Resolved: Scientific, historic, and metaphysical evidence indicates the Biblical Noah's Flood could have, and did happened on Earth.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 1 vote and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Note that we can use both scientific AND historic evidence, as well as some metaphysical argumentation.
R1-Argument (Constructive with no responses to my case.)
R2-Rebuttal (Respond to my case, but NOT my Rebuttal)
R3-Defense/closing thoughts and conclusions (Respond to my Rebuttal, but you cannot comment on my Defense.)
Rules are simple
1.No Insults or Personal Attacks
4.No New arguments made in final round
6.No getting off topic
8.You must follow the Debate Structure
9.You can not agree with my stance
11.No offensive words
**ANY violation of these rules merits a loss**
Good luck and have fun!
As such, I must support the claims that, firstly, evidence suggests Noah’s Flood could have happened in the Biblical sense, and secondly, that evidence suggests that Noah’s Flood did happen in the Biblical sense.
- Metaphysical and scientific evidence suggests the Flood was possible.
- Noah could have built the Ark and sustained himself and his family, along with all the different “kinds” of animals during the Flood.
- Scientific and historical evidence suggests the Flood did happen in accordance to the previously established theories.
I would argue that since the Biblical Flood needed such a divine source as God, if we prove that the evidence points to a flood of this size and scope having happened in relatively recent Earth past it is only reasonable to assume that such a God exists. This way, we derive both the possibility of a Flood and verification of that possibility from pairing the metaphysical and scientific/historical.
In other words, the abstract provides basis for the concrete, while the concrete confirms the abstract.
The nature of the abstract is irrelevant so long as it provides basis.
For example, I can say that God is a lesbian circus-performer who is not omniscient but has enough homo-power to cause a global flood if she feels like it.While ridiculous, this still provides enough basis for the concrete. For this debate, I will be assuming the Bible happens to be the accurate depiction. However, even if this gets disproven it must be remembered that the heart of this discussion is not the letter-to-letter accuracy of the Bible, instead: whether a Global Flood was originated by a divine being we call God, who spared a man and one of each “kind” of animal to repopulate the Earth.
But that is just one interpretation. There are many practical ways God could have initiated the Flood that makes sense when viewing the world as we see it today.
The theory that best fits the evidence at our disposal is Impact Theory.
This theory outlines that meteors impacted into the Earth 4,300 years ago (directed by God), causing some of the craters we see today and providing a mechanism to break apart the continents and initiate a continental “sprint” to their present positions. This continental sprint would no doubt produce huge amounts of rainfall and jet streams, along with huge tsunamis the initial impacts of the meteors made! Everything was enveloped and rapidly buried with sediments, creating the fossil remnants we know now.
G. E. Williams gives one example of an impact powerful enough to trigger the Flood.
"The 56-mile wide Acraman impact crater in South Australia, which supposedly resulted from a 2.5-mile-wide asteroid that slammed into Earth. The explosion would have been equivalent to the detonation of 50,000–100,000 hydrogen bombs at once! (1)"
During the initial impacts and tsunamis of the meteors, the crust of Pangaea split, and our modern continents drifted away at lightning speed.
To cite an article by Roger Patterson (2), who puts it perfectly:
“This may seem like a radical claim, but computer modeling has demonstrated the feasibility of this model. Dr. John Baumgardner, with the cooperation of others, has used this world-class computer modeling to show how the subduction (sinking into the mantle) of the ocean floor could have happened at a runaway pace. As the region of cold ocean crust near the continents began to sink into the mantle, it pulled the rest of the seafloor with it just like a conveyor belt. New magma rose up replacing the old along what are the mid-ocean ridges today. In just a matter of weeks, the continental plates could have separated and settled near their present positions.”
According to the Bible, It was 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. It had a noon light that ended a cubit upward and above, it had a door in the side, and there were three decks.
The seaworthiness of it is unquestioned. As Tim Lovett writes (3),
“Noah’s Ark was the focus of a major 1993 scientific study headed by Dr. Seon Hong at the world-class ship research center KRISO, based in Daejeon, South Korea. Dr. Hong’s team compared twelve hulls of different proportions to discover which design was most practical. No hull shape was found to significantly outperform the 4,300-year-old biblical design.The study also confirmed that the Ark could handle waves as high as 100 ft (30 m). Dr. Hong is now director general of the facility and claims “life came from the sea,” obviously not the words of a creationist on a mission to promote the worldwide Flood. Endorsing the seaworthiness of Noah’s Ark obviously did not damage Dr. Hong’s credibility.”
Firstly, let’s address the exclusions:
Only “living creatures” were to be brought on the Ark. That excludes plants, bacteria, and fungi. The only plants brought on board the Ark were used for food. All other plants were presumably left outside. Also excluded were fish and other aquatic organisms, for obvious reasons.
As Dr. Marcus Ross writes, (4)
“In his book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Woodmorappe, for the sake of argument, chose the taxonomic rank just above the species—the genus. On this basis, he estimated that approximately 16,000 terrestrial vertebrate animals (consisting of nearly 8,000 genera of reptiles, mammals, and birds) were on board. However, Woodmorappe considered this a deliberate and huge overestimation, since he suspected that the “kind” was broader than the genus. Newer studies have indicated that “kinds” were generally at the level of family.”
“According to the Bible, the ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals, assuming they required approximately the same floor space as animals in typical farm enclosures and laboratories today. The vast majority of the creatures (birds, reptiles, and mammals) are small. The largest animals were probably only a few hundred pounds of body weight.
It is still necessary to take account of the floor spaces required by large animals, such as elephants, giraffes, rhinos, and some dinosaurs. But even these, collectively, do not require a large area. God would likely have sent to Noah young (and therefore small, but not newborn) representatives of these kinds so that they would have a full reproductive potential for life after the Flood to repopulate the earth. Even the largest dinosaurs were relatively small when only a few years old.
Without tiering of cages, only 47 percent of the ark floor would have been necessary. What’s more, many could have been housed in groups, which would have further reduced the required space.
What about the provisions for the animals? It can be shown that the food would have filled only 6 to 12 percent of the volume of the ark, and the potable water only an additional 9 percent of the same.”
given the combination of all these factors, it becomes increasingly clear that the Flood was very possible, and even in a worst-case scenario, Noah’s Ark was practical and possible.
As Dr. Andrew A. Snelling writes,
“Like the sediment layers on the continents, the sediments on the continental shelves and margins (the majority of the seafloor sediments) have features that unequivocally indicate they were deposited much faster than today’s rates. For example, the layering and patterns of various grain sizes in these sediments are the same as those produced by undersea landslides, when dense debris-laden currents (called turbidity currents) flow rapidly across the continental shelves and the sediments then settle in thick layers over vast areas." (8)
Supposedly, it took 270 million years to deposit these particular layers.
The problem is, hardened rock layers are brittle. (10)
In the span of that time, the rock layers would have dried and surely fractured under pressure instead of bending and folding.
According to Snelling,
“rocks can be bent and folded soon after the sediment is deposited, before the natural cements have a chance to bind the particles together into hard, brittle rocks.”
“the only viable scientific explanation is that the whole sequence was deposited very quickly—the creation model indicates that it took less than a year, during the global Flood cataclysm.” (11)
Consider the Grand Canyon once more. The Tapeats Sandstone and its equivalents can be traced across North America, (12) and beyond to across northern Africa to southern Israel. (13) The span of the Tapeats Sandstone is thus over multiple continents. Limestones provide even more vast rock layers. As Snelling writes,
“Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Megasequence of North America. So the same limestones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limestones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them.
Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features.” (14)
“Chalk beds can be traced westward across England and appear again in Northern Ireland. In the opposite direction, these same chalk beds can be traced across France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, southern Scandinavia, and other parts of Europe to Turkey, then to Israel and Egypt in the Middle East, and even as far as Kazakhstan ...In the northern hemisphere, the Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) coal beds of the eastern and Midwest USA are the same coal beds, with the same plant fossils, as those in Britain and Europe. They stretch halfway around the globe, from Texas to the Donetz Basin north of the Caspian Sea in the former USSR. In the southern hemisphere, the same Permian coal beds are found in Australia, Antarctica, India, South Africa, and even South America!” (14)
“Hawaiians have a flood story that tells of a time when, long after the death of the first man, the world became a wicked, terrible place. Only one good man was left, and his name was Nu-u. He made a great canoe with a house on it and filled it with animals. In this story, the waters came up over all the earth and killed all the people; only Nu-u and his family were saved.
Another flood story is from China. It records that Fuhi, his wife, three sons, and three daughters escaped a great flood and were the only people alive on earth. After the great flood, they repopulated the world.” (15)
To demonstrate this, I suggest any reader go to https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/flood-legends/flood-legends/ and see the chart they have compiled of the various Flood legends. It is very convincing indeed.
To wrap up this point: How would such a uniform story be so widespread in histories and cultures without some sort of common background?
- I.A Speaks twice of the "sons of God" who came in unto "the daughter of men" refuting the New Testament claims regarding the "only begotten son of God" and suggesting older polytheistic origin myths. [Gen. 6:2]
- I.B Claims that giants walk the Earth. [Gen. 6:4]
- I.C. Claims that Noah live for 950 years. [Gen. 9:29]
- I.D. Claims that all the descendants of Ham shall be the slaves of the descendants of Shem as punishment for Ham having seen his father drunk and naked, establishing a religious pretext for the justification of slavery that continues to be cited into modernity. [Gen 9:25] 
“the ocean floors would have been effectively replaced by hot lavas. Being less dense than the original ocean floors, these hot lavas would have had an expanded thickness, so the new ocean floors would have effectively risen, raising the sea level by more than 3,500 feet (1,067 m). Because today’s mountains had not yet formed, and it is likely the pre-Flood hills and mountains were nowhere near as high as today’s mountains, a sea level rise of over 3,500 feet would have been sufficient to inundate the pre-Flood continental land surfaces.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.” (2)
“Consider the World War II fighter plane abandoned on a Greenland glacier in 1942. When history buffs tried to recover the plane 46 years later, they were astonished to find that more than 250 feet (75 m) of ice had already entombed it. That 250 feet held many more layers than the 50 it should have had if only one layer had accumulated every year.We don’t have to be scientists to know that snow usually leaves more than one layer a year. Snow layers are visible every time snow falls through the winter months. When you clear your driveway or sidewalk of snow, you can see snow layers in the banks of accumulated snow you just shoveled through.” (4)
“He and his graduate students tested alternative possibilities. They examined computer records of known storms to simulate their behavior if the surface of the ocean were hotter, as it was in the early decades after the Flood. (Remember those hot volcanic waters that were released from “the fountains of the great deep” at the start of the Flood? They would have raised the ocean water temperatures considerably. Furthermore, the impacts of meteors would indeed have a “nuclear winter” effect.)These researchers found that huge storms would have swept across polar regions, dumping many inches of snow every week. As the surface melted between these storms, 20 or more ice layers could easily have accumulated every year during the first century or two after the Flood. The same time period saw many dust-producing volcanic eruptions, as supervolcanoes rocked the earth and the planet settled into relative quiet after the cataclysmic upheavals of the Flood. So most of the ice core layers would probably have accumulated during the turbulent centuries of the post-Flood Ice Age.” (4)
“It turns out that Y chromosomes are similar worldwide. According to the evolutionists, no “ancient” (i.e., highly mutated or highly divergent) Y chromosomes have been found. This serves as a bit of a puzzle to the evolutionist, and they have had to resort to calling for a higher “reproductive variance” among men than women, high rates of “gene conversion” in the Y chromosome, or perhaps a “selective sweep” that wiped out the other male lines. For the biblical model, it is a beautiful correlation and we can take it as is.” (5)
“the evidence from mitochondrial DNA fits our model just as neatly as the Y chromosome data. As it turns out, there are three main mitochondrial DNA lineages found across the world.” (5)
Carter concludes: “The general lack of diversity among people is the reason the Out of Africa model has humanity going through a disastrous, near-extinction bottleneck with only about 10,000 (and perhaps as few as 1,000) people surviving.” (5)
“Such men merit to be called the “sons of God” (benê ‘elohîm), a title applied to true followers of God elsewhere in the Old Testament Scriptures. When the psalmist refers to such (Psalm 73:15) as “the generation of thy children,” he uses the same word “sons,” describing them as belonging to God. Deuteronomy 32:5 uses the same word “sons” (“children,” A. V.) in reference to Israel. Hosea 1:10 is, if anything, a still stronger passage, saying specifically to Israel, “Ye are sons of the living God” (Heb. benê ‘el chay). Psalm 80:17 also belongs here. “
“We have had no mention made of angels thus far in Genesis. We have met with other sons of the true God, in fact, the whole preceding chapter, even 4:25–5:32, has been concerned with them. Who will, then, be referred to here?“
“Godly men (sons of God) were marrying women who were not godly (daughters of men), such as Cain’s (or others of Adam’s) descendants, including ungodly people from Seth’s line, thus resulting in Nephilim because they fell away from God’s favor. Once again, the Hebrew word Nephilim is related to the verb series “to fall.” For example, we know Cain fell away, and Lamech (descendant of Cain) and many other men and women had fallen away. The Nephilim could easily have been people who had fallen or turned from God in a severe way. This would also make sense as to why some of Canaan’s descendants (descendants of Anak were Canaanites) were called Nephilim in Numbers 13.” (6)
“During the 1,000 years following the Flood, however, the Bible records a progressive decline in the life span of the patriarchs, from Noah who lived to be 950 years old until Abraham at 175 (see figure 1 and table 2). In fact, Moses was unusually old for his time (120 years) because, when he reflected on the brevity of life, he said: ‘The days of our lives are seventy years; and if by reason of strength they are eighty years, yet their boast is only labor and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away’” (7)
“There are many striking parallels between the Sumerian King List and Genesis, such as a flood event, numerical parallels between the pre-Flood biblical patriarchs and the antediluvian kings, and a substantial decrease in life span of people following the flood.” (7)
“It is more likely that the Sumerian King List was composed using Genesis for numerical information. Obviously, the Book of Genesis would only be used if the person writing the list believed it to be a true historical account containing accurate information.” (7)
“Genetic studies of centenarians (people who have lived more than 100 years) have produced several possible candidate longevity genes. The gene for apolipoprotein E (APOE), important in the regulation of cholesterol, has certain alleles that are more common among centenarians. This is also true for certain alleles of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), important in cell proliferation and cell death, and superoxide dismutases (SOD), important in the breakdown of agents that damage DNA. Possibly the alleles associated with the centenarians more closely reflect the genetic makeup of individuals with a long life span 6,000 years ago.” (7)
PRO opens with a muddle of circular reasoning. No evidence is offered but God and the Flood are asserted as mutually confirming.
P1: The Flood is true because God exists
P2: God exists because the Flood is true
P1: The abstract (God ) confirms the concrete (The Flood)
P2: The concrete (The Flood) confirms the abstract (God)
And astonishingly: “The nature of the abstract is irrelevant so long as it provides basis.” That is, the nature of God is irrelevant so long as God’s existence confirms the flood.
Both assertions depend on the same unreliable text which PRO assumes to be true:”I will be assuming the Bible happens to be the accurate depiction.” But such an assumption relies on the same circular interdependency:
P1: The Flood is true because the Bible is accurate
P2: The Bible is accurate because the Flood is true.
If we assume that the Bible is accurate then there is no need to prove the Flood- the Flood is a given. Pro’s entire first argument amounts to:
Given that the Flood is true, the Flood is true.
In the absence of any evidence, PRO’s metaphysical argument may be safely disregarded as irrational.
- The crater is deeply eroded
- Shocked volcanic fragments are found within the dateable Bunyeroo sandstone formations 
- A rapid diversification of marine microorganism occurs just above the ejecta layer,  suggesting evolutionary shift in response to major die off (note: the first vertebrates wouldn’t appear for another 60 million years- no organisms, say, visible to the naked eye are found at this depth.) 
- 2 km thickness or more of overlying sedimentary rocks have built up and then eroded, badly distorting the crater so diameters are estimates- from 35 km to 90km with corresponding variation in estimated meteor size. 
- The Korean Assc. of Creation Research paid 9 ship builders to build and test 12 1/50th scale model wooden boats. Whether that qualifies as a “major” study is subjective.
- The 1993 paper was published in The Journal of Creation and was not peer-reviewed. 
- The overall box design was implemented in all models- Hong tested length-beam ratio and made some guesses about the Ark’s draft. That is, variations in prow, keel, hull curve, etc were not tested.
- Neither Lovett or Hong note that the shipbuilder’s rule of thumb for beam-length ratio is a formula known to ancient shipbuilders: the width of a boat should be about the cube root of length, squared, plus one.  Hong’s efforts are little more than a confirmation of the worthiness of that old rule of thumb as reflected in Genesis.
- Lovett says that no hull shape outperformed the Ark. Hong actually concluded:
PRO’s own sources undermine Snelling’s assertions pretty thoroughly here. PRO references Hay, et al. for annual sediment deposit but misses Hay’s conclusion
My opponent says that my first point is a muddle of circular reasoning, so we can disregard the point. There are major, blatant problems with how he construes and argues against my points, but it gets a little complicated so I just need readers to bear with me.
X is true because of Y.
Y is true because of X. (1)
I do not extrapolate a conclusion in the reasoning itself. This is what the rest of my case is for, obviously! Thus, my reasoning is perfectly valid.
He dumbs it down to this:
“The Flood happened because God exists, and God exists because the Flood happened.”
If Y is true, X.
What I am actually saying (with both of the first two arguments) is that if the Flood happened, God must exist. Because we have evidence for a worldwide Flood of unknown origin, that then gives basis for the existence of God.
(And thus basis for the supernatural events necessary to spark a worldwide Flood.)
I’ve already said: the nature of god is irrelevant as are the fine details. The fine details I have filled in with the Bible, and used as the basis for some further argumentation, but the essentials of the Flood (found in most every myth, legend, and historical account) are as follows: a Global Flood was originated by a divine being who spared a man and one of each “kind” of animal to repopulate the Earth.
The Bible is accurate because the Flood is true.”
“If we assume that the Bible is accurate then there is no need to prove the Flood- the Flood is a given.”
“If the Flood is true, the Bible would default to be the most accurate historical depiction among scholars.”
We see this in several ways. Firstly, with one exception, every flood myth we know about was recorded long after Genesis. (3) Thus, any historian would choose Genesis as the go-to for information regarding the Flood.
Secondly, Genesis is clearly written in the style of historical narrative. Take this, and oppose it to the Epic of Gilgamesh, the only other real contender for Genesis in terms of old age (and thus, accuracy), which is written as a poem.
“Unlike myths, the Bible carefully records minute details about ancient cultures, and it freely acknowledges the shortcomings of its “heroes.” Such honesty and attention to detail is highly unusual in ancient mythology, but appropriate for true history.
As it relates to the Flood, the language of Genesis 6–9 is so descriptive and matter-of-fact in stating the details of what God did and how Noah obeyed God, that there is no room for considering it allegory or mythology. While its writing style and literary structure are extremely sophisticated, the Genesis account avoids most of the poetic devices typical of Egyptian or Near Eastern epic poetry.” (3)
Thirdly, throughout history Genesis has been considered as fact. Troy and Lee continue:
“Moreover, the rest of Scripture considers the events of Genesis 6–9 to be factual history. For example, the writer of 1 Chronicles records Noah as being the ancestor of Abraham (1 Chronicles 1:4, 1:27). Jesus mentions Noah as a real historical person and the Flood as a real historical event (Matthew 24:37–39). Luke includes Noah in the genealogy of Christ (Luke 3:36), while Peter twice mentions that Noah built the Ark and was one of only eight people saved (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5).” (3)
Thus, clearly Genesis has been long-considered historical and is clearly written as historical. More than 270 other myths and legends and retellings have been spawned from this influential and indeed historical document. Thus, the Bible would be the basis for historical information in the event of proving a Flood.
My inference is not so fallacious now, is it?
Erosion is the name of the game in the case of a worldwide Flood. Erosion would be rampant and substantial, logically, in the case of a Flood where the waters eventually recede.
I interpret this to mean fragments from the collision are found in dateable sandstone formations, and thus the fragments are the same age as the corresponding layers in the sandstone.
It is founded on the unprovable assumptions: that there were daughter isotopes to begin with, that the decay rate has remained constant, and that there has been no contamination.
Regarding the first assumption, geologists have tried to predict the beginning number of daughter isotopes accurately, but this is via the so-called isochron technique, which is still based on the other assumptions I spoke of!
“lava flows that have occurred in the present have been tested soon after they erupted, and they invariably contained much more argon-40 than expected. For example, lava flows on the sides of Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, known to be less than 50 years old, yielded “ages” of up to 3.5 million years.”
He goes on to conclude,
it is logical to conclude that if recent lava flows of known age yield incorrect old potassium-argon ages due to the extra argon-40 that they inherited from erupting volcanoes, then ancient lava flows of unknown ages could likewise have inherited extra argon-40 and yield excessively old ages.” (4)
There is evidence that suggests while rates may be relatively constant within 100 years or so, it is a much different story beyond that.
According to L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin: “the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.
This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate.” (4)
Contamination from wallrocks as lava is spewed during eruption, the molten rocks beneath volcanoes, and even rainwater is completely unaccounted for in these calculations. Clearly, over spans of billions of years, that leads to huge miscalculation.
According to Snelling, “Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!”
3. A rapid diversification of marine microorganism occurs just above the ejecta layer, suggesting evolutionary shift in response to major die off.
It is logical to assume vertebrates would climb to higher ground as fast as they possibly could, and when the waters inevitably caught up with them they were then entrapped far above the lower-dwelling, simpler organisms. To say that the vertebrates did not come for another 60 million years is based on the assumptions inherent in radiometric dating, and is thus invalid.
I have already explained this, but maybe it wasn’t quite clear first time around, so here goes.
Defense 3: Subduction Theory
Here is the first quote from my opponent:
“Baumgardner’s Runaway Subduction Theory posits an (unexplained) descent of a third of the earth’s crust in one 100km thick slab of basalt might superheat the mantle to sufficient viscosity to move the continents.”
“Let us assume that amount of lithosphere that could sink to the bottom of the mantle to represent a layer 100 km thick covering 30% of the earth’s surface. If we further assume a volume coefficient of thermal expansion of 2.5 × 10-5K-1, an uncompressed density of 3,400 kg/m3 , a mean temperature difference of 1000 K, gravitational acceleration of 10 m/s2, and a mantle depth of 2,500 km, we obtain a value for the potential energy of 3 × 1028 J. This is equivalent to the kinetic energy of approximately 100 asteroids each 100 km in diameter moving at 20 km/s. Clearly the sinking of a significant fraction of the earth’s oceanic lithosphere in a brief period provides a huge supply of energy for performing tectonic work. In regard to an energy source, it would therefore appear that none besides the sinking oceanic lithosphere is required, provided the process can somehow be initiated and the mantle viscosity is sufficiently low.”
My opponent claims that human long life could only be achieved supernaturally. Perhaps so, that still provides a mechanism though, if God exists!
Besides, I still have shown historical record for long-lived humans, and biological possibilities regarding them.
- If the Flood were feasible, no supernatural agency would be necessary to account for impossible events and so PRO’s first argument (God did the flood) unneeded. Because PRO begins his arguments with the necessity of divine agency, we can be confident that PRO shares CONs view that the Flood is not particularly believable without supernatural intervention.
- If the Flood were unfeasible but true, PRO’s insistence on “could have” might prove the supernatural but then PRO loses the debate. That is, although the Flood did happen, it could not have happened theoretically and PRO has failed the half of the resolution.
- If the Flood were feasible but false, PRO fails the second half of the resolution.
- If the Flood were unfeasible and untrue (as we’ve established) PRO fails both halves of the resolution.
Argument 1: The Earth contains too little water to Flood the Earth to the degree that the Bible recorded.
- PRO objects to CON’s assumption that Earth’s geology & geography operated roughly the same 5000 years ago as today. This is not, however, CON’s assumption but a first principle of science:
It was PRO’s task to show how well-studied geological processes could speed up exponentially and temporarily merely to justify biblical events and then return to steady states in the space of one year.
- PRO points out that Genesis makes no distinction between mountains and hills undermining PRO’s case. PRO draws massive geologic inferences from a short myth that makes no geological distinction between say, the lush lowland hills of Mt. Carmel and the glaciated peaks of Mt. Ararat. The writers of Genesis almost certainly shared none of our modern experience of true mountains, with tree-lines and ice caps. Therefore, the writers of Genesis had too little geographic knowledge to credibly claim that other parts of the world were impacted by flood.
- Further, pointing out the ambiguities in translating Ancient Hebrew does not improve PRO’s scientific assertions, which rely exclusively on the accuracy of those ambiguities.
- PRO falsely claims that geologists have no cause for Pangea’s breakup. In fact, the cyclical nature of supercontinents has become well established over the past 50 years by examination of the geologic record.  In short, the continental crust’s insulating properties create hot spots in the Earth’s lithosphere breaking up the supercontinent and driving the pieces away until they form a new supercontinent every 300-500 million years. If creationists have any explanation for the formation & break up of Rodinia and Pannotia supercontinents before Pangea, this researcher does not find it.
- PRO asserts without evidence that pre-tectonic land is so smooth that raising the oceans a mere 3,5000 ft would cover every hill and vale. Would that not also suggest that a pre-tectonic ocean is likewise quite shallow? If the average depth of the ocean were 1750ft (half the deepest 3500 ft depths) and the surface land/water ratio still at about 1:2, that would suggest about 7 times less water on the super smooth Earth than today’s Earth with average ocean depths of about 12,100 ft.  Beyond the need to make Genesis 6-9 true is there any evidence for this very smooth Earth PRO suggests?
- PRO cites Snelling’s claims that the ocean floors were replaced with hot lava to account for the waters’ rise. We’ve seen in R2 that the energy required to crack and move the continents in the space of days would exceed the heat of the Sun but to this PRO would add shallow oceans flowing cool over lava beds covering 2/3rds of the Earth at 2012 degrees Fahrenheit. Left unanswered is what prevents the rapid evaporation of the oceans Let’s remember that in the last round PRO left 99 7/10ths of the worlds species to fend for themselves in this environment How is life persisting when 2/3rds of the Earth is transformed into burning rock? Let’s remember that PRO’s own sources contradicted Snelling’s fanciful assertions repeatedly in the last round.
- PRO asserts that marine fossils in the limestone of Everest are evidence of Flood, but
- The Indian plate moves North at about 67mm/year without a meteor blast, demonstrating that no such violence is necessary to explain the uplift. 
- Why only ancient, tiny invertebrate marine fossils? If the Himalayas uplifted just after most modern animals were killed why wouldn’t the Himalyan limestone also contain fossils of modern fish, modern trees? Why only microscopic fossils that went extinct roughly 500 million year ago? 
PRO argues that sufficient water might be brought up from the mantle to cover the Earth. PRO cites a creation.com website which sites another creation.com website which sites Bergeron’s 1997 article in New Scientist, Deep Waters. 
- The actual citation is behind a paywall unavailable to CON.
- The second creation.com article reports that Bergeron describes a ‘sudden outpouring of water, Noah-style’ as unlikely.
- Bergeron’s theoretical estimates of a reservoir 10-30 times all surface water have since been scaled back significantly to “about the same amount of water as our oceans”, as the same magazine, New Scientist, reported in 2017. 
- The mechanism for squeezing all of this water out of the mid-Mantle and “fountaining” that water up through 250 miles of molten rock is not explained. Again, massive expenditures of energy are unaccounted for.
- The heat and toxicity arguments for 40 days of continuous, global precipitation stand whether or not all water required to cover the Earth precipitated. Genesis 7:12 states - “And the rain was upon the Earth forty days and forty nights.” 
- PRO assumes scientists are counting layers of snow & melt but this is false. Ice layers are counted by annual dust deposits and seasonal differences in electrical conductivity. 
- The airplanes landed near the relatively warm shores of Greenland on an active glacier, essentially a moving river of ice. No ice core samples would be taken from such a dynamic environment. 
- Ice core data going back 12,000 years requires very close agreement between at least 3 independent methods of annual climate data (ocean floor cores, etc) 
- Dendrochronologists have been counting tree rings (and accounting for seasonal differences, droughts, fires, etc) since the ancient Greeks. As with ice cores, a single tree is a data point, thousands of tree rings corroborating global climatic patterns is science.
- The 80,000 yr age estimate for Pando’s is based on counting the number of determinable iterations of clones by counting branches in the root system and multiplying that number against the known clone rate for local aspen colonies (about 75 years in Pando’s case). 
- Barnes 1975 matches fossilized aspen leaves dating from as far back as one million years to living colonies with matching clone phenotypes (leaf patterns develop identical phenotypes in clones). 
- While hardly precision measurements, both studies or either easily refutes a flood at even the lowest end of estimation, as is true dendrochronologically of a number of other very old species.
Argument 6: Our genetics are too diverse.
Carter, et al. 2018 assertions that a common Y-chromosomal Adam (Noah) from less than 5000 years ago can be extrapolated “using several different methods” of analysis against data generated by the 1000 genome project is not peer-reviewed and contradicts the core of peer-reviewed data regarding “Y-chromosal Adam” In fact, a 2012 discovery of a chromosomal outlier has recently doubled the estimated dating for the last common male ancestor from 140,000 Ya to 338,000Ya. 
The “long bottleneck” referenced by Carter estimates small populations as low a 2000 individuals enduring for tens of thousands of years before improved migration & expansion beginning 200,000 years ago. 
Argument 1: Genesis is unreliable because of strange claims.
Giants- Again we establish uncertainty in the text and introduce new strangeness (Angels mating with humans?)
Noah lived 950 years. PRO still fails to offer any scientific, historical, or metaphysical evidence that any human can live past 122 years old
PRO argues that justifying slavery does not diminish Genesis 9’s accuracy as an account of a magic curse that dooms many of Noah’s descendents to eternal slavery. If slavery is unjust, then Noah is unjust and God’s salvation of Noah mistaken. If slavery is justified by Genesis, then Noah may be just in God’s eyes but God remains mistaken.
Argument 2: The Flood story was a reiteration of some older myth.
The Epic of Gilgamesh is estimated to have been written about 2100 BC 
Genesis was first authored 1500-1600 years after. 
CON agrees that cultural delegitimization is not a scientific or historical argument but it is metaphysically valid. (Shouldn’t our Gods reflect our values, etc.)