Destroy Yourself

My opponent's acceptance round was confusing but I think I get what he/she's trying to say.Here's my source: http://www.bibleinterp.com....Trustworthiness: the source is meant to be credible, because it is the writer for UCLA Center as well as the "Visualization Project". The author cites his sources throughout (easily verifiable on a single scan through), and even the bible itself, thus solidifying his already-trustworthiness. The source's arguments:- N.A.M.I.'s claims are incorrect- worldwide flood is combination of two flood stories -It is from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts; stories which "were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith, but retained characteristics such as the destruction of nearly all living things via a flood...."-There is the key claim that "not only are different numbers used for the number of animals on the ark in the two Hebrew flood stories, but different time periods were given for the flooding after the rains: 40 and 150 days."-God is referred to YHWH -Scientific evidence: "One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3) If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the ground to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch."-Not enough waterThese arguments seem solid enough, however, there is also contrary evidence. Note first, the date, May 2010. It may have been applicable for the time, but I have new evidence to counter it: http://abcnews.go.com.... (published in december 2012). Essentially, the website from ABC news (arguably more trustworthy than one man's blog, since the newspaper is reviewed by an editor and then published), citing a study involving a man named Ballard. "By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred." The website states. The website also refers to past events that are similar to the Bible's seemingly unbelievable flood: "Catastrophic events of this kind are not unique to the Bible. Some contemporary examples include the 2004 tsunami that wiped out villages on the coasts of 11 countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. There was also Hurricane Katrina, described as the worst hurricane in United States history." One also has to keep in mind that the man who wrote about the scientific evidence did not think about the possibility of the different geography, which may have altered the mountain's relative height to the land beside it, or a different amount of volume of water within the atmosphere which may have somehow allowed a giant flood to be able to sustain a massive boat. Finally, don't get distracted by the great amount of sources on the first one. Most of them are trying to explain the origin and/or background of the events listed within the source. There are only two sources that truly provide some sound evidence for the argument!In conclusion: the source seems valid, with many claims and supports to its stories. However, when one looks closer, most of the argument does not attempt to support just why the Hebrew story must precisely match the biblical story, neither does it support that the atmospheric argument applies in all situations. (Would it still apply in extreme weather and temperatures? How would one know how much water was in the atmosphere thousands of years ago?) Also look carefully at the scientific source itself. It is a school specifically for teaching elementary school kids (or perhaps even younger!) The diction is not high and some technical words are even highlighted (which any educated middle school and higher people should know!) http://prntscr.com...; (this displays just how childish, or at least basic; the source is-from http://water.usgs.gov....) The fact that the blog was written by a professional means that he should have known better than to pick an educational and very basic source. It is surely missing important information, especially upon earlier time periods in which the weather was crucially different. On the other hand, the news site soundly refutes the first source, because it displays relevant scientific information, which was newer than the first source, and strongly suggests at the fact that the global flood DID occur.