The Biblical Flood occurred

Thanks Pro. I. Affirming the Consequent "However, if I prove that there CANNOT be ANY other explanations for the historical proofs and fossils in the mountains besides the biblical flood, then Con's arguments shall be negated." Excellent. Now let"s see if Pro actually does that. II. Mathematical Proof *Facepalm* I guess bad arguments die hard... The argument is circular because the final population and the required initial population is used to calculate the rate (r).... Which is plugged in to calculate the final population from the same initial population. It"s using the same data used to compute the rate.. to find the population from the same numbers used to compute it. If this was done on excel with a large number of decimal places, then both calculations would come out at exactly 7,000,000,000. To give a simpler example. If I travel 200m in 10 seconds Speed = distance/time S = d/t 1. S = 200/10 2. S = 20 3. 20 = d/10 4. 20*10 = d = 200 meters Here I just demonstrated the distance travelled in 10 seconds must be true for 10 seconds... I have proven absolutely nothing here since no new information is being plugged in. In Pro's calculations.. No information is put in except the initial and final populations and time. He cannot possibly prove anything with it. To demonstrate the uselessness of Pro's reasoning further, let's prove a starting population of 7 million and 1 billion. 1. 7,000,000,000 = 7,000,000e^r4500 2. r = 0.001535056728 3. r* = 0.1535056728 4. 7,000,000(1+0.1535056728/100)^4500 = 6,963,022,640 1. 7,000,000,000 = 1,000,000,000e^r4500 2. r = 0.000432424477 3. r* = 0.0432424477 4. 1,000,000,000(1+0.0432424477/100)^4500 = 6,997,056,342 As you can clearly see, using this same math we can "prove" literally any starting population, whether it be 6, a million or a billion. Pro would do well to just drop this argument altogether, for my sanity"s sake. III. Sea creatures in high altitudes Pro strawman's my position by making it out that I claim that these fossils formed gradually, I clearly have not. There are two distinctive uses of the term 'gradually'. 1. Gradually accumulated over time 2. Gradually fossilized Note that I refer to the former terminology, that these fossils collected in layers over long timespans. At no point did I allude to the manner in which each fossil was buried in individually. Gradual accumulation =/= not buried rapidly I actually concede that rapid burial is one of the principle methods by which fossilisation occurs, since no fossilisation whatsoever can take place without preservation, since organisms would completely decay before mineralising. The conditions for fossilization and known to be quite specific.[1,2] Which is why only a tiny fraction of all animals are fossilized, to put this into perspective, all hominid fossils could fit into the back of a pickup truck "Now how on earth does any of this demonstrate a worldwide flood that occurred 4,500 years ago? Remember my point about affirming the consequent: P1) If P then Q P2) Q C) P Which yields the following: P1) If the Noachian flood occurred, then the fossils were rapidly buried P2) The fossils were rapidly buried C) The Noachian flood occurred Pro actually needs to demonstrate why the Noachian flood is the only explanation of rapid burial of fossils, especially given that we do have abundant evidence of localised rapid sedimentation virtually everywhere in the globe. Given that rapid sedimentation produces fossils anyway, then we would expect fossils to appear anyway regardless of whether they are of Noachian origin or not. A good way to determine if they likely are of Noachian origin is to independantly date them to see if they were in existence 4,500 years ago. However Pro has not presented any dating evidence, which would be absolutely compelling if it did exist. I wonder why? Note that my point on fossils being in various positions was under the assumption that he was arguing for the redistribution of existing fossils rather than the burial & fossilisation in situ, I will drop my point on orientations of fossils then if he is not arguing this point. I also don't appreciate Pro's accusations of my sources, which seems laughable given he has only speculated where I got my original information from (talkorigins, and then the book itself if you were interested) especially given he has copiously cited answersingenesis.com and creation.com as well as a plethora of creationist websites(!). I again hold Pro's interpretation of Genesis to just be ad hoc reasoning, attempting to make it fit the data as he sees fit, when it can mean virtually anything the way Pro interprets it. He has also so far dropped my falsifying point that the ocean floor is made of different materials (sedimentary rock, instead of igneous/metamorphic) to what we would expect if there were such a geological movement. "Moving, Genesis says that the waters receded (meaning that the waters went back to the oceans), so the impacts are more concentrated on the mountain tops (where fossils are present) as opposed to the valleys." I am somewhat confused by this reasoning. If you shake a bottle of sand, the sand pools towards the bottom of the heterogeneous mixture. Sediments are never evenly distributed, and denser-than-water stuff such as most minerals, sediments, rocks, sand will concentrate at the bottom, and hence will fill up the valleys on the mountains with sediment. IV. Historical Proofs My point about there being abundant local floods is that we would expect there to be flood stories in existence anyway, regardless, as a result of them. Especially given there are stories about virtually every other phenomenon such as lightning - Thor, eclipses - dragon ate the sun, etc.[3,4] Ergo I find it astonishing that Pro would think that these evidence a singular worldwide flood. "Irrelevant. Again, the point is that regardless of differences (whether they describe global or local floods), they hold the kernel of what's common." Such as what? Water? Pro needs to actually provide the stories and evidence so I can assess them, also Pro actually needs to give reasons to believe that these stories talk about the same flood. He has given zero so far other than the fact they are indeed flood stories. I might as well give various "sunrise" stories and make the claim they all talk about the same sunrise! It"s clearly absurd. "The question is: If the flood didn't happen, then why do so many isolated cultures have their own versions of it?" I have yet to see reasons why these 'versions' are of the flood that Pro describes. Pro has presented none of them to this debate yet. I bring forth my other argument that we would expect to see stories ANYWAY given the times and the fact that so many communities did experience floods of some sort or another, and would have documented/make mythology of it regardless. "How would they manage to invent the same types of stories on their own despite the isolation?" That's not for me to prove, it's for Pro to disprove given he has the BoP. Given there are stories written virtually everywhere, including in indigenous tribes, it strikes me as absolutely no surprise that all tribes which can record information would have stories of one form or another.[5] V. Conclusion A few points for Pro. 1. His 'mathematical proof' is complete bunk. 2. His arguments for rapid sedimentation are based on a straw man and a poor case of affirming the consequent 3. He has yet to actually present his 'historical proofs' for critique and analysis, and just assumes what they say. Moreover it affirms the consequent and also clearly somewhere we would expect of civilisation to talk about anyway. 4. Lastly me not being allowed to make contentions absolutely sucks. VI. References: 1. http://tinyurl.com... 2. http://tinyurl.com... 3. http://tinyurl.com... 4. http://tinyurl.com... 5. http://tinyurl.com...