The Literal Flood Never Happened

With due respect, my opponent claims the difference between creationism and evolutionism is the interpretation of evidence, but this is not wholly correct. The difference is science starts with the evidence and forms a hypothesis based on all the available evidence. Creationism starts with the hypothesis (Biblical Creationism) and cherry picks data to back up their hypothesis. During my arguments, I would have shown how ridiculous the biblical flood narrative is, whatever singular evidence one might suppose supported it. As is, I have only my opponent's arguments to work off of, so here goes. Mathematical Possibility In this my opponent claims that only 16,00 animals survived the flood aboard the ark, and that they could easily have fit on that boat. There are problems with this. The boat's measurements put it at a bit over 400 ft long. A well known phenomena of wooden boats is the 300 ft limit. Boats of this length, even with modern boat building techniques and iron banding (something the ark surely wouldn't have) even with these, the boats would leak and pitch and roll like crazy. They were not made in large numbers, and were never taken out very far or for very long. They also had to be equipped with water pumps in order to keep afloat. Simply put, a boat the size of the ark could not have stayed afloat in calm waters, let alone the turbulence of a flood large enough to cover the whole earth. Then there is the problem with the supposed 16,000 animals, two of each. Two animals is not even remotely enough to repopulate a species. There just is not enough genetic diversity to ensure the animals could reproduce without horrible genetic defects wiping them out. Even more, 16,000 animals is far too few to provide the diversity of species we see today. Evolution just does not work that fast (evolution is an observable, proven fact and any alternatives that I know of at this time are unsupported speculations).(1)(2) (I should note at this time that Con goofed his linking of sources, as source 2 is the main page of answers and source 3 is... not a link. Still, not hard to follow.) Con provides a perfectly reasonable answer for his dead clams problem. Many small floods is not inconceivable, and without more supporting evidence, supposing a global flood as the solution is as I pointed out, the problem with Creationism "proving" their theory with singular evidence. Polystrate fossils. Had a hard time with this one until I learned that this is a phrase made up by Creationists. I am not a geologist, but from what I've seen, it looks like this "problem" was outdated as far back as the 19th century. I shall (for the sake of time, and because this is not my area of expertize) quote directly from one of my sources: "As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not. "(3) Due to time constraints and MORE technical issues, I haven't been able to research this sediment issue. Actually never heard of this one, so I give Con props for that one. It is an interesting puzzle that I know nothing about. However, this is again another instance where the Creationist starts with the hypothesis of a global flood, and then without further justification, uses this singular evidence as proof of a global flood. We may not know how it happened (as I've said, not had time to research it), but with all the points above about the mathematical unlikeliness of it, as well as answering Con's other points, this singular instance of "I don't know" hardly grants licence to assume a global flood without other evidence. The problem of sea fossils on mountain tops is really easy enough. Geologists have long understood the process of mountain creation, and the tops of any mountain was once underwater, long enough to accrue fossils before being forced up by tectonic forces. Without arguments to rebute, I invite my opponent to examine and question my rebutles. The other choice would be for Con not to post to keep the number of posts even, but why should Con have to suffer for my problems? I look forward to hearing from Con again in round 3. Sources 1. http://www.biblicalnonsense.com... 2. http://www.talkorigins.org... 3. http://www.talkorigins.org...