The Genesis Flood was a local, not a global flood

Con stated my first argument should be ignored because it is just speculation. This is an exaggeration. When a word can be has multiple meanings, you look at the context to determine which meaning is implied. The meaning that makes more sense in the context is the one more likely implied. It may be argued that this evidence is somewhat weak, but it definitely should not be ignored for being speculation. My source clearly stated that it believed the great flood was about 12,500 years ago, but my opponent kept referring to the flood predicted to be 125,000 years ago, off by a power of 10. This is an unfortunate mistake for my opponent as a significant portion of his argument relied on this false number. The migration out of Africa does not correspond with a flood 12,500 years ago. My sources do not indicate that the great flood occurred before humans spread throughout the Earth. My opponent states, "The Christian source, which uses Biblical genealogies as a means of estimation, arrived at the date 2348 BCE"" My opponent"s source states "Using the Bible, well-documented historical events, and some math, we find that the Flood began approximately 4,359 years ago in the year 1656 AM or 2348 BC."[1] As we have agreed, we are not assuming the validity of the Bible outside of Genesis, thus we can"t assume the conclusion based off of the Bible. That age since the flood can"t be calculated using Genesis alone. As a reminder the reason the 12,500 year ago flood is significant is that it explains why the oldest tree alive we know of is 11,000 years old. My opponent states, "I have previously argued that when the Genesis account refers to "all" (Hebrew: kol), it means all locally, as is the vast majority of all uses of the Hebrew word throughout the Tenahk" How do we know that a vast majority of all uses means locally? Because of the context in which it is used. Which supports my point that it is important what context the word is used. My opponent requested at the end I show proof that the rational interpretation of Genesis is that the flood killed everybody on Earth. My opponent previously said we were in agreement that Noah"s family were the only survivors, so I didn"t make that argument earlier. I will make this argument now but only reference Genesis so I don"t bring up additional sources my opponent can"t argue against. Genesis chapter 6 states that right before the flood, the sons of God (also referred to as Nephilim or fallen angels) were having children with humans, and God then started considering humans to be evil. Immediately after that God told Noah (who was probably one of the few who wasn"t a Nephilim hybrid since God considered him one of the few good people) to build the ark. The logical interpretation is that the purpose of the flood was to kill off all the human Nephilim hybrids whom God considered evil. There is no reason to assume that only local humans were impregnated by the sons of God, so a global flood would have been needed to kill off all of the human Nephilim hybrids. Evidence for a local flood does not contradict evidence for a global flood, so that is very weak evidence that the Genesis flood was local. Although evidence for and against the Genesis flood being global were given, none of it was conclusive. So it really comes down to what interpretation is more likely. And as I have explained Genesis makes more sense if the flood was global. [1] http://lmgtfy.com... opponent"s source