Debate: Is the bible 100% true
Side: No

You cited a source that is responding to a theory by merely proclaiming it couldn't be true. There is no evidence listed to the contrary. Did you bother to read it? It lists basic facts:Even two miles deep, the earth is boiling hot (260 to 270 degrees C at 5.656 miles in one borehole; Bram et al. 1995), and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached. The rock that makes up the earth's crust does not float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or before Adam's time for that matter. These are basic objections related to physics. When something falls it gains energy due to gravity. The area beneath the ground is hotter the further you go.How much magma do you suppose it would take to "boil" everything? I would like an amount that is scientificly proven if not you are just speaking conjecture. I have already told you the dating methods you support are flawed. I even gave you a cited source. The catastrophic breakup of the earth’s crust, referred to in Genesis 7:11, would not only have released huge volumes of water from inside the earth, but much molten rock.5 The ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas.Enough lava to cover the surface of the Earth's oceans and push the waters out so that they flood the land? Do you really need a physics lesson here? It's an absurd amount of heat that would cause the Earth to become uninhabitable. The dating methods work and agree with each other when used correctly, like any other tool. You read creationist propaganda that purposefully omits this, by listing examples of where a certain dating method may not be used, and not detailing how the process actually works.You're not using critical thinking.You just ignored the entire paragraph on top of your response. You ask where all this water went, you have heard of the mid-Atlantic ridge right? And you still assume the world has always had the same geographical features. You are talking about 6.8 BILLION CUBIC KILOMETERS of water. That's more than ONE HUNDRED times the volume of Antarctica.Your quote simply said:Toward the end of the Flood, when the molten rock cooled and the ocean floors sank, the sea level would have fallen and the waters would have drained off the continents into new, deeper ocean basins.Enough water to bury the land continents is too much to have simply drained off.Also I never said that the Earth always had the same geographical features, I said that our reference point of Mt. Chimborazo is over 35000 years old. This is a fact.So you are denying the envidence of marine fossils found in the mountains? Either you are ignorant or just stupid, because this is a secular fact. Some mountains were buried under the ocean as flat land masses before they formed as volcanoes or were shoved up by colliding plates. What's so spectacular about this?Have you never read their technical journals? Read them and compare them to the secular ones. If you simply dismiss based on the fact it doesn't agree with your conjecture, then you will never learn anything. If you want to say something is false you must provide evidence to substantiate your claim. Science follows certain guidelines. This applies to all legitimate science. Science does not operate by forming a conclusion and then finding evidence to support it. Science requires that theories account for all evidence (examples of which are the immense age of the earth and our evolution from primates, if you have to deny these facts, then you are not practicing science).But most of all, magic is not an answer in science. You can never say that a rock fell because of magic words, or god, or the invisible man in the sky. Science requires NATURAL explanations. If you have to defy physics to explain something, it's not science.I have given you evidence. If you refuse to read an article simply because of your bias, then you are not understanding the argument in which you are participating.If you say Answers in Genesis is "not science" again without evidence, this will lead me to believe you have none. Provide technical information about what is false, don't just make an empty claim.In other words, back up your conjecture.I already did:Out of AiG's MouthBy definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.They state themselves without blushing that if reality contradicts the bible, then reality is wrong. This is not how science works. It is a swindle.