in at all.Source: http://www.kubik.org...Thus he is making money from publishing false knowledge (pseudo-science) and spreading creationist propaganda, similar to Ken Ham and Ray Comfort.So that source is Non-Sequitur as the Author has no Qualifications in anything he Asserts.Theology is not Science.Thus: That Source is an Appeal to false Authority.The fact that destroys Mendez's fallacious rants are that there has never been found any evidence of fossils indicating such longevity. If the longevity was caused by a reduced background radiation change then it would not only affect human lifespan, but the lifespan of all creatures on Earth. There is no fossil evidence for this extended lifespan in any fossilized remains. There is also no evidence of such background radiation changes at the flood period of 5000 years ago.As we know when the flood occurred as there is cuneiform evidence for it as well as sediment evidence indicating that it was a freshwater flood, in the Euphrates and Tigris river region.These floods were so devastating to the locals that they left a lasting impression and thus were recorded in their legends.Source: http://ncse.com...Though I agree that the Genesis "Garden Of Eden" legend may also be a result of flooding, but a slower flood of the sea rising to take over the very fertile river valley, where there were lush forests, like a Garden Of Eden.It was the rising sea from the melting ice caps that caused the dwellers to flee from this nice fertile valley into the arid lands surrounding them.Thus they were kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and they felt and believed it was punishment for their wrongful doings.Thus the origin of the "Fall from Grace" or Original Sin, myth concerning Adam (a fictitious name).So the Garden Of Eden myth is also likely a flood myth.The sea kicked them out of their fertile home, not God.They did nothing wrong to cause this, as they were just victims of a warmer planet atmosphere.But, that is another subject and non-sequitur here. Maybe fodder for another debate down the track.Other Sources for Reference: http://history-world.org...http://en.wikipedia.org...Thanks again ProHope I've given you something to bite on!Back to Pro for some interesting Rebuttals.