Noah's flood, as described in Genesis, was a real historical event.

This round is for rebuttals to the opening arguments only. As such, I will not defend my opening statements until the next round. Introduction It is certainly true that science relies on predictions. However, I take issue with the idea that if a theory fails to make a prediction, the entire theory must be thrown out. I also take issue with the idea that just because a theory makes valid predictions, the theory is valid. Understanding science notes that there have been many theories in the history of science that have been superseded because of new evidence. They write: “All the theories described above worked — that is, they generated accurate expectations, were supported by evidence, opened up new avenues of research, and offered satisfying explanations. Nevertheless, the theories described above did change…A well-supported theory may be accepted by scientists, even if the theory has some problems. In fact, few theories fit our observations of the world perfectly. There is usually some anomalous observation that doesn't seem to fit with our current understanding. Scientists assume that by working at such anomalies, they'll either disentangle them to see how they fit with the current theory or contribute to a new theory. And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn't quite fit with the old theory. When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, over a period of time (it might take years), scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory. ” “This process of theory change often involves true scientific controversy, which is healthy, sparks additional research, and helps science move forward. True scientific controversy involves disagreements over how data should be interpreted, over which ideas are best supported by the available evidence, and over which ideas are worth investigating further. " (1) As such, my rebuttals will attempt to show that catastrophic plate tectonics (CTP hereafter) is scientifically implausible. I will further show how our conventional understanding of science and plate tectonics does a far better job of explaining what we see than CTP. Subterranean Water Basins I will concede that there is strong evidence for water underneath the mantle transit zone; however, I believe that conventional understanding of plate tectonics does a far better job of explaining this phenomenon than catastrophic plate tectonics. Pro cites two articles. One in Nature by Pearson et al. and the other in Science by Schmandt et al. D. G. Pearson, in an interview with Scientific American writes: “Plate tectonics recycles Earth's crust by pushing and pulling slabs of oceanic crust into subduction zones, where it sinks into the mantle. This crust, soaked by the ocean, ferries water into the mantle. Many of these slabs end up stuck in the mantle transition zone. "We think that a significant portion of the water in the mantle transition zone is from the emplacement of these slabs," Pearson said. "The transition zone seems to be a graveyard of subducted slabs. " Let’s now look further into the study by Schmandt et al. Schmand et al. Questioning Answers in Genesis notes (2): “It has long been known that hydrous minerals like amphibole, along with marine sediments, cause dehydration melting in the upper mantle, which is a major cause of volcanism associated with subduction zones (e. g. Japan, New Zealand, the Pacific Northwest). This process occurs primarily at much shallower depths than the mantle transition zone, however, which means that relatively little surface water is subducted to depths >525 km, where these 'underground oceans' currently exist. In addition, these reservoirs and mass transfers are all part of the global water cycle. The more water that is subducted below the surface, the more volcanism returns it to the surface. Therefore, the deep reservoirs of water hypothesized by Schmandt et al. (2014) could not possibly be remnants of a surficial flood from any point in Earth history. ” “[I]f it were [sic] not for the constant conversion of water and olivine to ringwoodite within the transition zone, this water would have been added slowly back into surficial reservoirs through volcanism. Instead, it is locked up in minerals as solid as your own jewelry, so that Earth's water content is split between liquid reservoirs in the surface and mineral reservoirs deep underground. ” So I fail to see how ringwoodite can be used to support CPT or the historicity of a global deluge. Karst Geomorphology Karsts are among the most beautiful natural feature on Earth today. I fail to see pro's argument that the Flood caused all of hte Karsts that we see today. If the Flood did cause the Karsts, then we should see that all of the Karsts are roughly the same age. We do not see this. Development of Karst depends on 5 basic elements as noted by the American Institute of Professional Geologist (3): Suitable body of rock Existence of a suitable solvent for dissolution A continuous fracture network within the rock body Hydrogeologic conditions resulting in a suffi cient hydraulicgradient Geologic time - "There was an exact moment some millions ofyears ago when rainwater fi rst touched the uppermost layers of Girkin Limestone, and there will occur a time in the futurewhen that formation will be entirely removed from the regionby dissolution. " Further, dating shows that mammoth cave, which pro gave as an example, is at least 30 million years old (4) Fossils Record Contrary to pro’s contentions, the fossil record, more than any other scientific or geological evidence, directly contradicts the idea of a Global Flood or CPT. Dr. Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth of BioLogos, a Christian science advocacy organization, writes (5): “If a massive flood were responsible for the fossil record, what would we expect to see? If the Flood was violent enough to rip chunks of rock up from the earth and move entire continents (standard Young Earth claims), then it should be obvious that life forms from every imaginable niche would be tumbled and mixed together. We should find numerous examples of mammoths mixed with triceratops, and pterodactyls mixed with sparrows. Ferns and meadow flowers should be found in the same deposits, along with trilobites and whales. Further, we should find all major life forms still living today, for Genesis 7:8-9 is clear in stating that all terrestrial animals were preserved on the ark. ” “What we actually observe is far different. There is an orderly sequence where trilobites only occur in very old rocks, dinosaurs in later beds, and mammoths in still later layers. Organisms like flowers and ferns are present together in more recent deposits, but only ferns with no flowers are found in older deposits. ” In his book The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins writes that “if there was just a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found. " (6) If CPT was true, and by extension a Global Flood really did occur, why didn’t a dinosaur make it to higher ground? Extremely good sorting of the fossil record is observed. This is not what we would expect if something like a Global Flood occurred. Here is an excellent diagram of what we actually observe (7): Failures of CPT Finally, there are many scientific issues with CPT. In his blog, Dr. Gary S. Hurt notes (8): “If some single land mass were to break up and then the bits (Africa, Eurasia, North and South America, Australia, and Antarctica) go slamming across the globe like billiard balls, there are consequences. One of them being the heat necessarily generated by friction between the crustal rock, and the upper mantle. This is given in the "Coefficient of Friction" seen above. Were did this heat go? Because it would have been enough to have melted the crust, and boiled the oceans into steam. And, we can calculate an estimate of the energy needed to push up mountains all over the world as continents crash together. If this were to have occurred rapidly, again the heat generated would have melted the mountains, and not forced them into the air. (For public lectures have the audience rub their hands together for friction heating, and clap them together for impact heating). ” Finally, Donald Wise notes that the thermal problems of such a model would be catastrophic for life on Earth. Wise writes (9): “The thermal problems of this model are mind-boggling. At the start, gravitational energy released by core formation would raise the entire globe's average temperature by 2,500 degrees Celsius (Birch 1965). To this, the model requires adding frictional heating from the proposed runaway subduction as well as the massive heat of condensation of the collapsing vapor canopy. Even more surface heat was added as brand new basaltic ocean floors, with minimum melting temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, were spewed out over two-thirds of the earth's surface beneath miraculously non-boiling flood waters. Finally, this cumulative massive thermal pulse had to dissipate in a few thousand years by unstated processes to leave most of the earth's surface devoid of hot springs or any evidence of abnormally high heat flow. ” Conclusion Conventional understanding of science does a far better job of explaining what we see than CPT. CPT does not stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. Further, CPT violates everything we know about the Laws of Physics. The resolution is soundly rejected. Noah’s Flood was most certainly not a historical event and the evidence against CPT is overwhelming. I am out of characters. Sources: . http://tinyurl.com...