Did Noah's Flood Occur as Depicted in Genesis

Unfortunately, someone has decided to make a one-sided smearing campaign against me to make it seem like I was intentionally taking someone else's work and passing it off as my own when it is not the case at all. In the first round, although I cited where I got my facts to my argument, I copy and pasted a summary of those FACTS (NOT arguments) from a "secondary" source without citing or qouting it since I did not have access to the Original article, which compelled me to rely on secondary sources and their summary of those facts.If this bothers people , here is the source that I carelessly did not quote or paraphrase the verbatim text from the summary of those facts:http://www.reasons.org...You agreed to argue for a worldwide flood, not a local one. This may suit some other debate, but not this one, making me win on merits sake.Whether or not I was clear on the matter, global and worldwide are synonyms for each other. The very first synonym for worldwide in Oxford Dictionary is global, and the first synonym for global is worldwide. Some dictionaries make local as an antonym of worldwide. Need I remind Con that He never said "as depicted in the Oxford Dictionary". Instead, He specifically stated "I am arguing that the Noachian Flood Deluge as depicted in the biblical book of Genesis ". Even the title he chose for the debate said, "Did Noah's Flood Occur as depicted in Genesis". If Con said "I am arguing that a Global Flood model in Genesis is a model with no basis in reality", then maybe he would have a case. However, He did no such thing. Therefore, Con needs to make an attempt to showcase why we should assume that Noah's flood as depicted in Genesis should be interpreted as a Global flood rather than a worldwide flood that is referring to the whole world at that time. It is not my fault that he chose ignore the other viable interpretation of Noah's flood."Either way, if this was merely a local flood, how does this fit into your theology? "Here is a source that explains how it fits into my theology in detail.http://www.godandscience.org...If the flood was local. how was God's attempt to remove the great wickedness of the human race from the face of the Earth and start anew with Noah effective?As Hugh Ross pointed out, Peter addresses the extent of Noah’s flood. In both cases, Peter qualifies the Greek word cosmos, translated as “world.” In 2 Peter 2:5 he writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same as the world of the Roman Empire. The limitations that Peter imposes upon Noah’s flood are consistent with a great many biblical texts that declare the doctrine that God’s judgment wrath is always limited to the extent of human reprobation. God’s refusal to wipe out the Amorites living in the hills of Canaan at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah would be the obvious example.http://www.reasons.org...He left all the Chinese and Egyptians and the Native Americans. Genesis didn't say that they found favor in God's eyes. A localized flood in the Iraqi floodplain isn't the whole world. And in Genesis 7:23 says that only those on the ark survived, and every living thing on the face of the Earth.This is because all humans were still located in Africa beyond some 50,000 years past before the flood happened.https://www.sciencedaily.com...Meteorology and ThermodynamicsI am not exactly sure what Con's objection entails here since his source was operating under the Global flood model that young earth creationists pioneer NOT Old earth creationists. So I will provide more evidence for my model, instead.A new review of the archeological literature reveals evidence that the Persian Gulf region was once a lush oasis, during the last glacial maximum. As Rose points out, the Gulf Oasis was watered by springs upwelling from subterranean aquifers. Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 7:11 identifies “springs of the great deep” as part of the source of the flood waters that wreaked havoc upon the ungodly of Noah’s generation, which would explain why today’s geography is different compared to the past. Thus, the Gulf Oasis vindicates the unique claims Genesis makes about the sources of water . [1] Jeffrey I. Rose, “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,” Current Anthropology 51 (December 2010): 849–83.Biology/Zoology It is important to acknowledge that God has not revealed the entire creation process in the Genesis creation account, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind for a reason. The Bible indicates Exodus 3:10-12 that God's communication to Moses was centered on the relationship between God and man and the rules by which God wanted man to live. The animals within the Garden of Eden were made to relate and be Adam's friend. For instance, the word nephesh is applied onto both animals and human beings, and primarily has the meaning "soul." The term encompasses the ideas of mind, will, and emotion. These characteristics apply to the higher animals, such as the birds and mammals. Finally, those same animals were referenced in Genesis chapter 6 , which Noah brought into the Ark. This means that not every single species on the earth was in the Ark and ,again, I am assuming a worldwide/local flood model. FoodIt specifically says in Genesis 6:21, "You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them". So the animals and Noah and his family had all the food they needed on the Ark. Engineering"How could 8 people without real technology accomplish an even greater feat than what 1,000 workers could do with modern technology?"Noah and his family had over a hundred years to finish the Ark including instructions from an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. So I don't see the issue here.Methane PoisoningI think this is speculation on Con's part. The text simply does not provide enough evidence or clarity on the subject to make a judgement on this. ArchaeologyThe Genealogies are not made to be added up like that because there are many gaps between those lineages and this source adequately shows and explains how:http://www.reasons.org...Mythology"My opponent says that almost all cultures and religions have flood myths. Of course, there are thousands of flood myths, why do you think yours is true."This is because the culture that Noah was apart of was supposed to be the originator of all the other cultures that mention a flood story. I provided evidence for this already based upon this source:Quentin D. Atkinson, Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa," Science 332 (April 15, 2011): 346-49.Gopher WoodI addressed this already. If you read part of Noah's story carefully, you will notice that God gave Noah very specific instructions on how to build the ark he wanted built, which includes a specific type of wood called "gopher" wood. This suggest that this specialty wood, which God ultimately made, was strong enough to build a sustainable ark for Noah's journey. The Adam and Eve story is another instance where God created a special type of fruit, which obviously no longer exists today, that potentially allowed a human to live forever. Therefore, we have good reason to assume that the wood Noah used back then was viable enough because God himself specifically created it for a defining purpose."If the flood was local, the trees could just be in Northern Africa or in other parts of Asia Minor"This is because science tells us that 99.9% of species that have ever lived are extinct, and the bible tells us that the area where the gopher wood was located and he lived was devastated by the Flood, which explains why most of Africa is a desert now."But why does this even matter? Why did the wood have to be special? It could just very well be a harder hardwood than most other trees in the area. It didn't have to be magical."This is not about magic but its about being consistent with the text as depicted in Genesis. That's it.