The Great Flood Was an Actual Historical Event

I will not defend my arguments for now. I will note, however, that in this format it is hard to reply to everything. Nonetheless, I will try. I will refute the arguments given in the opening round and if I have no space to defend my arguments, I will do so in the next round. I. Water Firstly, this makes a very basic and very erroneous assumption that the highest point at the time is 24,000 feet. This fails in the face of even the simplest of plate tectonics argument. Just to give some simple idea of it, I will include a link: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu... There is vast evidence to suggest that the mountains in the past were not as high, and that the ocean valleys were not as low. There is also indication that it is not always a given that those dates given in the link are correct. Firstly, radiometric dating on many areas have not been performed, so there is only one form of dating which assumes a non-catastrophic past. This has been challenged many times by the data, and is acceptable to advocate catastrophe when the "normal dates" don"t fit. So it is clear from all of these that your objection needs to be rewritten. I don"t think I need 8k char. to refute all of the opening. Let us suppose the unrealistic assumption that the earth"s surface was completely flat in the past (Do NOT confuse this with a flat earth). Considering the ~70% of water covering the earth"s surface now, the water would actually rise by ~3km above the surface. II. Population Con has made another basic error in that he assumes that Noah was a Hebrew. He also makes another error in regards to the number of animals and humans. How am I to know if he can properly present his case in the light of theses? But wait, there is another point to consider. Evolution has the same problem! Tu quoque! Thus, I can dismiss all of this portion of the argument since if you address it from that view, I can just as easily adapt it to fit my view. (And yes, this is a red herring of sorts because I"m forcing you to provide an explanation which will subsequently validate my position) I will not address the "problem" regarding repopulation. This is in the face of current "overpopulation" argument. It is a well known fact that the world population in 17-18th hundreds were much, much, much.....smaller. (Do I have to cite this?!) Saltwater! Now that is an argument for a young earth. [1]. The current statistics show that about 1% of the weight of seawater is dissolved Sodium ions (Na+). This is equivalent to 1.47 x 10^16 tonnes of Na. The current input/output of Na+ puts the upper limit of the age of the oceans at >62mya (with very generous assumptions of lowest possible input, highest possible output). (Note that radiometric dating is impossible) Now, I happen to see that the matter of freshwater is also a problem for BF opponents! Why? Well, it is a simple problem of where did the freshwater come from? Did the simplest of life not require freshwater? Why did they evolve to drink less abundant fresh-water? Breeding. I will specifically address the "problem" of avians. This problem assumes that animals cannot breed in unusual circumstances. What? What about all the eagles bred in captivity? [2] There were no "tall trees," so what happens to your objection now? III. Geology I will only reply to arguments that are expanded. Your argument relating to ice cores and BF expectations, Sea floors, and tree-ring dating, are all examples of what skeptics like to call "Gish gallops." I will reply if you expand on them. A series of questions are not arguments. Your argument about erosion is should be part of the previous list, but I have decided to respond to it since it is tied to the last point, which is the ONLY point that is worth considering because it has more information. But first, I will respond a little about polar ice caps. Polar ice caps actually are more examples of Tu quoque. Can you please stop doing that? It is very irritating when objections apply to both sides but only one side is pinned. You have quoted the word "scientist" after creation. This is a basic example of attack on credibility. Furthermore, it is a strawman, creationists do not say that these pillars were around BEFORE the flood, but that it was formed by erosion cause BY the flood. Note that radiometric dating cannot be used to test WHEN the pillars formed. It is a geologically accepted fact that these are caused by erosion. (Do I have to cite this either?!?!) Now that I have responded to your first round, I will defend my arguments, although I have very little space. Note that you are not providing an argument in either round. You are simply asking leading questions and hoping that I fall on some. I can answer all these questions, but the whole purpose of a debate is not to ask questions. It is to present one"s own case. I therefore would like to request the voters to demerit a conduct point from you. Ia. The Opisthotonic Pose I do not know how my argument does not make sense. The whole point of the argument is fossilization in fast moving liquid. With that in mind, please re-read my arguments. I doubt the need of expansion on this. It is not the contradiction of the studies, which is only minor, but the main corroborations. These include watery deaths, fast transport, and flood-condition sediments. Ib. Soft-bodied fossils Con claims that this is "unconvincing..." He also claims "Aren"t jellyfish supposed to be covered in water?" I am seriously confused by this statement. Either he did not read my arguments, which I doubt, or he did not understand me. As I have not the space, I will not refute your quote. It is also not the point of my argument. Rather, it is a red herring and a straw man. So now, quoting myself, "Soft bodied fossils would indicate fast rapid burial, because otherwise the bodies would decay away..." I don"t know how this could not have been any clearer. This is also the main point of my argument and one which Con absolutely ignored. I will thus ignore his quote. I will let go of the whale arguments and the legends because I have no space. I will note, however, that Con has totally misconstrued my statements (on both counts). Unfortunately so. It is unfortunate as well that I have to drop it instead of pointing that out. Dropped because they wouldn"t prove my arguments,and would merely gain me votes. Everest fossils: Con has provided the answer for me. Everest was once under the sea! This is absolutely tied to my refutation of him using plate tectonics. Like I said, radiometric dating cannot be used to date the rocks to the time under the sea, only to the time of formation. Furthermore, there is the ever problem of contamination [3] Now that I"m almost out of space, I would like to comment on a few things. 1. Con consistently asks questions instead of making an expanded argument. Such behaviour would work well in the forums, but not in a formal debate. This is because, as is evident from this reply, the space required to answer the questions is much more than that to ask. Simply asking many questions and hoping I don"t answer some of them for space reasons is not a very good debating tactic. It might work against a noob, though. 2. Con sources AiG"s timeline of the flood, but states in that very sentence that "The flood was around 4360 years ago, meaning fossils can't be used from before that[9]" This is intellectually irresponsible. 3. My sources need to be open source. No they do not need to be. This is because I am merely using them for data. If you want to debate the data, it"s all on the table. Quoting from a study does not disprove me at all. That being said, I eagerly await for Con to refute me. Conclusively. Only wanting him to note that he should expand on his questions, which I find most problematic. Please present arguments, not questionnaires. 1. http://tccsa.tc... 2. elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v087n01/p0045-p0053.pdf 3. debate with Roy...