It Is Not Probable That the Genesis Flood Narrative Actually Occurred

I am going to try to keep my response simple. You have not refuted any of my arguments, and hear is why.1) It is not ridiculous. If the flood happened, then it would have to have been "Family" kinds on the ark. Therefore, you can’t just simply assume that "species" would have been on the ark, and use that as proof against the ark. 2)You forget that we are talking about THE PAST. You were not there. I was not there. You cannot say that it was impossible for the animals to adapt that quickly. If you knew the properties of the animals Genome thousands of years ago, then that would be a different story. But again, you weren’t there. Animals could have adapted quickly. Animals might not adapt that quickly today, but that is because of natural selection. Organisms loss genetic information as a result almost every time. All the animals on the ark would have had much more variability in their genome, and could have adapted easily.3)Evolution is impossible because mutations result in a LOSS of genetic information, or no change at best. That’s why I don't believe in evolution. It is unscientific. Observations go against evolution.Caring for the animals is easy if you have a gigantic ark, few animals, and experienced works. Noah had all 3 of those needs. Disliking an explanation doesn’t make it wrong.4)I did not say that Continental Drift absolutely proves the flood without a doubt. I was simply relating what we see and what the Bible says, and demonstration how they go together. What we see matches the Biblical account.5)There was no disease before the Fall. There was not pain or suffering and all animals were vegetarian. For those things to exist, the Genetic information would have to be "perfect" in a sense, or else animals would suffer from “bad” problems in a “good” world. Natural selection results in a loss of genetic information. Therefore the animals, the farther back we go, would have had more and better genetic information. The farthest back we go is to when the world was created, when the information in organism’s genome was at its best.6)Exactly my point. You use unbiblical Uniformitarian assumptions, and use those assumptions in order to disprove the Bible. That is circular reasoning. And I already disproved dating ice. If the flood happened, the Ice Age would have resulted. Therefore making the ice caps. The dating methods are flawed because they ignore Noah's Flood. They assume the flood didn’t happen, then use those assumptions in order to get those dates. Then they use those dates to attempt to disprove the flood. That is again, circular reasoning. 7)Fossils show that the flood is recent. Why did scientists find T-rex fossils with intact red blood cells?http://www.smithsonianmag.com...http://www.icr.org... 8)Radiometric dating is flawed, as I demonstrated earlier. You gave 2 examples of almost accurate results. Before I go into that, I will quote what you seemed to ignore in my earlier argument."All dating methods you can try to use to disprove me will be wrong and not work. That is because they are made on 3 assumptions. 1) You assume what the original conditions where 2) You assume there was never contamination 3) You assume rates and conditions have always been consistent and constant You have to use assumptions when using dating methods. Therefore, traditional dating methods cannot disprove that the flood ever happened. Dating methods depend on wrong assumptions. If the flood happened, we would expect some conditions all over the world to change and not be the same. Dating methods are drastically flawed, and do not disprove the flood, weather its ice core dating or some other kind of method."Also, hear are come counter assertions for my opponents claims.Hear is an account when rocks from Mt. St Helens where dated."The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method.""It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age?"https://answersingenesis.org..."Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!""Imagine the surprise when every piece of “ancient” carbon tested has contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon!4 Fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, marble, and graphite from every Flood-related rock layer—and even some pre-Flood deposits—have all contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon (Figure 2). All these results have been reported in the conventional scientific literature." Figure 5Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew SnellingFigure 5 These fossils were in mudstone of the lower Cretaceous Budden Canyon Formation near Redding, California. A fossilized ammonite (a marine shellfish) was discovered with a piece of fossilized wood (from a land plant) embedded next to it. Located in Cretaceous layers that were supposedly millions of years old, the fossilized shell and wood yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 48,710 and 42,390 years respectively."https://answersingenesis.org...-As you can see, my opponent has not given a single piece of evidence that disproves the flood. Remember, this is about the POSSIBILITY of the flood. Even if you disagree that it happened, there is no proof against the flood that I have not countered. All evidence is in line for if it actually happened. I see no proof against the flood, and only proof for it. If I miss anything, just say it in the comments. I’ll try to get to it when I can.