The Biblical Flood occurred

Thank you, Con.Affirming the ConsequentCon still argues that my proofs fall under this fallacy. Once again, I will show you that the Biblical flood can be the only explanation for them by refuting Con's refutations.A. Mathematical ProofTo nullify Con's argument here, all I have to do is prove that my equations are NOT circular.In an attempt to show that my equations were circular, he used the Speed = distance/time (S=d/t) equation. That is nothing more than a mere straw-man argument, because he uses the SAME INFORMATION in the SAME FORMULA ITSELF. This is not what I did.I did NOT use the P = Pe^rt formula ITSELF to prove that six people can reach all the way up to 7 billion people in the future. I didNOTuse the equation to find the rate of "0.4639425893" and then do "7,000,000,000 = 6e^0.4639425893x4500" in my calculator. If that were the case, then I would agree that it's circular.Again, I did not do this. What I did was just use the P = Pe^rt formula for the SOLE PURPOSE of finding the RATE, so I could use it for the compound formula (the same formula you use to see money increase in the bank) to see where the initial Noachian population would end up TODAY. Just as money increases in the bank, the same concept applies to people: by growth rates. But again, you need to find the rate for money, so you would have to do a separate equation for that. Again, same concept.In order to find the rate, you would need to use a mathematical formula to do so. That's what I did to satisfy that mathematical necessity. All Pro did was just solidify the usage of the formulas by finding the RIGHT rates for certain initial populations to reach certain final populations. I proved that it's mathematically solid for the three children of Noah to reach the current population by finding the correct rate.Thus, Envisage's claim of circular reasoning is null.B. Sea Creatures in High AltitudesSo, if I show that ONLY the Biblical flood can result in rapid fossilization (and no other explanations can suffice), then Con's arguments here shall be dismissed too.So, it seems like we both agree that in order for something to become a fossil, it must be out of reach for scavengers, oxygen, bacteria, etc. lest it decays. It must be rapid to prevent those things from happening, too.Even though localised rapid sedimentation occurs everywhere, the thing is that it does NOT meet the requirements for fossilization. The speed of the sedimentation/burial process ITSELF can be fast, but that does NOT mean that they exclude bacteria and oxygen. In fact, you can find a lot of bacterial activity in sediments (25-28). So, con's argument contradicts the very conditions of fossilization that we agreed upon.The point is that not only the results of the Biblical flood were rapid, but the waters would have gotten rid of any bacteria that would have gotten mixed with the sediments. Remember, the violent flood did wipe out most of the living organisms (most, if not all) that was not included in the ark.Why did I not present any dating evidence? The reason is that dating methods can be unreliable. Carbon dating is a fine example of that. The amount of carbon-14 varies in the atmosphere (29), so determining the age of fossils can be tricky. And no, I wasn't arguing for the redistribution of existing fossils.Moreover, I only said that it SEEMS like one of your arguments was based off of Yahoo! Answers, because of the similarities between your argument and one of the answers there. That's why I am leaving it up to the voters to judge. Moreover, I have also cited secular sources too. When I cited creationist sources, I was mostly giving them credit for the PICTURES, not mostly for SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION. On the other hand, you seem have referred to a Yahoo answer that claims to have its information from Stephen Gould.Readers, just look at this picture. I underlined the similarities. My interpretation of Genesis 7:11 cannot mean anything because the whole context involved the flood, and various translation refer to what's beneath the oceans. The words, "springs", "fountains" etc. all point to the same thing (30).Plus, the ocean floor ITSELF may be made of things like sedimentary rock, but when I referred to the molten rock I meant the thing that originates from all the way from the INNER STRUCTURE of the Earth. See this picture (31): So, when the fountains of the deep were exposed, it would release the molten rock from the said inner structure to push the waters upward. Again, we can logically determine this truly happened because the marine organisms would need to be elevated all the way to the mountain tops, and that would require the "push" due to exposure of the great deep.Con: "If you shake a bottle of sand, the sand pools towards the bottom of the heterogeneous mixture. Sediments are never evenly distributed, and denser-than-water stuff such as most minerals, sediments, rocks, sand will concentrate at the bottom, and hence will fill up the valleys on the mountains with sediment."I will draw and post a few pictures to invalidate this. 1: We have a few mountains here. 2. Now they're flooded. 3. The waters are receding now. On picture 2, you see that all the minerals, sand (sediment in general) were all over the place. Now, you see that as the waters recede on picture 3, the MAJORITY of the sediment get taken BACK as the waters go back to the oceans. The sediment go along with the motion of the receding waters. Hence, you DON'T SEE MUCH sediment in the valleys, but instead you see its effects CONCENTRATED AMONG THE MARINES ON MOUNTAINTOPS, as they would definitely need the huge amounts of sediments to BECOME fossilized.C. Historical ProofsPresident of the Institute for Creation Research John D. Morris, Ph.D collected over 200 flood stories (24). Here is the data, since you asked for the evidence. So, go and see the key commonalities for yourself. Is there a favored family? 88% Were they forewarned? 66% Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66% Is catastrophe only a flood? 95% Was flood global? 95% Is survival due to a boat? 70% Were animals also saved? 67% Did animals play any part? 73% Did survivors land on a mountain? 57% Was the geography local? 82% Were birds sent out? 35% Was the rainbow mentioned? 7% Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13% Were specifically eight persons saved? 9% The same source goes on to say:"Putting them all back together, the story would read something like this:Once there was a worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole earth."So, my questions still apply. If the flood did not occur, then why do so many isolated cultures have their own versions of the flood that STILL CONVEY ABOUT THE SAME INFORMATION as above? How would they include the SAME THEMES despite the geographical isolation? I say that they all must have faced a common ancestor that experienced the same event in order for them to record their respective flood stories (slightly varied from culture to culture).Conclusion25. http://www.annualreviews.org...26. http://aem.asm.org...27. http://www.sciencedirect.com...28. https://smartech.gatech.edu...29. http://www.radiocarbon.com...30. http://creationwiki.org...31. http://education.nationalgeographic.com...