Noah's Ark's Occurence

"I will begin this round by stating that it has not been my intention to undermine the Bible, but rather, it has been my intention to state that a Literal interpretation of the Bible is impossible with our current understanding of Science. My opponent asserted at the beginning of the debate that "I hold the Bible to be completely factual, and will regard it as so", yet in his last argument, he acknowledges that portions of the Bible (such as Psalms) are indeed not fact." The first statement (undermining), is pointless, because I agree with you. True science is unable to prove or disprove the Bible or religion because true science must be able to prove and disprove itself repeatedly. (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...). Religion is by faith, not by sight, so science is technically void regarding religion. Second, my statement regarding Psalms not being fact is my error, I should have been clearer. I said, "not narratives or "facts" per se." I should have specified that Psalms is a collection of praises and prayers to God. My facts was in response to the fact the Psalms includes no stories, as Genesis, Exodus, Ruth, Esther, the Gospels, and other books include. I should have specified what I meant by fact rather than assume the meaning through context clues. Another note on science: I do not totally agree with calling Christian science a science, because it encompasses principles that cannot be directly testex (religion). And also, please explain how the AnswersinGenesis studies are "appalling junk". The authors are highly qualified doctors in those areas. You mentioned a fantasy source of water under the earth. I mentioned earlier geyser-like structures. Do we not today find bodies of water under the earth? Could these not explode and shoot their eater upwards, like geysers? Again, please explain how the statement regarding mountain height is comical. You continue to say how anyone with basic knowledge of tectonics, erosion, and ice sheets should know that a flood is not required for marine fossils to end up on mountains. This cannot be true because the world is not old enough for those processes to occur. Can you please explain the latter two, as I do not myself know how they could affect marine fossil locations. You then put AnswersinGenesis as under fire by credible sources. However, those sources are just as credible as AnswersinGenesis, and are under the same fire by AnswersinGenesis. Again, I please explain why AnswersinGenesis and Conservapedia are humorous, because they are fact and truth to so many, and your sources are laughable to many like myself for, I assume, similar reasons. Finally, as mentioned earlier, I do agree that any science+religion is not true science, however, that does not damage its credibility, because it obeys the definition of science. "Science," however, often disobeys its own definition by attempting to disprove religion. Religion us by faith, not by science as science should require of itself. To close, this has been a great debate, and I have learned a lot about both views. I also have had lots of fun, and hope you had the same. I think my point was clear, the global flood detailed in the Bible happened, and science is able to provide many mechanisms for its occurrence. Religion, the Bible, give the supernatural causes that the Bible outlines. Good luck and good day!