Did Noah's Flood Occur as Depicted in Genesis

PlargirismTo begin, let's deal with the issue of potential plagiarism. Plagiarism is serious and should be considered when voting for conduct. I really don't know if my opponent plagiarized, or just forgot to insert quotation marks. I really don't know his intentions. But it should be considered that this is a possibility. I tried to check similarity using some similarity using plagiarism checkers, but everyone I tried said we both plagiarized from Debate.org. Oh, the irony. However, I did check for similarity using a similarity checker, and not a plagiarism checker, since it would only compare two documents. When comparing paragraph 6 of round 1 (When people began-Africa and into Europe and Asia) to reason.org's paragraphs 7-9 (When people began-evangelicals might think), it found 92.9% to be identical. Other examples are present, as Warped showed in the comments. If you wish to check for yourself, just compare his writings to his sources. I left the first sentence of both aforementioned excerpts below if you want an example.When people began to migrate around the world, a small group left the point of humanity"s genesis. -KenBaller on Debate.orgWhen people began to migrate around the world, a small group left the point of humanity’s genesis. -Dr. Fazale Rana on Reasons.orghttp://www.reasons.org...Again, he may have forgotten to put quotation marks, but if he didn't this isn't good. I didn't cite my sources for some paragraphs, though this is not plagiarism. I apologize for this laziness on my part. Here they are.https://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.curbed.com...http://www.wave3.com...https://en.wikipedia.org...(schooner)Similarity Checkerhttps://copyleaks.com...ResolutionI said in the introduction of the first paragraph while dictating the rules of the debate, "My opponent is required to be a creationist who believes in a worldwide flood." [emphasis added]. You then said"For starters, I am taking the position that Noah's story involved a worldwide flood, but not a global flood. There is a difference. A worldwide flood model claims to destroy all of human life (except Noah and his family), which covered only a local area at that time in history." -Ken Baller [emphasis added]I then said worldwide and global are synonyms for each other, and that global is often an antonym for local. In the very beginning of the debate, I said my opponent must believe in a worldwide flood in the directions of the debate. My opponent is right, the resolution makes no mention of whether the flood was global or local, yet I clarified this in my introduction. I did not say this debate was about Noah's flood being worldwide or local in the book of Genesis? If I did, I would likely agree with my opponent, due to the Hebrew translations. But nevertheless, this is not the question of the debate. You argued for a local flood, not a worldwide flood, and because of this we have been talking past each other a lot. If it was merely a local flood, I win on merits for the debate. Biology/ZoologyIf God only saved everything with the breath of life, and remade everything without it, why did he need to make Noah take the animals on the ark? God could have just remade every animal and not force Noah's family to take all of them.You do realize that we have bacteria inside of us, helping make sure we live. This would have to be created with humans and other animals, or else we would all croak over. Again, I am arguing for a global flood, which my opponent is refusing to argue for.EngineeringGod could be stopped by chariots of iron (Judges 1:19), and the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years under divine guidance. Methane GasDid you know you can commit suicide by turning your car engine on in your garage if the door is closed? Gas poisoning is actually really hard to deal with in confined spaces. With animals, you would have the production of carbon dioxide and methane.FoodI have argued against a global flood, not a local one. If the ship size was smaller, the events could be plausible. But again, this debate isn't about global vs local, it's about the existence of a biblical global flood.MythologyWhat evidence do you have that Noah was the originator, rather than the Epic of Gilgamesh or such. Keep in mind that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates your book. Your source only says that language originated in Africa, and there are still many other myths. In Africa alone there are myths from Cameroon, Masai, Komililio Nandi, Tanzania, Pygmy, Ekoi, Kikuyu, Bakongom, Yoruba, and Mandigo. http://www.talkorigins.org...Gopher WoodI really think you are reading in between the lines here, without reading the lines. In Genesis 2:9, the trees are described as the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Tree of Knowledge is the plant that helped cause the fall of man. They are clearly magical/supernatural, and not ordinary plants. There are many completely ordinary plants in the Bible. What is more likely, that a plant we don't know about is magical or that we don't know what it is. 99.9% of all species are now extinct, but that doesn't mean this one is. Wouldn't people wish to cultivate a plant that defies the laws of physics? I don't understand why you say that most of Africa is desert when almost half of it is Savannah. It also doesn't follow that a flood would cause desertification, the yearly flooding of the Nile makes some of the richest soil. And it doesn't say anything about the trees only being in Africa. ConclusionThrough this debate, my opponent has potentially plagiarized and has attempted to move the goalposts. When voting I hope you consider this. For my opponent to win, he can't merely cite that man came from Africa, everyone has flood stories, and therefore Noah's flood is true. He must explain why there there is, in fact, a common origin for these stories, and why Noah is the basis of them rather than other earlier myths. Now I must hand it off to my opponent. I thank him for debating me, and I wish him good luck.