It Is Not Probable That the Genesis Flood Narrative Actually Occurred

Argument IWhat my opponent is arguing here is plain ridiculous. He makes an assertion (namely that, in the Bible, "kind" refers to "family"), and then responds to my objection to his assertion by asserting that I cannot assume that he is wrong. He is the one making the assertion, so he is the one that has to provide proof. The Bible makes no references that indicate that "kind" refers to "family", so I'm not drawing my objection from the Bible. The only proof he provides is that the story would not work if "kind" referred to "species" instead of "family", but this is an ad hoc proof. He has provided no direct evidence that "kind" refers to "family". Argument IIIndeed, natural selection can happen quickly. But rapid evolution is rare (typically seen most often in more simple organisms, like bacteria) and impermanent. "A new study, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, combined for the first time data from short periods such as 10-100 years with much longer evidence found in the fossil record over millions of years. It determined that rapid changes in local populations often don't continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species. .. Across a broad range of species, the research found that for a major change to persist and for changes to accumulate, it took about one million years. The researchers wrote that this occurred repeatedly in a 'remarkably consistent pattern. '" The graph below shows this. This tracks changes in body size of species over millions of years. Notice that all satistically significant changes only occur after one million years[1]: The changes that would have been required to make over 8 million species out of 1000 would have required billions of years. Any sooner, and the changes would have been insignificant enough that they wouldn't have mattered too much. Argument IIISpecies evolution takes a long time, and I've already demonstrated how basic evolution can take millions of years. Not only do all 1000 species that came off the ark need to have a trigger to evolve into 8.7 million species, they'd need to do it in just 4000 years. "Other times, species remain stable for long periods, showing little or no evolutionary change. " I think my opponent is not giving enough consideration to how long evolution takes. Bacteria, for example, can evolve quickly, but that's because they can reproduce very quickly and have a much simpler genetic code. [2]As for the ark currently being built, my opponent can draw no conclusions until it is completed, filled with animals and supplies, and put on a body of water for a year. The asumptions the article my opponent provides makes are invalid. For example, animals with highly specialized diets could not simply have just been feed some generic diet. And it doesn't really matter where the food and water was stored - the important point I made was that it's volume would have been way too much for the ark. Argument IVMy opponent doesn't seem to be recognizing the fallacy he's making. I agree that a worldwide flood would have caused massive changes on the Earth, including, but not limited to, continental drift. So, in argument form, if a global flood occurred, continental drift resulted. However, finding that continental drift occurred, and then inferring that a global flood occurred is affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy. The existence of continental drift does not guarantee that a global flood happened. I didn't just "not like it". I provided a large amount of information that showed that your explanations were not valid. Also, assuming the Earth was even sizably different then is wrong as well. Even minute changes in the conditions of the Earth could wipe out life as we know it. All change on Earth happens slowly. Mountains rising, continental drift, and many other things happen very slowly. It is unlikely that the Earth 4000 years ago was different in any measurable way than today. Argument VAgain, my opponent is inferring information from the Bible that isn't there. For one thing, the Fall happened before the great flood, so animals would have been corrupted (as well as people). For another, there's no reasoning for why God making everything "Good" includes giving the animals perfect DNA without mutations or abnormalities. Argument VIYet again, my opponent is inferring information from the Bible that isn't there. Of course I'm basing my assumptions on uniformitarianism, by far the most respected geological belief among experts. If the polar ice caps did not exist before the flood, how can you explain why the ice caps were dated to over 30 million years? "The ice caps in Antarctica were formed some 33.6 million years ago during the Oligocene epoch, a new study has found. " (see below for proof of radiometric dating)[3]Argument VIIOf course fossils would be organized by the environment they lived in. Say species x lived on Madagascar. Finding a fossil of species x would be much more likely on Madagascar than anywhere else on Earth. Fossils having red blood cells in them is not odd, and is by no means proof that a global flood happened. Some fossils look similar to currently living species because the extinct species and the still living species are related through evolution. And finally, referring to humans as one group is not a new discovery. [4]Radiometric DatingIt's now time for me to show why radiometric dating is reliable, so that my assertion in argument VI is valid. There have been many instances where radioactive dating has been matched up with the historical record. II. A. Mount Vesuvius Mount Vesuvius erupted on August 24th, 79 ACE. In 1997, a study was done to date the volcanic material. The time between 1997 and 79 was 1918 years. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 years, only a 7 year deviation from the real event. [5]II. B. Egyptian TombsPharaoh Djoser was pharaoh around 2670 BCE until he died in around 2650 BCE. Radiocarbon dating of his tomb reveals an approximate age of 4,650 years old, which matches up with 2650 BCE, the time of his death. In another case, a tomb from around the time of Ptomley (i. e. 300-30 BCE) was dated. However, radioactive testing showed the age to be almost 0. It was later proved that the tomb was a fake, and brand new. In another case, samples taken from a pyramid in Dashur, Egypt were historically dated to be around 2050 years old. This date agrees with the age of the radioactive sample. Many other historical artificats have turned up, and when the radioactive dating's age is matched up with the historian's guess of its age, the two are almost always correct. [6]ConclusionMy opponent has ignored several problems with the story of the flood, and the ones he has addressed have been riddled with fallacies, invalid assumptions, and unwillingness to see other sides of the story. Overall, the story of the flood in the Bible has way too many problems to even be considered to have actually happened. Sources[1]: . http://phys.org...[2]: . http://www.amnh.org...[3]: . http://www.natureworldnews.com...[4]: . http://www.bbc.com...[5]: . http://ncse.com...[6]: . http://pubs.usgs.gov...