The Biblical Flood occurred

Thanks Pro. I. Mathematical Proof I don"t feel I need to address this further. I have shown that Pro"s argument proves absolutely nothing (Pro has ignored my other input start population examples), which is more than enough to debunk it. Pro is essentially throwing a dart at the wall, drawing a circle around it and claiming he scored a bullseye. II. Sea Creatures in High Altitudes "So, if I show that ONLY the Biblical flood can result in rapid fossilization (and no other explanations can suffice), then Con's arguments here shall be dismissed too." Fossilization doesn"t necessarily need to be rapid, only the burial (which preserves the organism). Note that flooding isn"t the only mechanism by which rapid sedimentation occurs. There are many such mechanisms, such as those present in river bends, sea-floor earthquakes, landslides, etc. etc. Moreover excluding scavengers and decomposing bacteria/organisms isn"t necessary as excluding oxygen indirectly inhibits both of these from acting (you can"t burn flesh without oxygen, which is essentially what decomposers do).[1] One of the principle preservation techniques in the food industry is by storing vegetables under N2/CO2 gas (which contains no oxygen). Apples for example, can be stored edible for over 12 months under nitrogen storage and oxygen exclusion. [2] "Even though localised rapid sedimentation occurs everywhere, the thing is that it does NOT meet the requirements for fossilization. The speed of the sedimentation/burial process ITSELF can be fast, but that does NOT mean that they exclude bacteria and oxygen." Pro affirms that rapid sedimentation occurs on a global scale anyway, he only objects that this is not enough for fossilization to occur. However this seems strange, since the only thing special about the Noachian flood is that it"s worldwide. Its true that not all buried corpses would fossilize, but it is a long stretch of imagination that none of the buried corpses under regular flooding would fossilize. There would clearly be a fraction that would be under the anerobic conditions required for fossilization to occur. The fact that we seldom ever have complete fossils, and almost all fossils are incomplete are pretty strong indications that the conditions are capricious, and are not conditions that Pro seems to affirm with the Noachian flood.[3] "The point is that not only the results of the Biblical flood were rapid, but the waters would have gotten rid of any bacteria that would have gotten mixed with the sediments." I find this an astonishing claim (one made without a shred of evidence), the flood would have killed all bacteria?! I am sure Pro is aware that there are over 5x times as many bacteria WITHIN our bodies as we have cells, so unless the flood is some magical cleaning fluid, then this claim doesn"t hold. [4] If this is literally the only reason Pro gives to privilege the Noachian hypothesis, then this entire argument appears to be bunk, since removing bacteria is 1. False and 2. Unnecessary (since anerobic conditions inhibit them anyway). 1. If non-Noachian sedimentation can produce fossils then the Noachian Flood is without support 2. If they cannot then neither can the Noachian Flood If Pro contests 2 as false, and asserts only the Noachian Flood can provide the conditions for fossilization, then we end up with a striking conclusion" That ALL Fossils are as a result of the Noachian Flood. But this is patently absurd, since many fossils all over the world date long before 2500 BC.[5] I see this as an astonishing failing in Pro"s argument. If the flood did occur then all fossils would be 4,500 years old, which is a fantastical claim and demonstrating this would be iron-clad confirmation of Pro"s case. I read all three of Pro"s references alluding to the bacterial "activity" within sediment layers. Two papers only give techniques that "count" the number of bacteria there, and none give indication of how fast stuff decomposes under those conditions. We have bacteria for example that exist frozen in Greenland permafrost which exist, but have hardly any activity, and entire mammoths preserved despite trillions of bacteria present.[6] Skeletons from the Vesuvius eruption 2000 years ago are also extant along with thousands of normally-buried skeletons buried from roman times that are still extant, which refutes Pro"s argument that non-Noachian flood conditions allow for the preservation of skeletons (which allegedly occurred 4500 years ago, so this is a significant fraction of that age).[7] Uplift Hypothesis It seems Pro is arguing that molten rock caused the existing water on the earth to displace (which pushes tides and the fish upwards) by either filling up the ocean floor (which is physically possible, but contradicts the evidence), or by pushing against the crust itself which would require an increase in the total volume in the Earth, which is a absurd. For material to travel from the insides of the Earth it would leave a vacuum in its wake.. which would be rapidly filled by liquid/rock, ergo Pro"s scenario is impossible no matter which way you cut it. Also, pretty as Pro"s pictures are he has provided zero evidential support for them. The fact that mountains erode and valleys fill is basically a truism with plenty of examples in the literature.[8,9] In fact for it NOT to do this in flood conditions would be essentially violating the second law of thermodynamics. There is a reason why sandcastles built next to a hole (a "valley") which when hit with a wave will end up with a shorter, flatter sandcastle and a more filled hole. III. Historical Proofs The article Pro cites is a junk article from a junk journal. Nowhere is there a list of what stories were collected (I encourage you to open his reference, it is literally something I could have written, with absolutely no expertise in scholarship). There is no way to determine what the selection criteria for these 200 stories (200 of what? Tens of thousands of stories?), and no detailed analysis of the narratives themselves. Modern scholarship looks for similarities and differences within the narrative text themselves and goes a lot farther than just picking similarities. Many of the similarities that Pro have provided are unsurprising, such as a favoured family, survival on a boat, animals etc. Since many stories flood or otherwise share similar similarities. One striking point is Pro affirms that 91% of all these stories disagree on the number of survivors (which seems absurd given they have a common ancestor) and Pro has given no figures of agreement on: 1.The names of the survivors (!!!) 2.Where the survivors were from/lived (!!) 3.The date/times in which the floods occurred (!!) The astonishing omission of these (which definitely should corroborate if they describe the same flood story) is a black and white indication that the main points are not agreed on. Imagine the Canonical New testament books given different names for Jesus and his disciples, and each story describing a different time and location, we would have good grounds to believe they are talking about completely different things if they disagreed on those details and only shared superficial similarities (such as Pro has given). In any case, this is nothing like the sort of scholarship evidence that even new testament scholarship would find convincing on any level. I recommend you open the page for "The Journal for the Study of The New Testament", which is a peer reviewed scholarship journal and just compare the type of research to what Pro"s article gives, it is incomparable. IV. Conclusion Summary next round. V. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com... 6. http://tinyurl.com... 7. http://tinyurl.com... 8. http://tinyurl.com... 9. http://tinyurl.com... 10. http://tinyurl.com...