Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

Here is some more scientific proof. It tells the bible verse first then gives the scientific proof afterwards to back it up. Just so were clear that I was not misinformed. It is false for the reasons I listed above:-Where did the water come from and go to? They just use magic (god) as an answer.-The earth's crust is not evidenced to have sat upon about five miles of ocean. Ad hoc reasoning on their part with no evidence.-The fossil record does not support them, it instead shows a gradual progression of fossils with the major exceptions being extinction events (none of which occurred 4000 years ago).-Life cannot survive upon a destroyed earth. Period. Magic is not an answer to this.Examples:If you put muddy water into a jar, you will see that denser matter settles first and layers begin to form until all the mud has been settled. The same holds true for materials that float in the water. It would seem reasonable that water animals would be the first to settle because they are already on the bottom of the ocean and they also have shells and denser body masses. Do we observe a progression of complexity in the fossil record, or do we observe natural settling? What could we expect if we saw millions of animals die and be swept away by water? You would expect to see the more dense matter settle first and as the less dense matter, as it became waterlogged, would also sink. Isn’t this what we see in the fossil record?This is blatantly false as performing their experiment would demonstrate. Fossils are presently scattered in layers that are very deep. The sediment is measured to contain radioactive isotopes which reveals a progression of age the deeper the sediment is. If you took the earth's crust, water, and fossils and mixed it all together you would not have enough time for the fossil layers to sort themselves as they did because the sediment requires millions of years to form layers, and sludge settles in a much faster rate with a smooth gradient of density compared to the water (in other words, the bones which are all the same density more or less would fill the same layer with little deviation and the sediment would universally have the densest rock at the bottom).It has been theorized that a comet could have possibly become the catalyst for the catastrophic flood event. A comet hit Saturn a few years back. As it entered the gravity of Saturn, it gained so much speed that it began to break apart. By the time it impacted, it was in 7 pieces, which hit in a central region. If we could add the same scenario to the earth, it would provide a plausible explanation of the flood. The moon has large craters on only one side, which would indicate that all these craters occurred in one event. If the craters built up over time, they should be evenly distributed. If perhaps a similar comet hit the moon and earth in pieces, it would fit. Frozen debris at –300 degrees would create a sudden cold air burst that would trigger violent storms as cold air met the warm climate. The impact would do two things, ad a sudden weight to the earth causing it to adjust like the spinning top with a new center of gravity and would trigger massive earthquakes that could easily fracture the earth’s plates. The water beneath would spew out in great eruptions and the flood would begin. The authors cook up an assertion that violates physics (have you ever observed what happens to a heavenly object entering our atmosphere? It burns and then releases massive amounts of energy on impact due to the cosmic velocities which are typical of these objects) and has no evidence. This is pure ad hoc reasoning, invented on the spot to justify speculation.