The Biblical Flood occurred

Thanks.A. Mathematical ProofI guess that's a concession from con here.Again, I already proved that it's not circular because I just use the population formula FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF FINDING THE RATE (the rate can't just come out of nowhere, so I have to find it by doing the math). I didn't put the rate and then plug it IN THE SAME FORMULA.Again, if I did, then it would look like this: rate = 0.4639425893"7,000,000,000 = 6e^0.4639425893x4500"Also, your input start populations don't prove that my equations are circular, because you (like me) just did the population formula JUST to find the rate for it to be plugged in to the compound formula.B. Sea Creatures in High AltitudesOK, I mean that the burial needs to be rapid, and that only the Biblical flood can accurately fit the explanations behind the quick burial of the marine creatures. Again, those earthquakes, landslides, etc. don't happen to magically get rid of oxygen, bacteria, and other things that prevent fossilization. Excluding oxygen does not inhibit ALL bacteria. Some bacteria don't need oxygen to live (32). There are anaerobic bacteria in sediments as well (33).Con: "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."It's unlikely, since there are a lot of bacteria in this world. So, which one is reasonable to say that it occurred? Localised rapid sedimentation that leads to fossilization (which doesn't kill the bacteria) or the violent waters of the Biblical flood, which kills off the bacteria so that there would virtually be no chance for creatures to decay?Con: "There would clearly be a fraction that would be under the anerobic conditions required for fossilization to occur"This is true if the flood does not occur. It would indeed be very unlikely for fossilization to occur if this is the case all along. "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." What do incomplete fossils have to do with the results of the Biblical flood? This is just non-sequitur.Con: "the flood would have killed all bacteria?!"Con, not only were the waters violent, but the flood also lasted for 40 days. It's already proven that bacteria don't live long, and they reproduce quickly. However, do you think that the conditions of the violent flood would allow them to live and reproduce normally? No!! That interferes with their reproduction, and thus ends the lives of most (if not all) bacteria.Con: "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)."I proved that removing bacteria is true and necessary since there are bacteria that live without oxygen, and they can invade dead sea creatures while they are in the sediment. THEORETICALLY, non-Noachian sedimentation can produce fossils, but is that REALISTIC? Again, I proved that rapid sediments can still have bacteria that live WITHOUT oxygen. Therefore, I say that MOST (IF NOT ALL) FOSSILS are here due to the global flood. The dating argument doesn't work since I have already shown that atmospheric variability of isotopes (like carbon 14) play a role in INACCURATELY determining the ages of fossils.Con: "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"Those two papers IMPLY that there are bacteria IN the sediments, that's all I needed to prove.Con: ". . .none give indication of how fast stuff decomposes under those conditions."Irrelevant. We already established that in order for something to be a fossil, it must be OUT OF REACH for scavengers, bacteria, oxygen, etc.For the permafrost argument, con made a straw-man. You're talking about things that are frozen, not regular sedimentation. We all know that reaction rates are slower when the temperature is cold (34), which in turns slows down bacterial invasion.Nowhere does Con's 7th source say that skeletons from Vesuvius are there along with THOUSANDS of normally buried skeletons. The source says 40 skeletons found in the cemetery, and those bodies were buried MANUALLY by OTHER PEOPLE, and they were not resulted by sedimentation, which is natural. This is another straw man.Con: "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" (emphasis added).It wouldn't be rapidly filled by liquid/rock, because the temperature of lava is 1,292 to 2,192F (35), which is so hot that it would melt things that get in its way. So, the great deep would still remain open overall, only to to fill up the ocean floors and lift the marine creatures up. "The fact that mountains erode and valleys fill is basically a truism with plenty of examples in the literature"This is a comparison of apples to oranges. How can you compare a normal flood or wave (which does fill in the valleys) with a global flood, which is much more powerful? Here's an analogy of the flood. If you push the flush knob on a toilet bowl, then most of the fecal matter would be taken away by the forceful movement of the receding waters (and not much of the fecal matter would remain. maybe a lot would remain if the waters don't recede with so much force). In the same sense, we can take a look at Psalm 104:6-9 (36). This passage says that the waters fled, the mountains rose, and the valleys sank. If the valleys (valleys also include ocean valleys, which are deep down below) sink, then this would then lead to the waters to go downward, similar to that of the motion when you flush the toilet. On verse 9, it says that God then set a boundary for the seas permanently (permanent because the same verse says the waters would never cover the earth again).C. Historical ProofsIt seems like Con isn't satisfied with that article. OK, here's another source which AFFIRMS THE SAME NUMBERS as John D. Morris, whose author has expertise in scholarship (37-38).Also, it is ridiculous for Con to expect there to be a detailed analysis of every single flood story. There are way too many of them. However, here are examples of some prominent stories (38). Again, key similarities (listed below next paragraph) matter ultimately here. They prove that all of the stories came from a common source.Those three points that Con made (such as the names of survivors) are irrelevant, since the resolution is that the flood occurred. Since the occurrence of the event would require floods, favored family, wickedness, etc. then we can safely say that other info like the date and time are irrelevant when the debate is about what made it happen. Con's New Testament analogy doesn't work because it's too specific. The Bible says that there is only one Jesus, (which is a specific Person), whereas the global flood is something that happened all around the world. In order for the historicity of Jesus to be accurate, the details cannot differ here and there (because it is ONE SPECIFIC PERSON), but it's okay if some details differ among the flood stories as long as they contain the key aspects of it. So, this is a straw man too.So, for a global flood, the fact that many others have those same key things that make up the deluge is enough proof that it occurred. Conclusion:Con made a lot of straw-men here, and he conceded on the math part.Sources:32. tinyurl.com/klb5wmr33. tinyurl.com/o3merrl34. tinyurl.com/y6lr7z35. tinyurl.com/6nq9836. tinyurl.com/neo9ubr37. Perloff, James (1999), Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (Arlington, MA: Refuge Books).38. tinyurl.com/oeem5p2