The Biblical Flood occurred

Time to wrap up! I greatly appreciate Pro for this unusual debate, best of luck in voting! I. Mathematical ‘Proof’ I never conceded this, I showed that Pro’s ‘proof’ proves a starting population of 6, 7000, 7000000 and 1000000000. Pro has spectacularly failed to respond to those facts. If Pro’s methods ‘proves’ contradictory populations, then it obviously fails. Upon further research, both equations are equivalent, one is a continuous compound interest equation, and the other is a discreet compound interest equation, for a derivation of the former from the latter then I recommend checking out the attached video. Both of Pro’s equations are depictions of the same thing. P= P0e^rt = P0(1+r)^t II. Rapid Burial Let’s summarize my opponent’s position: 1. There are fossils on mountain tops 2. These fossils could only have gotten there by the Noachian Flood 3. No fossil can be explained naturalistically because no naturalistic process provides the conditions for fossilization to occur I provided the mountain thrust hypothesis, which is the leading geological hypothesis for #1, which Pro has failed to address directly. If the mountain thrust hypothesis is likely, then Pro’s entire case regarding the Noachian flood falls apart. Pro’s only defence against the mountain thrust hypothesis is that fossilization cannot occur at all naturalistically because it doesn’t provide all the required conditions for fossilization. Pro asserts the following conditions are required: 1. Rapid Burial 2. No bacteria 3. No oxygen 4. No scavengers Pro needed to show that: 1. Natural processes cannot provide these conditions 2. The Noachian flood can provide these conditions I argue that not only has Pro not demonstrated either of these, but he also falsely attributes condition #2, which is unnecessary (summarized later). Naturalistic processes can easily account for 3 of these on a large scale, Pro disputes that rapid burial does not exclude oxygen but has given no evidence to this effect, moreover it (I argued) would also undermine his own position, because if natural burial doesn’t exclude oxygen, then neither does the Noachian Flood! Note that of course there will be some oxygen buried with the animals, which will quickly be consumed by the decomposers (similarly to how a burning candle goes out if put underneath a glass by consuming all the oxygen – see video). If a simple glass like this can effectively exclude oxygen, then obviously many natural environments can, also. Pro contends that the presence of anerobic bacteria are a major problem but has failed to show: 1. How anerobic bacteria can digest bone fast enough to be significant 2. How the Noachian flood possibly removes all bacteria whereas no naturalistic explanation does I hold #2 to be a fantastical claim, and Pro has provided absolutely no reason to believe the Noachian flood would kill off all anaerobic bacteria but non-Noachian processes wouldn’t. Considering various bacteria survive in space, and some of the most inhospitable environments imaginable, it seems incredibly farfetched that anerobic bacteria are going to care about a load of water.[1] I also hold #1 to be flat out false, and Pro has failed to respond to my trivially found examples of 2,000 year old historical skeletons (a large fraction of the Noachian age) all in good condition and obviously not buried under the Noachian flood conditions. It doesn’t take much effort to find many more older examples of skeletons.[2] If bacteria rapidly digest anything that would fossilize under non-Noachian conditions, then we should see no skeletons of a large fraction of the Noachian age (4,500) years, yet we have abundant examples. Given these examples there is no reason to think the Noachian flood provided special conditions even if it did happen, hence this contention fails. “Con, not only were the waters violent, but the flood also lasted for 40 days. It's already proven that bacteria don't live long, and they reproduce quickly“ Pro has given absolutely no evidence that these conditions would sterilize the sediments of bacteria, so I will use Hitchen’s Razor.[3] “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” For organisms on the size of micrometers, turbulent waters seems a laughable set of conditions for bacteria to die in, especially if they are buried within the animals anyway. Pro has ignored that most animal bodies will have these bacteria inside of them anyway. Dating: Pro ignores that there are a plethora of methods that can date fossils, and has provided precisely zero of them that could determine the age of the fossils (a spectacular failing to meet his BoP), and all evidence so far suggests fossils that are many orders of magnitude older than the flood would suggest. These methods are widely used in geology today and are well-standardized and the differences are far outside what the error-bars would cover. The dating of these fossils flat out falsifies this contention, especially considering Pro asserts that ALL fossils are Noachian (which is an astonishing claim) hence any fossil can be used to falsify it. Erosion: “This is a comparison of apples to oranges. How can you compare a normal flood or wave (which does fill in the valleys) with a global flood, which is much more powerful?” I would imagine a sandcastle and a valley would be a little more eroded and the valleys a little more filled if a tsunami hit it instead of a regular wave. Entropy works. III. Historical Proofs I only have access to source #38, which is an apologist source and not a scholar source, and again is something even I could have written with little expertise in the area (I recommend you open the source). Again there are absolutely no details on the ‘selection criteria’ involved, apparently 95% of these stories describe a worldwide flood, which is meaningless if stories were selected on the basis of whether or not the floods are worldwide! Note Pro forwarded the common ancestor hypothesis, with only six people surviving it. So we have excellent reason to think all the stories will be roughly the same as what we see in the New Testament as the witnesses would have seen roughly the same thing (if it happened). “Also, it is ridiculous for Con to expect there to be a detailed analysis of every single flood story.” That’s not my problem, the BoP is on Con. Considering New Testament scholarship covers over 50 different books, and hundreds of stories within those books, it’s clear these should have a similar level of analysis done on flood stories if it was clear they were describing the same event. The reason why Pro has to show these describe the same event is simply because they do not form corroborating evidence if they don’t. I can provide hundreds and thousands of eyewitness testimonies of murders, but that obviously doesn’t provide additional support to the fact that any specific murder happened. You can cite that a large % of these murders were by family members, by men, with a knife and performed at nightime with the body hidden. You can always get high percentages to match up with your story narrative in a murder story, it does in no way support the fact that any random murder happened unless you can show these stories all describe the same thing! The facts that would convincingly show these floods were the same event: 1. The place 2. The date 3. The names of the people involved Astonishingly Pro has not attempted to meet this trivial burden. If I am given murder stories that describe 1 murder in 1700 and another in 2014, or a murder story which describes a person names John, and another Steven, then I have good reason to doubt these stories have anything to do with each other! IV. Conclusions I have refuted all three of Pro’s arguments, as per request. Because of this, I encourage voters to vote Con. V. References 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com...