The Genesis Flood was a local, not a global flood

I believe I can summarize your argument in three points. I) If it were only local, Noah could move instead of build a boat. This is simply speculation that because it could have been done a different way, it would have been done a different way. If we recall other stories throughout the Hebrew scriptures, we find many examples of different methods allegedly (and I personally believe were) employed by G-d. Israel was required to march around the walls of Jericho for 7 days before the wall fell, and Israel was then forced to violently invade the land. In fact, war was required many times. G-d provided multiple miracles in Egypt, but G-d could have just struck Pharaoh dead and let the people of Israel go the first time. In the story of Jehoshaphat, they were required only to go out to see the deliverance G-d would bring; no battle was needed. The story of Gideon was similar where they were not required to fight, but they were required to play an active role in the miracle G-d provided. Stating that G-d would have acted differently in the case of a local flood verses is global flood is mere speculation, and it is not evidence at all when compared to the other various stories provided in the Hebrew scriptures. Throughout the scriptures, G-d often used prophets to warn people of pending judgement: Job, Hosea, Jeremiah, etc. It has been speculated that Noah was used in this way. It is recorded that G-d told Jeremiah that the people would not listen to him, but he should go give the message anyway, which is similar to many prophets, such as Moses himself. The fact that no one listened to Noah is not then evidence that G-d was not using Noah as a prophet to the people as a sign of their destruction. Although I cannot prove any of this, it is no less likely than the statement which is postulated by Con, thus, Con's argument should not be considered as evidence in favor of a global flood. II) The flood story spans cultures, therefore it is likely true. It is true that there are seemingly countless flood myths (1) (2). There are several very plausible explanations for this. First of all, let's assume that Noah's family was the only to survive the flood. We seem to agree on that point, but it is trivial even if we don't. Then after the flood, every human left alive would know the story of the flood. This story could be handed down from generation to generation. It may not be well preserved even (but as stated in Round 1, we assume the Biblical version is accurate). The story could easily be adapted by each culture, causing differences. Furthermore, I'd like to point out that these flood myths do not all assume that the entire earth was covered. Many of them include only a great local flood including but not limited to: Greek, Arcadian, Samothrace, and Celtic (1). No only is it possible that all the flood myths came from Noah's flood, there is geological evidence that there have been many great floods of large areas, many of which include ice melting at the end of the most recent ice age (2). Let's say someone did survive such a flood. If water was as far as the eye could see in every direction, and the observer had little understanding of the earth in general, they may assume the flood was global, even though it was local. In fact, that is the argument made by some Old Earth Creationists: Noah thought the flood was global, because as far as he could tell, it was. So then, the number of flood myths does not specifically support a global flood, because they don't agree that it was a global flood. Furthermore, there is reasonable evidence that not all flood myths came from Noah's flood. This is not evidence that it was global. III) Polystrate Fossils First of all, polystrate is not a geological term. It is used almost exclusively by creationists to describe these fossils. That aside, this is a very weak argument for a global flood, because it presupposes that a global flood is the only possible explanation, and it fails to search for a logical geological explanation. It is interesting to find that some of the first geologists to discovered this type of fossil were Christians (3). These Christians reasoned about how such fossils might have been created. The reasons differed depending on the location of the find. In many cases, it was tied to rapid sediment layers being laid by changing tides. In other cases, it was due to volcanic activity. In fact, it was documented that when Mount St. Helen's erupted, it created such fossils (4). There are commonalities among the many petrified forests all over the world. These commonalities reflect not only difference processes in how these fossils were created, but also similarities within each process. Some processes would require time to create the geological formations seen, even if there had been a global flood (3). Now that I have addressed Con's objections to a local flood, I will present my last argument that there was not a global flood, so that Con has the opportunity to give a rebuttal in Round 4. Tree rings are a problem for flood geologists, because it is not believed that standing trees would have survived the great flood. On average, a tree produces one ring per year, yet we have examples of trees with over 11,000 rings. According to ICR, which Con quotes, it may be possible for a tree or produce more or less than one ring per year (5). The problem with ICR's claim is that they discount radiocarbon dating of the different rings (6). If the flood had influenced the radiocarbon footprint, it would be unlikely for each ring to have a radiometric dating consistent either within each ring, or with models for the age of the tree based on dendrochronology. The oldest tree found is in Sweden, dated 9500 years old (7). In fact, there are many trees in that same area of approximately the same age. These trees are so old, they would have to have survived a year under water if Noah's flood took place in any timeline currently proposed by creationists. One question that I have never seen a global flood supporter attempt to explain is our observation of varves. It was sad that in a recent high-profile debate, Bill Nye failed to respond to Ken Ham's statements regarding varves. A single varve is a thin sediment layer. It is observed in many places that a few layers of varves are placed down each year in certain bodies of water. Study of varves which we observe being put down each year allow us to identify differences among varves based on the season of the year in which they were put down. There are many locations around the world with literally millions of these varve layers (8). Flood geologists claim that a global flood could put down millions of layers of varves as we observe a local flood may do. However, the varve layers put down by a local flood are different than varves put down over time, because of the way water tends to separate sediments. The sediment layers containing millions of layers of varves show uniformly seasonal sediment layers without fail. These varve layers often contain organic material which may be carbon dated (pollen for example). When carbon 14 dating methods are employed to independently determine the age of a varve layer, it is consistent with the expected age of the varve layer given geological models (9). If there had been a global flood, it would have put down multiple varve layers in many places all over the world. We would then expect to be able to use carbon 14 or other radiometric dating methods to show that such varve layers were put down rapidly, because we are able to do so when we observe the quick formation of varve layers. However, this is not the case (9). The prediction regarding varve layers in the event of a global flood has not been observed any where on earth at any time. This failed prediction is strong evidence that there was not a global flood. 1) http://www.talkorigins.org... 2) http://io9.com... 3) http://www.talkorigins.org... 4) Karowe, A.L. and T.H. Jefferson, 1987, Burial of trees by eruptions of Mount St. Helens, Washington: Implications for the interpretation of fossil forests, Geological Magazine 124(3):191-204. 5) http://www.icr.org... 6) http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com... 7) http://news.nationalgeographic.com... 8) http://glennmortonspages.wikispaces.com... 9) http://biologos.org...