The Literal Flood Never Happened

Pro: 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.This is a combination of straw-man and ad hominem. When a person results to this type of statement, it is clear that, not only are they giving an emotional response, but they have no real arguments as they resort to childish conduct.Evolutionary scientists begin with the presupposition of naturalism and materialism, while Creationism starts with the presupposition of a supernatural God. They both have presuppositions, and to say one does while the other doesn't is either out of ignorance or for a purposely misleading argument.Mathematical PossibilityNoah's boat was most likely designed with a three-layer barrel style, which would not have succumbed to the leaks and rolls as claimed by my opponent, which can be validated by the model sourced in my opening arguments.16,000 animals is enough to provide the diversity of species we see today. Remember, the 16000 were land animals only, so they could provide for the diversity of speciation we see in today's land animals. The argument my opponent is using is including all sea animals as well, which is straw-manning my argument. Evolution does work fast, as seen with Darwin's Finches, as it produces new speciation very quickly. The post-flood climate would also be different than it was today, making it more likely that new speciation would happen quite often.Clams and Polystrate Fossils(I do apologize for the incorrect page for the link, and the "ibid" is a term meaning "the same as above". Here is the correct link: http://www.answersingenesis.org...)My opponent argues that many small floods over periods of time could also explain the dead clams problem. But we're finding these clams everywhere, and as the source claimed, by the billions. Is it more reasonable to make arbitrary assumptions of thousands of flash floods, or of one universal flood that has universally been recorded?I'm going to have to argue that my opponent's polystrate argument is ridiculous. He first asserts that Creationists made up the term polystrate fossils, which in fact it is actually the Evolutionary geologists that dismiss this obvious argument against them by providing an alternative explanation that is nonsensical. The evolutionists agree that the fossils were formed rapidly, but that many cyces of deposistions with water levels rising above and below the fossilized trees would eventually create more layers over long periods of time. But, why would the fossilized tree remain upright after all of that water pressure? It is nonsensical to assume that it could remain upright, yet the geologists do not wish to concede the obvious answer that the layers of the earth were formed rapidly, because that would prove a worldwide flood.Sediment IssueMy opponent concedes that he cannot explain this problem, but then asks that this singular issue be dismissed because of his previous arguments. I think my opponent realizes that small local floods could not account for the pressure and distance used to transport these sediments, as only a worldwide flood could explain.ConclusionIt is likely to believe that the worldwide flood as described by the many cultures around the world did actually happen in the past. It is an arbitrary assumption to argue that there were many small local floods instead.