The literal interpretation of the flood,as reported in the Christian NIV bible, could have happened.

If you will notice my opponent started his evidence with this statement "I won't put too much, since there's just TONS of evidence to the contrary" Quite a lofty claim of TONS, no doubt spelled in all caps. It appears my opponent has resorted to intimidating and dismissive ridicule to anyone who disagrees with him. Does he believe his views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge on his part? You be the judge. The flood is a controversy. My only argument in the debate is that it COULD have happened. I understand the enormous social implications for each individual and society if it was proven to have occurred or not to occur. Let me say plain and simple as of right now there is no hard evidence that will prove either side. There is significant circumstantial evidence for every side, mostly speculation. I believe if the flood was proven correct it would be more difficult for those who oppose it to accept. Those who oppose it would have to consider their origins, a God, religion, their sin, etc if the flood was proven. This is obviously something most who oppose it do not wish to confront. Often bible literalist are accused of having bias when looking at the scientific data provided, however I would like to propose that those opposed to a bible literalist also have a bias for it not to be true. My opponent suggests that I have not addressed 3 of his/her points. Only 2 of my opponents' points were labeled and I addressed them both. The 3rd? Its speculation; there is not enough information to know how the animals were handled or how much technology was available. I can conclude using modern technology we could certainly have tens of thousands of animals on a boat the size of an Ark for much longer than a year. Since we don't know the technology available we can only speculate. Unfortunately my opponent has claimed false data with out adequate support. My opponent states, "Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time" This is not true. The oldest living tree, in the 20th century, was 5000 years old. Any tree older than 5000 years old is destroyed, dead, or otherwise. I would ask him to clarify his position. http://en.wikipedia.org... My opponent asked, "Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?" My rebuttal is there doesn't need to be evidence in those civilizations. It is simply extraordinary that there are so many flood stories all over the world from ancient people. My opponent asks of one and because that one doesn't have any evidence of a flood does that mean we should discredit the others? Of course not! Also just because we do not see evidence now in those cultures does not mean we will not find some later. This is a mute point. For the record there is substantial evidence reported Mesopotamian Civilizations of some floods. It is important to realize that recorded Egyptian history begins about 3000 BC. Egyptian prehistory was probably very short, with little time passing after the great Flood. Although SOME Egyptian historians consider the prehistorical period to be quite long, this is only supported with unreliable dating systems. http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Ark And http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu... And http://www.ancientdays.net... My opponent also uses Mark Isaak as a reference. Mark Isaak has an extremely biased opinion; he has made it a life effort to attack Christianity with unsupported research. While no doubt Mr. Isaak has a large fan base his claims simply are not based on sound rational but rather debatable, theoretical, and speculative scientific opinion. http://www.douknow.net... AND http://www.trueorigin.org... Further I have significant questions of Mark Isaaks scientific credentials in chemistry, biology, and geology. He is not regarded by many of his peers or the scientific community to be a leader in any of the fields he speaks on behalf of. I used him as a reference in regard to his acceptance of other flood stories, not for his views in general. I try to use secular refrences. My opponent has suggested I am referring to Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. I am not. I am simply suggesting that the geology of the Earth and where water was placed several thousand years ago could have been quite different than now. Further we know for a fact that massive amounts of water are under landmasses all over the world, some are theorized to be greater than the oceans masses. It doesn't mean rock "Floats" on water that is intellectually insulting. http://www.eoearth.org... and http://commons.wikimedia.org... And http://www.highbeam.com... My opponent has only been able to offer speculation against a global flood. The study of Earths history, scientifically speaking, is not very scientific. You have to make assumptions and then make assumptions about those. We know what the flood claims to be and somewhat how it claims to have happened. 1.The flood claims to be a catastrophic event that nearly ended all animal, plant, and human life on Earth. The few species to survive did so very narrowly. Example only 8 people. 2. It was on a large ship built out of wood, and we have no idea how much technology was available at the time. We can only speculate. Not here to do that. I think a worldwide flood offers answers to certain issues debated between geologist. Some have accepted a global flood as the plausible answer. 1.A worldwide flood would create large mountains, hills, and carbon-based products such as oil, natural gas, and coal from the large pressure associated with it. We have evidence of all of these things. 2.A worldwide flood would cause mass extinction of aquatic and land life. We have evidence that such mass extinctions have happened, and not killed everything. 3.A worldwide flood would create TONS of fossilized bones in massive amounts of sedimentary rock. We have evidence of fossils in sedimentary rock all over the world. 4.A worldwide flood would create enormous pressures, which would cause or be caused by massive tectonic movement (earthquakes and volcanic eruption). We have evidence of massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in Earths past. 5.If a worldwide flood occurred we would expect numerous past civilizations to make reference to this event in history. We have evidence that most known ancient civilizations, nearly all; have made reference to a worldwide flood of their origins. 6.If a worldwide flood occurred approximately 5000 years ago I would expect that no living tree would be older than 5000 years old, unless it survived under water for a long time. We have evidence that the oldest living tree is under 5000 years old. I ask you. What would we expect our Earth to be like from a worldwide flood over 5000 years ago? Has it not happened? http://en.wikipedia.org... http://creationwiki.org... http://www.icr.org... I would also like to add. There are many respected and degreed Scientist, Geologist, and Biologist that believe in a Global Flood or a Global Flood could have happened. They do so with out sacrificing their intellect. I understand the majority of scientist do not hold to this but there are enough that do. Besides at one time in history a majority of scientist believed the world was flat and some scientist believed in alchemy.