Instigator / Pro
Points: 0

Noah's Flood, as described in Genesis, did not happen

Voting

The participant who scores the most points is declared the winner

The voting period will end in:
00:00:00:00
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Science
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One month
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
25,000
Contender / Con
Points: 0
Description
Topic
Resolved: The Global Flood, as described in Genesis, did not happen
Rounds:
1. Opening Arguments
2. Rebuttals
3. Defense
4. Closing arguments/Summary
The burden of proof is shared. It is my burden of proof to show that the Flood story did not and could not have happened and con's burden is to prove that it did happen. For purposes of this debate, we will be taking Genesis literally like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministry International take it. In other words, this flood was less than 4500 years ago and contained 2 of each "kind" of animal, including dinosaurs.
The time for arguments is two weeks. Good luck.
Rules:
1. No K's
2. No forfeits
3. No new arguments in the final speeches
Round 1
Published:
I want to begin by thanking my opponent for accepting this debate. This will be a fairly lengthy opening statement, so please bear with me. I will be utilizing multiple independent lines of evidence from multiple independent disciplines to prove that Noah’s flood did not and could not have happened.
 
I. History and Archeology
 
Let’s begin with the most obvious issue with the flood. We have buildings and records that go back before the flood began less than 4500 years ago with no hint of a global flood that left all but 8 people dead.
 
A. When did the Flood Happen?
 
When exactly did this flood happen? It depends on who you ask. This will become important later. According to Creation Ministry International, the flood happened 2304 BC ± 11 years [1]. Answers in Genesis says it happened in 2348 BCE [2] and another article in Answers in Genesis says it happened in 2500 BCE [3], and finally the Institute for Creation Research says that it happened in 2472 BCE [4]. This means that the earliest and latest date is off by nearly 200 years. Let’s be generous and take the average of these dates which means the flood happened in the year 2406 BCE. This will be my starting point.
 
B. Population Rebound
 
So how did the post-flood population rebound so quickly without any hint of a global flood? According to Answers in Genesis [see source 3], the population doubled every 150 years. So, in 2406 BCE, we have 8 people, in 2256 BCE we have 16 people, and in 2106 we have a total of 32 people and so forth to the present age. This presents monumental challenges as we have archeological and recorded history dating well before those dates.
 
C. The Pyramids
 
The first pyramid of Egypt, the Step Pyramid of Djoser, is traditionally dated to about 4700 years ago [5], well before the flood was supposed to begin. How does AiG reconcile this date? In one of their articles, they say that the more “realistic” date would be 1875 BCE [6]. That’s 531 years after the flood. So, what’s the global population then? If we take AiG’s population calculation, that’s less than 48 people alive at that time frame. Obviously, something does not add up.
 
How do they reconcile this? They really don’t nor do they really even try. The closest I could come up with is David Wright’s article: “Were There Enough People to Build the Pyramids,” [7] he states “According to Archbishop James Ussher’s biblical chronology, the Tower of Babel was about 2250 BC. So that gives a window of about 150–250 years before Egypt began constructing the pyramids.” But 2250 is only 156 years after the flood. According to AiG’s calculation, that means the global population at that time would be less than 20!!
 
Wright also states: “If we assume that Mizraim left Babel with a family of eight children (four boys and four girls), and if each couple averaged eight children every thirty years (which is probably quite conservative), in 150 years he could easily have had nearly 30,000 descendants. In 250 years, the population could explode to well over one million.”
 
This clearly contradicts AiG’s earlier estimate that the population doubles every 150 years. Instead, Wright has to double the population every 15 years. Even still, 30,000 people is still not enough to build the pyramids. In contrast, the Milpas, CA has a population of over 70,000 people [8]. That means Milpas has a greater population than the entire world did at that time.
 
To get around this, Wright gives three possibly solutions:
 
1.     The Egyptians likely had knowledge of building pyramids from the Tower of Babel.
2.     They surely had many labor-saving technologies (cranes, hoists, etc.).
3.     The Egyptians could have hired outside help or used slave labor (as is evidenced by the time of Joseph, Genesis 37–40), or both.
 
Solution 1 is fails because as I shown, the global population would barely be 60 people. Hardly enough to build even the Tower of Babel. Solution 2 also fails because how did they get these cranes and hoists? Someone has to build them, and they have to come from somewhere. Someone also needs to cook the food, grow the food, gather the materials, and many other things that make this unlikely. Finally, solution 3 fails because the global population is only about 60.
 
D. Other historical buildings
 
The pyramids aren’t the only problem. There are dozens and dozens of building that pre-date even the flood [9], even buildings in the Americas. It’s hard to imagine these buildings being built so quickly after the flood with no signs of a population bottleneck.
 
II. The Ice Age
 
There were at least 5 major Ice Ages in the Earth’s history, but we will focus on the most recent one that we all agree happened. Creationist attribute the global flood to causing the global flood. So how long did this last and how soon did it start? Creation Ministry International says it happened soon after the flood and lasted for about 700 years [10]. AiG said it concurs with this time frame [11]. That means the Ice Age lasted from 2406 BCE to 1706 BCE. AiG also states:
 
“Why did people wait so long after Babel to build cities and farm again? Problems included the tiny populations, the threat of skirmishes, and the changing climates. We also know from the fossil record that they faced constant flooding, dust storms, supervolcanoes, massive earthquakes, meteorites, and downpours of snow or rain on a scale never before seen.” [12]
 
It seems like whoever was left alive had far more stuff to worry about than building pyramids and emigrating to the Americas.
 
IV. Genetics
 
In my opinion, genetics is the strongest argument against Noah’s Flood. Creationist want me to believe that the entire human population went down to only 8 individuals shortly after the flood. Not only that, but the entire animal population went down to only 2 or 14 individuals. That means every one of us alive can trace our lineage back to only 8 people on the ark and every species can trace their lineage back to this event as well. If this was the case, genetics would present a major piece of evidence for the flood, but instead, it soundly refutes it.
 

Whenever a population is severely reduced, it creates what is called a bottleneck effect. These effects can not only be seen in genetic sequencing, but also give us a ballpark for the date this happened. Ashkenazi Jews, for example, suffered a severe bottleneck about 100 generations ago which is the main cause of most Ashkenazi genetic disorders [13]. If every specie alive went through such a severe bottleneck, it would be noticed. Indeed, Mark Isaak notes [14]:

“Harmful recessive alleles occur in significant numbers in most species. (Humans have, on average, 3 to 4 lethal recessive alleles each.) When close relatives breed, the offspring are more likely to be homozygous for these harmful alleles, to the detriment of the offspring. Such inbreeding depression still shows up in cheetahs; they have about 1/6th the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities. How could more than a handful of species survive the inbreeding depression that comes with establishing a population from a single mating pair?”

 
V. Conclusion
 
Lots of other evidence could be brought forth, but I’ll focus on these main points. It is clear that the story of the flood is rightfully absurd. The story is so full of holes that the hardest part is knowing exactly where to start. Noah’s boat doesn’t float.
 
Good luck
 
VI. Sources
1. https://creation.com/the-date-of-noahs-flood
2. https://answersingenesis.org/bible-timeline/timeline-for-the-flood/
3. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/
4. https://www.icr.org/article/when-did-noahs-flood-happen
5. https://www.livescience.com/23050-step-pyramid-djoser.html
6. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/a-correct-chronology/
7. https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/were-there-enough-people-to-build-the-pyramids/
8. http://worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/milpitas-ca-population/
9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_known_surviving_buildings
10. https://creation.com/what-caused-ice-age
11. https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/where-does-the-ice-age-fit/
12. https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/when-was-the-ice-age-in-biblical-history/
13. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14722586
14. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
 

Published:
I would like to take a moment to thank Virtuoso for challenging me to this debate.
 
Introduction: In similar fashion I will be using multiple lines of reasoning to support the viability of the Genesis flood. The Genesis flood has been fictionalized through numerous whimsical renditions riddled with inaccuracies. Rather than being cute and whimsical, the original Biblical account of the Genesis flood is rooted in rational practicality. I will demonstrate how the Genesis flood is supported by (a) the geological, (b) the paleontological, (c) the genetic, and (d) the mathematical evidence. Please bear with me as I have a lot of information to cover:
 
Existence of God: The existence of God is essential to the Genesis flood. Although not highly dependent upon the supernatural, divine intervention is required in some limited capacity for events like the gathering of two of every kind. I will offer a simple proof to demonstrate how a worldview with God is no more fantastic than a worldview without God.
 
In seeking the origin of all matter and energy we observe today, evolutionists and creationists are looking for the uncaused cause. Any materialistic working models that attempt to explain how everything can come from nothing fall short in that:
 
(a)    The model does not agree with empirical science. For example, the first law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.
(b)   The model redefines the concept of nothing. Since nothing is not anything, the very attempt to define what nothing is automatically identifies the defined item as being something other than nothing.
 
 
No matter which worldview is used, the origin of the universe is quite a supernatural event.
 
Young Earth: The Biblical worldview only retains integrity under a young earth model. Under a young earth model one or more wide spread catastrophic events, like the Genesis flood, is key to explaining the geological record we see today. The geological evidence supports a young earth:
 
    Soft Tissue: We find soft tissue in dinosaur bones that are claimed to be many millions of years old. Although much effort has been exerted to explain how organic structures could be preserved for millions of years, there is no tenable explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon. Dr. Don Batten explains,
 
 
“DNA extracted from bacteria that are supposed to be 425 million years old brings into question that age, because DNA could not last more than thousands of years” [1].
 
 
    Amino acids: All living organisms are comprised of entirely left handed amino acids. Once a living organism dies, the amino acids start working toward a 50:50 mix of left and right handed amino acids. Fossil specimens allegedly considered to be millions and even billions of years old have been found consisting of primarily left handed amino acids. Dr Larry S. Helmick projected a conservative maximum of 20 million years for left and right handed amino acids to establish a 50:50 mix [2]. Dr. Carl Wieland explains that,
 
“The chert layer known as Fig Tree Chert, South Africa, is estimated to be three billion years old, yet it contains only amino acids in the left-handed form. A similar result applies to several Precambrian and Miocene sediments (supposedly some 1,200 million and 30 million years old respectively)” [3].
 
    Carbon 14 dating: Based on current radiocarbon decay rates, all materials older than 100,000 years should no longer contain a detectable amount of carbon 14. Natural diamonds are believed by evolutionists to be millions of years old. Diamonds contain detectable amounts of carbon 14 [4].
 
    Wrapping up a young Earth: Any one of these three points provides compelling evidence for a young earth. All three of these phenomena are observable in a wide range of specimens. Empirical science supports an earth that is thousands of years old, not billions.
 
Rapid Erosion: The geological evidence we see today strongly supports the occurrence of a wide scale massive catastrophe such as the Genesis flood:
 
    Rock folding: We find numerous rock layers that have been folded, sometimes even back over themselves, with little to no fracturing. As David Allen PhD explains,
 
“If this sediment had been laid down over millions of years, it would have consolidated and solidified, making such incredible movement impossible” [5].
 
    Water Gaps: This term refers to a narrow gorge that has been cut through a mountain range. The extent of the erosion of these water gaps shows that, if a small river and a lot of time carved the gap, the river would have had to run up hill during the early stages of erosion. This is of course absurd. A catastrophic event like the Genesis flood would easily explain such a phenomena. This phenomena is observed worldwide, and is present in most mountain ranges [6].
 
    Polystrate fossils: We find polystrate fossils cutting across multiple rock layers. Under the evolutionary model there is no way these specimens would have been buried quickly enough to be preserved. As Dr. Tas Walker explains:
 
“It is not possible that polystrate fossils were buried gradually over many thousands or hundreds of thousands of years because the top part of any tree would have rotted away before it could be protected by sediment” [7].
 
    Rapid burial: Many of the fossils we find show blatant signs of raped burial:
 
1.       A marine reptile called ichthyosaur was buried and fossilized so rapidly it was caught in the middle of the birthing process.
2.       Fossilized fish have been buried in the middle of swallowing other fish.
3.       Clams are found fossilized all over the world. When clams die they promptly open up. Numerous examples of clams can be found fossilized shut. This only makes sense when we consider that these creatures must have been rapidly buried alive [8].
 
    Wrapping up rapid erosion: All four of these proofs support strata laid down rapidly through catastrophic events. Rock folding, water gaps, polystrate fossils, and the evidence of animals being literally buried alive all are perfectly explained under the Genesis flood model. The old earth model simply can’t adequately explain these phenomena.
 
Feasibility of the Biblical account:
 
    Building the ark: Noah didn’t have to build the ark by himself. He had three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth. There is also no reason to believe that Noah didn’t take advantage of the labor and technical expertise of the general population of that time.
 
Number of animals on the ark:
 
Empirical science supports that all living creatures are losing useful genetic code over time. As Botanist Alexander Williams puts it,
 
“Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years. This is far short of the supposed evolutionary time scales” [9].
 
Not only does this support a young age for the earth, but it also shows that creatures are not creating new genetic characteristics. What we do see is speciation through natural selection.
 
“Natural selection favors certain already-existing genetic traits in populations by culling genes out of the gene pool; thus it helps adaptation of a population to its environment” [10].
 
The point here is that each kind of animal loaded onto the ark possessed genetic code rich enough to be divided into more diverse classifications after the flood. For example the original dog kind would include dingoes, wolves, coyotes, domestic dogs etc. The horse kind would include ponies, Clydesdales, donkeys, zebras, etc. Rather than the tree of evolutionary life, evidence supports a forest of life where each tree represents an independent kind. Each branch of this tree (donkey for example) represents a narrower selection of genetic code as found in the much broader trunk of genetic code (the original horses on the ark).
 
Current estimates of how many kinds of animals the ark needed to carry range between 1,400 and 7,000 [11]. These estimates have actually been in decline as our understanding of genetics deepens.
 
    Timeline of the flood: The flood lasted for almost exactly one year. Estimates puts the flood as lasting 370 days from the moment the flood started to the moment Noah stepped off of the ark [12].
 
Calculating the Ark’s space requirements:
 
    Average animal size: Earlier estimates of the average animal size on the ark have been estimated at the size of a sheep [13]. The latest estimates are coming in even smaller.  Michael Belknap and Tim Chaffey explain,
 
“it is projected only 15 percent of ark animals would have achieved an average adult mass over 22 pounds (10 kg). This means that the vast majority of ark animals were smaller than a beagle, with most of those being much smaller” [14].
 
    So what about those huge dinosaurs: According to John D. Morris, PH.D. the average size of a dinosaur comes in around the size of a cow [15]. Although some dinosaurs are quite massive once fully grown, even the largest species have quite a diminutive beginning. The largest dinosaur egg found measures around 20 inches long [16]. It only makes logical sense to take younger animals requiring fewer resources and possessing greater reproductive potential. To be generous, the following calculations will still assume the average animal to be the size of a sheep.
 
    Space required for the animals: Trucking guides calculate a 44’ long tractor trailer truck can hold 302 woolly sheep [17]. These trailers have a capacity of around 3086 cubic ft. [18]. This means that each sheep requires 10.2 cubic feet for transport. To be generous, let’s call it 11 cubic feet. If we take the largest current estimate of 7,000 animals required on the ark we can see that 77,000 cubic ft is required to hold the animals. Indeed they are packed in tight, but remember that this is not a pleasure cruise.
 
    Space required for food: The average food consumption of a ewe in late gestation is from 4.5 to 5.5 pounds a day [19]. Naturally, sheep not in gestation are not going to eat as much, but let’s go ahead and use 5 pounds of food per animal per day for our calculations. Corn comes in at around 45 lb. per cubic ft. Food for 7,000 animals for 370 days would require just under 288,000 cubic foot of storage.
 
    Space required for water: Sheep require between .5 to 5 gallons of water a day. Considering that the environment of the ark is not arid and that water requirements for ewes increase greatly during late gestation let’s use 1 gallon of water per animal per day [20]. Indeed, this is relatively comparable to what adult humans require. One cubic foot of water contains approximately 7.5 gallons. Water for 7,000 animals for 370 days would require less than 346,000 cubic ft. of storage.
 
So the total space required for 7,000 animals with food and water comes in at around 711,000 cubic ft.
 
Size of the Ark: Genesis 5:14 tells us that the ark is 300 cubits by 50 cubits, by 30 cubits. The length of a cubit ranges from 17.5 inches to 20.6 inches. Ancient civilizations typically used a royal cubit 19.8-20.6 inches in construction; however, to be conservative, we will use the 17.5 inch cubit in our calculations [21]. This would put the ark at 438 X 73 X 44 ft or 1,406,856 cubic feet. This is nearly twice as much room as required under our above calculations. Therefore, we can conclude that there was more than enough room on the ark for all the animals. Please also note that at many points in these calculations the most generous estimates were used.
 
Work Load: Would the eight people on the Ark be able to handle the work load of tending all the animals? First let’s consider what the work load for such a task might look like today:
 
“A contract producer with a 2,000-head [swine] nursery should work an average of 20 to 25 hours/week, including barn cleaning and disinfection, loading and unloading, checking feeders and waterers and treating sick pigs.” [22].
 
This would put the work load at 70 to almost 90 man hours per week. This would allow one overworked individual to potentially tend all the animals by himself. The lack of automation and more sophisticated mechanical equipment would likely increase this work load, but eight workers provide quite a generous margin for error. It is also quite well within the realm of possibility that the use of labor saving mechanisms were employed (eg. gravity feed systems, pumps, elevators etc.). The exact working conditions are impossible to determine, but current knowledge of the subject puts the work load well within the capacity of the eight member crew.
 
Sea Worthiness:
 
The ark’s dimensions as given in the Bible have been studied for their stability, strength, and comfort. Tim Lovett summarizes the findings,
 
“The research team found that the proportions of Noah’s Ark carefully balanced the conflicting demands of stability (resistance to capsizing), comfort (“seakeeping”), and strength. In fact, the Ark has the same proportions as a modern cargo ship” [23].
 
It is really quite unbelievable that the author of a supposed fictitious account would stumble upon such perfect dimensions for the ark.
 
Source of flood water:
 
Was the Genesis flood local? Genesis 7:20 tells us that the flood waters covered the highest mountain peak by twenty feet. Clearly this was not a local flood.
 
Is there enough water to cover the earth? Critics claim that there is not enough water on earth to cover the highest mountain; however, this assumes that mountains such as Mt. Everest existed before the flood. If the surface of the earth were to be leveled all land would be covered with water 1.6 miles deep [24]. The land mass of that day was likely much lower than that of today.
 
So assuming the land was lower why didn’t the oceans of that time cover the land already? There is good reason to believe that the bulk of the ocean water we see today was subterranean before the Genesis flood. As Genesis 7:11 states, “all the springs of the great deep burst forth.” It is likely that this process was the origin of the earth’s fault lines as we see them today.
 
Where did the water go after the flood? The large majority of the flood water is most likely in today’s oceans. After the fountains of the great deep shattered the earth’s crust, extensive plate tectonic movement could easily form the continents and deep oceans we see today. This sort of process would also easily explain how the generally accepted concept of Pangaea could have been initially divided.
 
The large quantity of marine fossils found at the top of Mount Everest is well explained by this model. These rock layers must have been lifted rapidly. If this lifting process occurred over a long period of time the topography would have been eroded as fast as it was lifted [25].
 
Conclusion: The mountains, the rock layers, the fossils, the genetics, and the biological chemistry all support a young earth, shaped by widespread catastrophe. Indeed, the empirical science today mirrors the scientific expectations of a global flood model. After studying the mathematical feasibility behind the Genesis Flood an amazing pattern emerges. This ‘legend’ is remarkably sound mathematically. The weight of this is greater than simply showing that this ‘legend’ is tenable:
 
1.       The author would not have possessed the required knowledge to fabricate such a mathematically sound account, but God would.
2.       The author would almost certainly miss significant points if he did attempt to write a legend possessing a high level of mathematical accuracy, but God wouldn’t.
3.       It is highly questionable why the author would even care if his ‘legend’ was mathematically sound to the nth degree; however, a true account would effortlessly lend itself to this level of accuracy.
 
It is the job of scientists, historians, and all those who seek the truth to examine the evidence and find the account that best fits that evidence. As demonstrated here, the weight of evidence supporting the Genesis flood account is far too strong to be ignored. Indeed this evidence fits the model extraordinarily well. Therefore, I assert that the only logical conclusion is that the Genesis flood most certainly did happen.
 
1.       https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
2.       Helmick, L., ‘Origins and Maintenance of Optical Activity’, Creation Research Society Quarterly 12: 156–164, December 1975.
3.       https://creation.com/shaking-hands-on-a-recent-creation
4.       https://www.icr.org/carbon-14
5.       https://creation.com/warped-earth
6.       https://creation.com/do-rivers-erode-through-mountains
7.       https://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth
8.       Ham, Ken, and Hodge Bodie. A Flood of Evidence. Pg. 142. Master Books, September 2018.
9.       https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end
10.   https://creation.com/defining-terms
11.   https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/
12.   Ham, Ken, and Hodge Bodie. A Flood of Evidence. Pg. 177. Master Books, September 2018.
13.   Whitcomb, John C. Jr. and Henry M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., p. 69.
Woodmorappe, John, 1996. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, Santee, CA: ICR, p. 13.
14.   https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/how-could-all-animals-fit-ark/
15.   https://www.icr.org/article/how-could-all-animals-get-board-noahs-ark/
16.   https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/it-was-the-most-astounding-thing-demystifying-the-largest-dinosaur-eggs-ever-discovered
17.   https://www.stopliveexports.org/images/documents/Resources/Reports/Livestock_Trucking_Guide.pdf
18.   http://jillamy.com/pdfs/Truck_Sizes_LTL.pdf
19.   http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/sheep/articles/FEEDING.html
20.   http://www.sheep101.info/201/feedwaterequip.html
21.   https://arkencounter.com/noahs-ark/cubit/
22.   https://www.nationalhogfarmer.com/mag/farming_addressing_workforce_expectations
23.   https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/thinking-outside-the-box/
24.   Ham, Ken, and Hodge Bodie. A Flood of Evidence. Pg. 252. Master Books, September 2018.
25.   https://creation.com/media-center/youtube/marine-fossils-on-mount-everest


Round 2
Published:
I’ll now refute con’s case. There is a lot to unpack here.
 
I. Existence of God
 
This debate is not about whether or not God exists. This debate should be focused on the evidence for and against the flood.   
 
II. Young Earth
 
I disagree with Con’s assertion that the Bible only retains integrity under a young Earth. Many great theologians and scientists believe in the Bible and in the scientific consensus. I think this could well be another debate in and of itself. However, for the purpose of this debate, I will concede this point.
 
A. Soft Tissue
 
This argument is based on a paper by Dr. Schweitzer and others. It should be first stated that dinosaur fossils are not dated by their appearance, but rather by radiometric dating. According to Schweitzer’s paper, the specimen was found at the base of the Hell Creek Formation, 8 m above the Fox Hills Sandstone, as an association of disarticulated elements [1]. This formation has been reliably dated to about 65 million years ago [2].
 
We know radiometric dating is reliable for several reasons. First, radiometric dating can be cross-checked with other isotopes and other dating methods and have always yielded consistent results [3]. Second, radiometric dating is helpful in forensic investigations. For example, Otzi the iceman was dated to be about 5300 years old (actually dating before the flood) [4]. If radiometric dating was unreliable, you’d be forgiven for thinking Otzi was a recent death, possibly a missing soldier from WWII. Finally, radiometric dating is useful in archeology. For example, radiocarbon dating is used to date Biblical manuscripts back to the early second century [5]. If radiocarbon dating was nonsense and unreliable, none of this would be possible and all of these results would be suspect.
 
The most damaging blow to this argument is the fact that Creationists misquoted and misused  Dr. Schweitzer’s work. In an interview with Biologos, Schweitzer stated [6]:
 
“One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data.”
As far as the bacteria is concerned, I was unable to find the paper that the argument was based on. Can you please cite the peer-reviewed paper so I can review it?
 
Key question to con: If dinosaurs all lived less than 6,000 years ago, why don’t we find dinosaur DNA? Indeed, DNA should be readily available if they are, in fact, less than 6,000 years old.
 
B. Amino Acids
 
Natural selection explains this quite well. Scientists have discovered a special type of polarized light that destroys right-handed amino acids. NCSE explains it like this [7]: 

Astronomers have discovered a special type of polarized light in our region of space that selectively destroys right-handed amino acids (Bailey 2001). This is precisely why slight excesses of left-handed amino acids have been found in several meteorites (Glavin and Dworkin 2009). Is it possible to amplify these excesses? Ronald Breslow at Columbia University has shown that evaporation of solutions of amino acids that have slight excesses of the left-handed form causes mixtures of the right- and left-handed forms of the amino acids to fall out of solution, which leaves a vast excess of left-handed forms of amino acids remaining in solution for further prebiotic reactions (Breslow and Levine 2006). Since the right-handed amino acids have been removed from solution (where chemical reactions occur), only the left-handed ones remain for further prebiotic chemistry. Another way to think about this amplification mechanism is to imagine that you have 40 black squirrels and 35 gray ones living in your backyard. The grays ones eat piñon nuts, but the black ones eat walnuts. If a disease equally wipes out both types of squirrels so that you only have four squirrels left, the remaining squirrels are almost certainly exclusively black because there were more black squirrels to begin with. Now the squirrels that frolic about in your backyard will be largely black and will eat walnuts and not piñon nuts. This illustrates how natural mechanisms can explain the tendency for left-handed amino acids in extant living organisms.”
 
C. C-14 Dating
 
I followed your source and it went to a page from the Institute for Creation Research. There’s no evidence to support it on that page and no references to peer-reviewed journals or any other articles. The source makes an assertion and provides zero evidence. Second, scientists don’t use C14 to date diamonds for good reason: they’re too old. Rather, scientists use other radiometric isotopes such as uranium-lead [8]. Any C14 in diamonds are easily explained by contamination via background radiation [9].
 
Key question to con: If the Earth is only 6,000 years old, then all samples should have an abundance of C14, but we don’t see that. Why not?
 
II. Rapid Erosion
 
A. Rock Folding
 
The causes of geological folds have been known for decades: tectonic pressure [10].
 
B. Water Gaps
 
Again, these are easily explained via uplift and erosion. For example, here’s what the National Park Service says about the Grand Canyon [11]:
 
After the rock layers formed, the next critical part of the process involved uplift of the Colorado Plateau. Plate tectonics is responsible for this uplift, most of which occurred 40 – 80 million years ago as the North American and Pacific plates were colliding. This uplift caused rocks that were deposited below sea level to be raised up thousands of feet above sea level in the Grand Canyon region. This process was critical to the eventual formation of Grand Canyon  and set the stage for the final chapter in the formation of Grand Canyon.
 
Finally, the melting of glaciers during the last ice age also perfectly explains water gaps. Your source cites Lake Missoula as one such example. Geologists have known this for decades [12].
 
C. Polystrate fossils
 
I followed your source and it is quite humorous. One of the illustrations used is from an 1868 geology textbook called Acadian Geology. The explanation for this has been known for more than 150 years. Here’s what this 140+-year-old textbook says [13]:
 
“It is evident that when we find a bed of clay now hardened into stone and containing the roots and rootlets of these plants in their natural position, we can infer, 1st, that such beds must once have been in a very soft condition; 2dly, that the roots found in them were not drifted, but grew in their present positions; in short, that these ancient roots are in similar circumstances with those of the recent trees that underlie the Amherst marshes. In corroboration of this, we shall find, in farther examination of this [stratigraphic] section, that while some of these fossil soils support coals, other support erect trunks of trees connected with their roots and still in their natural position.

If this was due to a violent flood like Noah’s ark, we would expect them to be completely broken off, not in a perfect upright position.
 
D. Rapid Burial
 
Rapid burial is not uncommon and does not require a global flood. That being said, all of your examples are marine fossils. If these were due to Noah’s flood, then I must ask you how anything could possibly have survived those conditions. According to Creationists, Noah’s flood caused a rapid breaking up of the continents and caused supervolcanic eruptions. No marine life could possibly survive. As Mark Isaak notes, such a flood would destroy habitats that fish need to survive [14]. That being said, let’s look at your examples. 
 

1. According to the journal that reported this find, it is most likely that the ichthyosaur died due to labor complication. [15] Additionally if you read the paper, it is clear that there is strong evidence for this hypothesis. The second embryo is described as exiting the pelvic girdle with half of the body still in the maternal body cavity


2. The paper for these fossils is also quite interesting. Here’s a quote from the abstract: “In one of these, a small leptolepidid fish is still sticking in the esophagus of the pterosaur and its stomach is full of fish debris. This suggests that the Rhamphorhynchus was seized during or immediately after a successful hunt. According to the fossil record, Rhamphorhynchus frequently were accidentally seized by large Aspidorhnychus. In some cases, the fibrous tissue of the wing membrane got entangled with the rostral teeth such that the fish was unable to get rid of the pterosaur. Such encounters ended fatally for both. Intestinal contents of Aspidorhynchus-type fishes are known and mostly comprise fishes and in one single case a Homoeosaurus. Obviously Rhamphorhynchus did not belong to the prey spectrum of Aspidorhynchus.” [16] Additionally, the discussion notes: “In these cases the attack was a lethal error on the side of Aspidorhynchus. Such errors are frequently reported in the fossil record, but to our knowledge are predominantly restricted to oversized prey fishes, where the opercula of the prey fish mostly entangle with the gill rakers and arches of the predator during the effort to regurgitate the prey”

3. This is so easy to explain that I don’t know why Creationists still use this. The clam’s mouth remains open for some time, but close up as sediment builds around it forcing their mouths shut [17].
 
III. Feasibility of Biblical Account

Con makes numerous errors and assumptions that are not supported by science nor is supported by the Biblical text.

A. Building the Ark

The Bible makes no such mention of outside help. Moreover, the Ark took 120 years to build. If he hired workers, it would have taken much less time. Finally, it is hard to imagine the same people mocking Noah helping him. The Bible says only Noah built the ark.

C. Number of Animals

I already touched upon the huge genetic problems in the opening round. The contention that no new genetic traits are being created is blatantly false. For example, certain bacteria developed the ability to consume nylon [18], the ability to consume milk is due to a mutation dubbed the LP allele [19], and HIV also evolved very rapidly. HIV evolved from SIV when SIV jumped from chimps to humans, most likely due to an accidental blood contact during butchering. When that happened, HIV quickly evolved from its ancestral lineage. In order for HIV to be successful, it had to mutate to overcome human’s natural immunity to SIV. Mammals have a gene that encodes a protein called tetherin. This protein confers resistance to retroviruses by tethering them to the inside of the cell they infect. In short, HIV was successful in mutating to overcome those issues [20]. Finally, we have documented observations of speciation [21]. In fact, speciation is so well-documented that my opponent accepts it!  

Finally, what the heck is a kind? My opponent gives several examples, but never actually defines it. How do we know if two species belong to the same “kind”?

D. Timeline of the Flood

I agree with your timeline.

IV. Calculating the Ark’s space requirements:

A. Average Size

This is an unfounded assumption. The Argentinosaurus, for example, was 98–115 ft in length and weighed up to 80–100 tons. [22] In contrast, the Ark was 450 feet in length.

B. Dinos

I already mentioned the problem above. My opponent tries to take juvenile animals, but that is explicitly contradicted in the Bible. Genesis 7 explicitly states that the animals were sexually mature. “Take with you seven pairs of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate, and one pair of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate.”

C. Space

Again, my opponent makes unfounded assumptions that do not take into account huge animals like elephants, wooly mammoths, and those big dinosaurs.

D. Food

Again, these are more unfounded assumptions. Lions, for example, eat up to 10-25 pounds per day [23]. Let’s be generous and say they ate 5 pounds a day. That means 10 pounds per day for the lions which translates to 3600 pounds of food just for the lions. Cats are obligate carnivores, so which animals were they eating? They’d have to bring enough meat to last them a whole year. Adult elephants eat about 200-600 pounds of food per day and drink up to 50 gallons of water per day [24]. Again, let’s be generous and cut that in half. Let’s say they eat 100 pounds of food and 25 gallons of water. That means there needs to be 200 pounds of food and 50 gallons of water to sustain the two elephants. That’s 72,000 pounds of food and 18,000 gallons of water. Calculating these two kinds would mean 75,600 pounds of food just for these two kinds.

Just how heavy is 18,000 gallons of water? One gallon of water weighs about 8 pounds [25]. That’s 144,000 pounds of water JUST for the Elephants!!! Again, even if I’m super generous and cut that in half, that’s still 72,000 pounds of water for just two animals.

But let’s be super generous and use con’s 1 gallon of water per day per animal. That’s 2800 pounds for one animal. Let’s be super generous again and say there were only 1000 animals on the ark. That’s over 2 million pounds of water! In contrast, the Titanic had a weight capacity of 46,328 tons [26]. That is equal to 92 656 000 pounds. It seems that not even the Titanic could do what Noah’s Ark could allegedly do.

E. Size of the Ark

Again, we see those calculations are way off. How were they storing the food and water? How could Noah have stored enough fresh food to last everyone a full year?

I think we can see the problem with the rest of con’s calculations.

V. Source of floodwater
 
A. Was the Genesis flood local?
 
I agree with con that the Flood was global.
 
B. Is there enough water to cover the earth?
 
My opponent makes an unfounded assertion that is directly contradicted by the Bible. Con assumes the land was leveled, however, the Gen. 7:20  says that the Flood covered 22 feet of water above high mountains. Clearly land wasn’t leveled.
I think we see the major problems with the rest of con’s arguments.
  
VI. Conclusion
 
If these are the best arguments that Con can come up with, then his position is in serious peril. They are all based on a blatant misrepresentation of the scientific data and are easily refuted. Additionally, CMI, AiG, and other creationist organizations grossly breach the 9th commandment in pursuit of the creationist cause. If creationists are so confident in their position, shouldn’t they be spending time writing actual scientific papers and getting published in respected peer-reviewed journals?
                                        
I now turn the debate over to you.
 
VII. Addendum
 
I strongly recommend watching Potholer54’s videos on the following topics. He goes far more in-depth on some of con’s issues than I can do in a text debate.
 
Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked: https://youtu.be/fgpSrUWQplE
Grand Canyon carved by Noah’s Flood – debunked https://youtu.be/6Wa_ey3jGPs
 
VIII. Sources
1. Schweitzer, Mary & Wittmeyer, Jennifer & Horner, John & Toporski, Jan. (2005). Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science (New York, N.Y.). 307. 1952-5. 10.1126/science.1108397.
2. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hell-Creek-Formation
3. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
4. http://www.iceman.it/en/the-iceman/
5. https://library.duke.edu/rubenstein/scriptorium/papyrus/texts/manuscripts.html
6.  https://biologos.org/articles/not-so-dry-bones-an-interview-with-mary-schweitzer/
7. https://ncse.ngo/files/pub/RNCSE/31/1/RNCSE_31_1.pdf
8. https://nature.berkeley.edu/classes/eps2/wisc/Lect6.html
9. https://ncse.ngo/answers-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating
10. https://www.nps.gov/articles/tectonic-folding.htm
11. https://www.nps.gov/grca/learn/education/upload/D-L-Teacher-Geology-Outline.pdf
12. https://parks.state.wa.us/225/Ice-Age-floods-in-Washington
13. Carruthers, W. (1868). II.—Acadian Geology.—The Geological Structure, Organic Remains, and Mineral Resources of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island. By John William Dawson
14. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
15. Motani R, Jiang D-y, Tintori A, Rieppel O, Chen G-b (2014) Terrestrial Origin of Viviparity in Mesozoic Marine Reptiles Indicated by Early Triassic Embryonic Fossils. PLoS ONE 9(2): e88640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0088640
16. Frey E, Tischlinger H (2012) The Late Jurassic Pterosaur Rhamphorhynchus, a Frequent Victim of the Ganoid Fish Aspidorhynchus? PLoS ONE 7(3): e31945. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031945
17. https://www.sciencealert.com/evidence-of-ancient-meteorite-impacts-have-been-found-in-clam-fossils
18. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16834-five-classic-examples-of-gene-evolution/
19. https://www.nature.com/news/archaeology-the-milk-revolution-1.13471
20. Fairbanks, Daniel J. Evolving: The Human Effect and Why it Matters. Ahmester: Prometheus Books, 2012. Print. Page 201-203
21. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
22. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentinosaurus#Size_and_weight
23. https://animals.mom.me/amount-food-lion-eats-9881.html
24. http://www.nationalelephantcenter.org/learn/
25. https://sciencenotes.org/much-gallon-water-weigh-easy-calculation/
26. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Titanic
27. https://www.msrgear.com/blog/the-smallest-mountain/


Published:
I will now open my rebuttal of Pro’s case.

When was Noah’s flood? My worthy opponent introduced four different proposed dates for the Genesis flood. Let’s examine the context of these estimates in more detail:

  1. 2304 BC [1]: The article cited for this date was composed in 1981. Although, this calculation is quite valid for approximating the date for the Genesis Flood account, this date was arrived at without the insight of nearly 40 years of historical and Biblical exegetical research.
  2. 2348 BC [2]: Although composed more recently, the citation used for this date bases the calculation off of old assumptions. This calculation uses the Ussher Chronology published in 1650 AD [3]. This calculation starts with Ussher’s estimated earth origin date of 4004 BC, and then worked forward to the Genesis flood using Biblical chronologies. The result is actually quite remarkable. Based on current knowledge Ussher’s calculations were accurate to within one to two hundred years. This is quite remarkable considering his calculations are 369 years old. Additional evidence gathered in the many years since have allowed for fine tuning dates.
  3. 2500 BC [4]: This date originates from an older estimate from 1985 [5]. Again, this date is an excellent estimate but established without the insight of much research in the more recent past.
  4. 2472 BC [6]: This source was published in 2018. This source uses information not available for earlier calculations, and allows for fine tuning the date for the Genesis flood. This source dates the age of the earth at 4128 BC, putting the age of the earth 124 years older than the Ussher Chronology.

    All of the above calculations are valid, accurate, and credible for their time. Since the level of precision with which such dates can be calculated has improved in recent years, we can replace these rougher calculations with more precise ones. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude that, from the sources cited above, the most precise date estimate for the Genesis flood would be 2472 BC.

When were the pyramids built? When considering a perceived discrepancy in dating, the assumptions surrounding both sides must be considered. The pyramids do not come with labels authoritatively declaring their age. Although quickly assumed to be correct, the traditional dating surrounding Egypt is riddled with numerous dubious assumptions:

Manetho’s History: Traditional Egyptian chronology is built on Manetho’s history. Manetho’s history is unsuitable for establishing reliable Egyptian chronology because:

  1. Manetho’s history was never intended to be a chronology. Manetho’s history lists Egyptian kings and when they ruled. Traditional dating takes this list of kings and sums up the reigns of the kings to arrive at dating estimates. In reality, some of these kings reigned simultaneously in different regions. This practice has greatly inflated Egyptian dating ages [7].
  2. Manetho’s history is also considered by many to be careless. Manetho’s interpreted the various spellings of certain kings to be multiple kings resulting in numerous nonexistent generations of rulers being added to the Egyptian time line [7].
    Field archaeologist David Down revised the traditional Egyptian time line, correcting for these discrepancies in traditional dating. This put the beginning of the first dynasty around 2109 BC. As cited by Pro, this would put the first pyramid of Djoser at 1875 BC [7, 8, 9]. This provides context for the well justified revision of the traditional Egyptian chronology, and dating the beginning of the 4th dynasty at around 1875 BC.

Secular historical discrepancies: In order to further demonstrate the shaky position in which traditional Egyptian dating methodology is founded, let’s explore one of these discrepancies:

  • Demise of the Hittites: Records left by Rameses III record that, at the time when the sea people were defeated, the Hittites had already met with extinction.  Traditional Egyptian time lines date this record at 1,200 B.C. Assyrian inscriptions tell of wars with the Hittites in the 700’s and 800’s B.C. These Assyrian records include many elements paralleling the Egyptian record left by Rameses III, even mentioning the same Hittite king. This would put the Hittites as waging war around 400 years after their total annihilation [10]. This discovery would have come as no surprise if the Bible had been used to establish these dates. 2 Kings 7:6 states that during Elisha’s life the Hittites were as formidable as the Egyptians. Elisha’s life is dated to be circa 851 B.C. [11].
Call for historical revision: The mounting weight of irreconcilable discrepancies found in traditional Egyptian dating has roused a mounting cry for timeline revision. Let’s consider what authorities on the issue have to say:

  • British historian Peter James says,
“Over the last century chronology has provided the focus of some of the most protracted and troublesome debates in a wide variety of fields, from European prehistory to biblical archaeology, All these can now be seen as the product of a common cause – a misplaced faith in the immutability of the established framework, The resulting Dark Ages and all their ramifications really amount to a gigantic academic blunder” [12].
  • Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner wrote,
“Our materials for the reconstruction of a coherent picture are hopelessly inadequate” [13].
  • Egyptologist David Rohl writes,
“The only real solution to the archaeological problems which have been created is to pull down the whole structure and start again, reconstructing from the foundations upward” [14].
    Since Egyptian dating is relied upon heavily to date other archeological finds, civilizations dated prior to and during Egyptian civilization are also subject to drastic time line revision. Traditional dating of the ancient world remains gravely flawed, and, until proper revisions are made to reconcile blatant discrepancies, traditional dating of ancient archeology remains replete with inaccuracies. The traditionally established ancient time line simply lacks credibility. Revised historical models better support both the archeological evidence and the Genesis Flood.

What is a realistic repopulation rate?
  • Conservative Calculations: I would like to point out that my worthy opponent took Answers in Genesis (AIG) out of context. AIG did use a population doubling rate of 150 years in a very limited capacity for one of their calculations, but this article clarifies that this is a very conservative, essentially unrealistic number.  Dr. Monty White clarifies,
“In reality, even with disease, famines, and natural disasters, the world population currently doubles every 40 years or so” [15].
    If we apply this more realistic rate to my opponent’s suggested 531 years between the flood and the Djoser pyramid, the population comes in closer to 66,000 people.

  • Realistic Calculations: In 1955 the annual population growth rate was 1.77% per year [16]. Recent history records reproduction rates as high as 2.09%, so the rate of 1.77% is actually relatively modest. Re-running the calculations using a Genesis Flood date of 2472 BC (as justified above) gives us 597 years between the flood and the beginning of the 4th dynasty putting the world’s population at about 283,000.
  • The Possibilities of a Larger Population Explored: Let’s revisit David Wright’s quotation cited by Pro:
“If we assume that Mizraim left Babel with a family of eight children (four boys and four girls), and if each couple averaged eight children every thirty years (which is probably quite conservative), in 150 years he could easily have had nearly 30,000 descendants. In 250 years, the population could explode to well over one million” [17].
    The above assumption of each generation having eight children is well supported Biblically. In Genesis 10:22-26 we see that Shem had 5 sons, Aram had 4 sons, and Joktan had 13 sons. Since this list includes sons only, it stands to reason that the total number of children of each of these individuals was approximately double, putting Shem at 10 children, Aram at 8 children and Joktan at about 26 children. According to National Center for Health in 2016 the average age to have a baby was 26.3 years [18]. This puts the time between generations well within the 30 years suggested by Wright. Therefore, it is well within the realm of possibility that the population was over one-million by the time construction began on the pyramids.

    The current reproduction rate is known; however, the reproduction rate of humans can and has varied widely in even the recent past. There is no known method to establish a concise reproduction rate during that period. However, as clearly demonstrated above, reasonable estimates yield a bare minimum of 66,000 people with possibilities for a population in excess of one-million.
Where there enough people?

These more realistic population calculations provide adequate justification for David Wright’s reasoning that:

1.       The Egyptians likely had knowledge of building pyramids from the Tower of Babel.
2.       They surely had many labor-saving technologies (cranes, hoists, etc.).
3.       The Egyptians could have hired outside help or used slave labor (as is evidenced by the time of Joseph, Genesis 37–40), or both [17].
  • Claim 1: Taking the time period between the estimated date of the Genesis flood 2472 BC (justified above) to the estimated date for the tower of Babel 2250 BC [17] is approximately 222 years. If we apply an annual reproduction rate of 1.77% (justified above) the population for the Tower of Babel would have been nearly 400 individuals. A population of 400 individuals is quite sufficient to support construction projects such as the Tower of Babel.
  • Claim 2: This statement is in reference to construction of the Pyramids, not the Tower of Babel. As justified above, the population at the time of the Pyramids would quite reasonably be around 300,000 individuals. This population would provide adequate brain power and labor to contrive mechanisms such as the suggested cranes, hoists, etc. 
  • Claim 3: My worthy opponent seems to have misspoken here. Again this claim is in reference to the 4th dynasty when the pyramids were being built. Therefore, this claim is in reference to a time period falling around 375 years after the Tower of Babel. As justified above, the population at this time would quite reasonably be around 300,000 individuals. This population far exceeds my opponent’s claim of a population of 60 people (the same population estimate he used for the Tower of Babel 375 years earlier). A world population of 300,000 provides adequate possibilities for hiring outside labor for construction of the pyramids.
    Exactly how many people did it take to build the pyramids? Archeologist Mark Lehner estimates the number of people required to build the pyramids at 20,000 [19] to 36,000 [20]. Both of these estimates fit well within the potential population size at the time. Once again, after crunching the numbers, the supposed ‘myth’ of the Genesis Flood retains mathematical integrity. This level of accuracy can only be logically justified after recognizing the Genesis Flood as a historical event.
 
The ice age: The Global Flood actually set up ideal conditions for an ice age. Large amounts of water warmed by the heat released through crust fracturing would set in motion a series of events resulting in an ice age [21]. Creationists believe the ice age lasted for a few hundred years [22]. The timeframe of the ice age fits well within the time window provided, and would provide frozen bridges between continents. This would supply the essential tools for continental migration, a privilege that would not be regained by man for thousands of years afterwards. The Biblical account actually provides far more insight into the ice age than any other current working model.
Do genetics support a young earth?

Mutation Rates: Genetics are actually in strong support for a young earth. Deleterious mutation rates are far too high to allow organisms to survive for millions of years, establishing the impossibility of evolving to a better state. As Dr. J. C. Stanford says, on page 17 of his book ‘Genetic Entropy,’
“There are certainly many mutations which have been described as beneficial, but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information, but rather have destroyed it…. Information consistently decreases.”
    Scientists have crunched the numbers numerous times and simply can’t justify the existence of organisms for millions of years. To recap a quote given earlier from Botanist Alexander Williams,
“Irrespective of whether creationists or evolutionists do the calculations, somewhere between a few thousand and a few million mutations are enough to drive a human lineage to extinction, and this is likely to occur over a time scale of only tens to hundreds of thousands of years” [23].
Pro’s objections regarding genetics make two major assumptions:

  1. Bottlenecking/Inbreeding: As stated above, empirical science supports that all creatures are suffering from a perpetual genetic decline toward extinction. In a world suffering from deteriorating genetics it only serves to reason that the genetic code of all creatures was much stronger in the past. Originally all creatures were created with flawless genetics. Since then all creatures have been bottlenecked at least once. This bottleneck has greatly contributed to the weaker genetic code we observe in all organisms today. Clearly, the genetic code can take only so much damage before extinction is inevitable; however, numerous organisms have not reached the breaking point yet.
  2. Relative measurement of inbreeding: Virtuoso’s quotation from Mark Isaak [23] relates how cheetahs have encountered inbreeding in the past; however, this is determined by comparing the genetic code of cheetahs relative to other cats. The issue here is that the Genesis flood bottlenecked every creature simultaneously. No larger population remained against which to compare the genetic code of inbred creatures from the ark.
Closing: After further investigation I find that the case for the Genesis Flood has never been stronger. A closer look at the time scale reveals fatal flaws in the traditional dating methods. The archeological evidence and the Biblical account both find grave discrepancies in traditional dating. These discrepancies are simultaneously resolved through traditional timeline revision. The Biblical model even provides a much more detailed and justifiable model for the ice age. And finally, a deeper investigation into the inner working of genetics provides a paradigm shift that rocks the very foundation of an old earth model. Indeed the evidence for the Genesis Flood is alive and well.

5.    White, A. J. Monty, How Old Is the Earth? Evangelical Press, p. 22, 1985.
7.    Dr. Elisabeth Mitchell. Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable? Pg. 247
9.    J. Ashton and D. Down, Unwrapping the Pharaohs (Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2006), p. 73
10.  Dr. Elisabeth Mitchell. Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable? Pg. 252
12.  P. James, Centuries of Darkness, p. 320.
13.  Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharohs, P. 102
14.  Rohl, Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, p.9.
21.  M. J. Oard, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood, Monograph, (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1990)


Round 3
Published:
I will now defend my case! My opponent’s rebuttal went a bit out of order from my main arguments, to keep things simple, I will keep the order that I originally had them in.

I. History

A. When was the Flood?

The purpose of bringing in these dates was to narrow down a timeframe for which the flood happened. Obviously, if I can show that archeology and history is older than this date, then the flood never happened. That being said, I accept my opponent’s explanation of the differences and for purpose of this debate, I will revise my date of Noah’s flood to 2472 BCE. This date is only 66 years before my proposed date in my opening statements.  

B. Population Rebound

My opponent argues that I took AiG out of context; however, this is certainly not the case. My point here is to show how laughable AiG’s content really is and show how unattainable a speedy population rebound really is. AiG wants to argue that Evolution is wrong because of the current human population. The article I cited writes [1]:

With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, “If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?” This is a question that evolution supporters must answer.

Obviously, this argument here is pathetic for reasons I already mentioned. The global human and animal population simply could not have rebounded so quickly after a catastrophic global flood that’s described in Genesis
.
And yeah, the population currently doubles every 40 years or so because of the impact on modern medicine, sanitation, and health. In fact, as you can see in this chart, the global population rate 10,000 BCE to 1700 was a paltry 0.04% each year:

C. Pyramids/Egyptology

The chronology of Egypt has certainly been debated by historians, however, with recent advancements in radiometric dating, we can say with almost certainty the traditional chronology is fairly accurate. Not only that, but certain events they shown are actually earlier than previously assumed. For example, they found that the reign of King Djoser was between 2691 and 2625 B.C.E and the start of the New Kingdom was around 1570 and 1544 B.C.E, both of which are older than previously assumed [2]. They note in an interview: “I think scholars and scientists will be glad to hear that our small team of researchers has independently corroborated a century of scholarship in just three years." [3]
 
D. Other Historical Buildings

Even if I concede the problems with Egypt, my opponent COMPLETELY DROPS this point. To reiterate from my opening statements: (Christopher Bronk Ramsey, 2010)

“The pyramids aren’t the only problem. There are dozens and dozens of building that pre-date even the flood [9], even buildings in the Americas. It’s hard to imagine these buildings being built so quickly after the flood with no signs of a population bottleneck.”
II. Ice Age

My major point in this argument is completely ignored. “It seems like whoever was left alive had far more stuff to worry about than building pyramids and emigrating to the Americas.” This is not addressed. It’s incredible that anything could possibly have survived a cataclysmic worldwide flood, an ice age characterized by more constant flooding, dust storms, supervolcanoes, massive earthquakes, and skirmishes all within the span of about 400 years without leaving a trace in the historical record. Simply put, no life could possibly survive this.

III. Genetics

My opponent misses the crux of the argument and completely drops it. Let’s re-iterate:
 
In my opinion, genetics is the strongest argument against Noah’s Flood. Creationist want me to believe that the entire human population went down to only 8 individuals shortly after the flood. Not only that, but the entire animal population went down to only 2 or 14 individuals. That means every one of us alive can trace our lineage back to only 8 people on the ark and every species can trace their lineage back to this event as well. If this was the case, genetics would present a major piece of evidence for the flood, but instead, it soundly refutes it. 


Whenever a population is severely reduced, it creates what is called a bottleneck effect. These effects can not only be seen in genetic sequencing, but also give us a ballpark for the date this happened. Ashkenazi Jews, for example, suffered a severe bottleneck about 100 generations ago which is the main cause of most Ashkenazi genetic disorders [13]. If every specie alive went through such a severe bottleneck, it would be noticed. Indeed, Mark Isaak notes [14]:

We don’t need to compare the genetics to other species to detect a bottleneck effect. The case of the cheetahs shows that they suffer genetically from this event. If all of us had a huge bottleneck like the one in the flood, it would have wiped out all genetic diversity.

As for the flawless genes, this is a huge case of [CITATION AND EVIDENCE NEEDED], for which he cites none except the Bible. 

IV. Conclusion

My opponent drops a big chunk of my case and ignores the most impactful evidence I presented. Please vote pro.
 
V. Sources

1.    https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/
2.    Christopher Bronk Ramsey et al. (2010, June 18). Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt. Science.
3.    https://www.bbc.com/news/10345875



Published:
I will now defend my case.

Soft Tissue: Pro makes no effort to explain how the soft tissue could have survived for 65 million years. Instead Pro side steps the issue:

  1. First, Pro changes the subject by appealing to the supposed reliability of radiometric dating. This provides no explanation for how soft tissue could survive for 65 million years.
  2. Second, Pro quotes Dr. Schweitzer as saying creationists have, “misrepresented the data.” This quotation is a general accusation devoid of evidence.
Considering the length to which Pro went to avoid the subject, he clearly had no explanation for how soft tissue survived for 65 million years.

  Key Question Response, Dinosaur DNA: We do find dinosaur DNA. Evidence for DNA extraction from dinosaur bones has been reported on at least two separate occasions [1]. Reasons why we haven’t found more examples of DNA stem from two independent reasons. First, the evolutionary science community has not been looking for DNA. If scientists don’t ask the right questions they won’t get the right answers. Secondly, DNA is very delicate. According to current estimates DNA can only survive for about 2,500 years at 20 Celsius, so there may not be much DNA left to find [2]. Pro claimed that diamonds should not be dated using carbon 14 dating because they are too old. If they are too old, why can we carbon date them? Again, if scientists don’t ask the right questions they won’t get the right answers.

  As Requested:Per Pro’s request, here is the citation from the prestigious peer reviewed journal Nature explaining the findings of DNA dated at up to 425 million years old: Fish, S.A., Shepherd, T.J., McGenity, T.J. and Grant, W.D., Recovery of 16S ribosomal RNA gene fragments from ancient halite, Nature 417(6887):432–436, 2002.

Radiometric Dating: Pro claimed that, “radiometric dating can be cross-checked with other isotopes and other dating methods and have always yielded consistent results.” This is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. Let’s see if radiometric dating really does “always yield consistent results” as claimed by Pro:

  Potassium-argon (K-Ar):K-Ar dating is considered to be among the most reliable dating methods available. Andrew Snelling PhD gives several examples of how ‘accurate’ K-Ar dating has proven to be [3]:
 
  1. Mt. Etna Basalt, Sicily: two rock formations were tested here. The first formation is known to have formed around 122 B.C. but yielded an age of 170,000-330,000 years. The second was formed in 1972 but was dated at 210,000-490,000 years. Not only were the results astronomically erroneous, but the younger rock dated the oldest. Therefore, K-Ar dating even failed to date these two deposits in the correct relative order.
  2. Mt. St. Helens, Washington: Rock formations formed in 1986 yielded a date of 2.8 million years.
  3. Hualalai basalt, Hawaii: Rock formations from 1800-1801 were tested at 1.32-1.76 million years.
  4. Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand: Rocks formed in 1954 tested at up to 3.5 million years.
  5. Kilauea Iki basalt, Hawaii: Formations formed in 1959 tested at 1.7-15.3 million years.
 
These five independent examples clearly demonstrate that Potassium-argon dating fails to provide reliable results in rocks where the age is known. It is insanity to religiously trust dating methods that fail to accurately date rocks of known age.

  Radiometric Dating Crosscheck:The RATE project rated a number of samples using potassium-argon (K-Ar), rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr), samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd), and lead-lead (Pb-Pb) dating methods from two independent sites. All four of these methods are considered highly reliable; therefore, all four methods should yield the same age. Samples from the first site ranged from 1.5 million years for K-Ar to 2.9 million years for Sm-Nd. Samples from the second site ranged from 665 million years for K-Ar to 1.4 million years for Pb-Pb [5]. The most so called ‘reliable’ radiometric dating methods don’t even agree with each other. In each case, the oldest dating method results were approximately twice the age of the youngest. Evolutionary scientist William D. Stanfield PhD concludes:
It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years)…. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists. [6]
Clearly, Pro’s claim that radiometric dating always yields consistent results when cross-checked is blatantly false.

  Carbon 14: Carbon dating assumptions have been calibrated based off of dating artifacts of known age [7]. These calibrated assumptions can then be used to carbon date artifacts of similar age. Therefore, the assumptions used in carbon dating artifacts such as Biblical manuscripts are well founded in evidence. However, no reference point artifact is available to proper calibrate the assumptions used for dating older specimens like Otzi man; therefore, these sorts of dates lack credibility.

    Diamonds subject to contamination? Diamonds are the hardest substance known to man, and therefore possess among the highest level of resistance to contamination [8]. Pro’s source makes no claim that background radiation would be capable of penetrating the highly resistant material of a diamond. John Baumgardner, PhD, part of the RATE research group, tested six diamond samples from South Africa, Botswana, and Guinea and found significant amounts of carbon 14 present in all six diamonds [9].

    Key Question Response, Carbon Dating: We do find an abundance of carbon 14 in numerous places. Andrew Snelling PhD found significant amounts of radiocarbon in wood dated to be 189 million years old [10]. John R. Baumgardner, PhD tested ten different coal samples collected from a variety of coal fields and found significant amounts of carbon 14 in all ten samples [11]. Thomas Seiler PhD presented his team’s findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore. The team tested eight different dinosaur specimens for carbon 14, and all eight specimens contained significant amounts of carbon 14. This abstract on these scientists’ findings were later censored and removed from the conference web site by two chairmen for no other reason than they would not accept the findings [12]. The video presentation of the team’s findings can still be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbdH3l1UjPQ. The search for carbon 14 among evolutionary scientists is frowned upon, censored, and suppressed simply because it does not fit with the evolutionary model, and yet carbon 14 is found in abundance in numerous places where it shouldn’t be, under an old earth model.

Amino Acids: The context of Pro’s source (regarding polarized light that selectively destroys right-handed amino-acids) reveals two major application issues:
  1. This source states that this polarized type of light has been discovered in space, not on earth. Therefore, specimens on earth are not affected by this polarized light.
  2. Pro’s source states that the polarized light resulting in a ‘slight excesses of left-handed amino acids’, and yet my source makes it clear that the supposed three billion year old Fig Tree Chert contains exclusively left handed amino acids.
The polarized light theory completely fails to explain the high ratio of left handed amino acids observed by science.

Rapid Erosion:

  Rock Folding: Only, young soft rock layers can fold without extensive fracturing. As David Allen PhD explains,
Although the rocks were obviously severely deformed, there was hardly any fracturing.  We all realized that the rock could not have been brittle when it was folded so tightly.  It must have been soft and plastic.  If the rocks had been hard and solid before they were deformed, they would have fractured, not folded. [13]
  Water Gaps: Pro’s strata lift theory raises another problem with an old earth model. Andrew Snelling explains:
The average height reduction [through erosion] for all the continents across the earth’s surface is estimated to be around 2.4 inches (61 mm) per thousand years…. [at this rate of erosion] the North American continent would be eroded flat to sea level in ‘a mere 10 million years.’… Geologists often maintain that mountains still exist because uplift is constantly renewing them from below. However, even though mountains are still rising, the process of uplift and erosion could not continue long without eradicating ancient sedimentary layers contained in the mountains. Yet sedimentary strata that are supposedly very ancient are still well represented in the earth’s mountain ranges. [14]
This presents a catch 22 for the old earth model. Clearly the earth’s mountain ranges were lifted rapidly in recent history and yet such a process would not allow for the millions of years required for water gap formation under Pro’s strata lift model.

  Polystrate Fossils: Pro’s source on this issue is miserably outdated. During the eruption of Mount St. Helens a landslide uprooted a million large pine trees and deposited them in Spirit Lake. The root systems of the floating logs became waterlogged, first causing the trees to start sinking roots down. As Dr. Tas Walker explains it:
Eventually they sank to the bottom with their heavy root-end penetrating the sediment and peat layers there. The initial sediment deposited in the lake raised its floor by some 90 m (300 ft), and further sediments were deposited in the subsequent months and years. As more logs sank they formed a ‘forest’ of vertical logs with their roots buried in sediment at different levels on the bottom (figure 10). If someone saw this but did not know how it formed, then they might think multiple forests had grown in place and been successively buried. But such an interpretation would be wrong. [15]
Pro also failed to address how these trees endured 100,000 years while waiting to be buried [16]. John Morris PhD explains that, “wood decays in only a few decades at most, whenever in an active ocean environment, standing in air, or buried in sediments.” [17] Once again, the observable science supports the global flood model, while the evolutionary model relies on unproven, unobserved and seriously flawed assumptions.

Rapid Burial: Pro claimed that, “No marine life could possibly survive” the flood and yet his source did not make this claim. His source said, “How did all the fish survive?… A flood would have destroyed at least some of these habitats.” [18] I never claimed that all the fish survived the flood and therefore I find common ground with Pro’s citation. Dr. Andew Snelling investigated this issue and concluded, “Many marine creatures, such as trilobites and ichthyosaurs, probably became extinct as a result of the Flood…. there are many simple, plausible explanations for how freshwater and saltwater fish could have survived in spite of the water conditions during the Flood.” [19] This claim is right in line with the claim made by Pro’s source, and accurately represents my position on this issue.

  Ichthyosaur: When considering the fossilized ichthyosaur, we must remember that rapid burial is an essential component of preserving such excellent specimens as these. John Whitmore examined the decay rate of creatures and found that fish, for example, rot rapidly after death. A matter of a couple of days of deterioration before burial significantly reduces the quality of fossilized specimens [20]. Regardless of how it died, such an excellently preserved specimen must have been buried immediately after death.

  Fish: When considering the pristine condition of most fossilized fish it becomes evident that the majority of them were buried very rapidly after, or more likely during, death. As Dr Carl Wieland says, “there are literally billions of fish fossils in rocks around the world, so well preserved that they still show details such as scales, fin structure, etc.” [21] So the evolutionary account has the same problem all over again. It is ludicrous to claim that many of these samples suffered a death independent of burial. Indeed statistically speaking this is impossible. Well preserved specimens are observed at a rate untenable under an evolutionary model.
 
  Clams: Pro’s source simply makes an unsupported claim that the clams mouths were shut by the sediment. If these clams were not buried very rapidly then the two halves of the shell structure would have fallen apart through scavengers eating the insides [22], orthe muscle holding the halves of the shell together quickly deteriorating [23]. Dr. John D. Morris explains,
Usually when we find clam fossils they are jammed together in great numbers, not at all how they live in their life zones today. Thus, we discern the clams felt themselves in danger as they were transported and deposited along with other clams of roughly the same density and shape with many others, buried so deeply they couldn’t burrow out. They speak of a rapid depositional process, requiring only a short time. [24]
Feasibility of the Biblical account:

  Building the Ark: It seems Pro and I do agree that there was sufficient time to build the ark and this is really the crucial point here.

  Number of Animals: Pro blatantly misrepresented my claims here. I didn’t claim that “no new genetic traits are being created” I did claim that “creatures are losing useful genetic code over time.” Let’s examine Pro’s examples to see if my actual claim proves true:
  1. Nylon eating bacterium: Dr Georgia Purdom and Dr Kevin Anderson studied the science behind the nylon eating bacterium and concluded that: “these mutations do not provide a genetic mechanism that accounts for the origin of biological systems or functions. Rather, they require the prior existence of the targeted cellular systems. As such, beneficial mutations of bacteria fit concisely within a creation model where (a) biological systems and functions were fully formed at creation, (b) subsequent mutations can provide conditional benefits that enable the organism to survive harsh conditions even though the mutation is generally degenerative, and (c) most bacteria need the ability to rapidly adapt to ever changing environments and food sources.” [25] Therefore, we can see that, as I stated, mutations like this one result in overall loss of genetic information.
  2. LP allele: Dr David Catchpoole explains, “the loss of the ability to turn off lactase production following weaning is a loss of information” [26]. Once again, as I claimed, this mutation represents a loss of genetic information.
  3. HIV: Dr Carl Wieland explains the mutations surrounding the rise of HIV this way, “An apparently major effect is probably caused by only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity” [27]. Once again we see that overall these mutations are reducing the amount of useful information in organisms.
Indeed, Pro’s misrepresentation of my claims has produced three examples that support my initial point. All of these mutations may be considered beneficial to the organism in the short term, and yet such mutations will result in a simpler genetic code (ie. man to molecules devolution).

  Defining Speciation: The evolutionary community seems to be in the habit of taking scientific words and redefining them philosophically to cater to their world view:
  • Philosophical definition of speciation: Pro most likely is referring to a definition of speciation like this one, “The formation of new and distinct species in the course of evolution.” [28] Since this definition encompasses the theory of evolution, it is philosophical in nature. In the peer reviewed journal TJ, Jerry Bergman explains that, “Darwin was well aware that his idea was merely ‘a provisional hypothesis or speculation’…. In the past century, no better theory had been developed, which is why Darwinists still hotly debate the source of new genetic information that they believe propels evolution.”  [29] Even Darwin referred to his theory of evolution as a ‘hypothesis or speculation’ and evolutionary scientists today can’t even agree on a common philosophy for what propels evolution; therefore, it is evident that this is a philosophical definition, not a scientific one.
  • Scientific definition of speciation: When I refer to speciation, I am referring to the definition that fits the scientifically observable parameters. As Jonathan Sarfati, PhD explains, “speciation has nothing to do with real evolution (GTE), because [speciation] involves sorting and loss of genetic information, rather than new information.” [30]
Capacity of the Ark:

  Animal Maturity: Pro’s strange interpretation of Genesis 7:2 is planted firmly in mid air. The original Hebrew text does not include a word for mate. A literal translation of the original Hebrew is, “You shall take to yourself from every clean animal by sevens, male and female; and from the animal that is not clean by two, male and female.” [31] Since the original Hebrew text contains no rough equivalent to ‘his mate’ the argument that this passage is referring to a union of sexually mature creatures completely fails.

  Animal Size: Rather than addressing the average size of a dinosaur; Pro has cherry-picked his data. I made it very clear that ‘Although some dinosaurs are quite massive once fully grown, even the largest species have quite a diminutive beginning. The largest dinosaur egg found measures around 20 inches long’ [32]. Taking less fertile, fully grown dinosaurs on the ark defies all logic.

  Space: Pro offers no new evidence here. I have already addressed the average size of animals as well as dinosaurs earlier. Dr Jonathan Sarfati did an in depth analysis on this issue and concluded that, “The median size of all animals on the ark would actually have been that of a small rat [about 100 grams], according to Woodmorappe‘s up-to-date tabulations, while only about 11% would have been much larger than a sheep.” [33]

  Food: Quite obviously creatures like elephants and lions fall well within the 11% of largest animals. It serves to reason that animals with a larger than average size will consume proportionally more food. The question here should be, is the additional food consumption of these creatures proportional to their above average size. For purpose of the following calculations I shall use a sheep weight of 120 pounds [34], and (as calculated above) the average animal is allowed five pounds of food per day.

A Lion weighs roughly 3 times the weight of a sheep (360 lb) and elephants weigh as much as 142 sheep (17,000 lb). This means my above calculations allow for 15 lb per day per lion (Pro claimed 10-25 lb) and 710 lb per day per elephant (Pro claimed 200-600 lb). My calculations also provide one gallon of water per sheep per day, which allows for 142 gal of water per elephant per day (Pro claimed 50 gal). I decline to accept Pro’s generous offer to cut the estimated food consumption in half. Clearly, my calculations above are quite robust, and already account for the full estimated food consumption of these animals. It is also false that lions are obligate carnivores. Dr. David Catchpoole relates how, “Little Tyke continued to do extremely well on a daily diet of cooked grain, raw eggs and milk. By four years of age she was fully grown and weighed 352 pounds (160 kg).” [35]

Cherry-picking data is unacceptable when running calculations. It is quite dishonest to represent the population with the larger creatures like lions and elephants. Pro, has failed to counter my argument using proper statistical averages. My defense is also generous, since it assumes that the lions and elephants taken on the ark were fully mature.

  Weight Capacity of the Ark:Rather than appealing to some self-generated hack job calculation as Pro has chosen to do here, I will appeal to the experts. A long list of highly credentialed individuals did an in-depth study on this issue and published an article in the peer reviewed journal, Journal of Creation. The conclusion of this study was, “the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a reasonable-beam-draft ratio for the safety of the hull, crew and cargo in the high winds and waves imposed on it by the Genesis Flood.” [36] We can confidently conclude that the Ark was quite capable of safely carrying its cargo during Noah’s flood.

  Size of the ark: Considering that Pro relied on his prior rebuttal which I have comprehensively addressed above, I rely on the considerable weight of my prior evidence.

Is there enough water to cover the earth? Again, Pro misrepresented me here. Pro claimed that I assumed "the land was leveled." My actual claim was that "the land mass of that day was likely much lower than that of today." Pro’s objection here is entirely of his own fabrication and does not represent my claims.

Conclusion: If these are truly the best objections that can be raised against the Genesis flood, then the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence points toward the Genesis Flood. Considering that my opponent blatantly misrepresented my views more than once, it is quite ironic that he accused the creationist community of a ‘grossly breach [of the] 9th commandment’. Pro has also taken several of his sources out of context, and side-stepped the issue at several points. In general, evolutionists are quite willing to accept the idea of a global flood on Mars [37] and yet summarily dismiss the idea of a global flood on earth, which is the only planet proven to possess a water supply of any consequence. Quite clearly the evolutionary community is replete with unfounded bias.
  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S875632821201318X?via%3Dihub
  2. Nielsen-Marsh, C., Biomolecules in fossil remains: Multidisciplinary approach to endurance, The Biochemist, P 12–14, 2002.
  3. Andrew Snelling, “Excess Argon: The ‘Achilles’ Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks,” Impact, 1999.
  4. Steve Austin, ed., Grand Canyon Monument to Catastrophe. Santee, Institute for Creation Research, P 111-131, 1994.
  5. S.A. Austin, Do radioisotope clocks need repair? Testing the assumptions of isochron dating using K-Ar, Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd, and Pb-Pb isotopes, in Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, P 325–392, 2005.
  6. William D. Stanfield, PhD., The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, P 82-84, 1977.
  7. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dating-gets-reset/
  8. https://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend
  9. Baumgardner, J., 14C evidence for a recent global flood and a young earth; in ref. 6, ch. 8. 5th International Conference on Creationism, 2003.
  10. https://creation.com/geological-conflict
  11. http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/Carbon-14-Evidence-for-a-Recent-Global-Flood-and-a-Young-Earth.pdf
  12. https://creation.com/c14-dinos
  13. https://creation.com/warped-earth
  14. Snelling, Andrew. Earth’s Catastrophic Past: Geology, Creation & the Flood. Green Forest, Master Books, P 881-882, 2014.
  15. https://creation.com/lessons-from-mount-st-helens
  16. Ager, D.V., The New Catastrophism, Cambridge University Press, P 49, 1993.
  17. Morris, John. The Young Earth, Master Books, P 103. 2007.
  18. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
  19. https://answersingenesis.org/the-flood/how-could-fish-survive-the-genesis-flood/
  20. J. H. Whitmore, Experimental Fish Taphonomy with a Comparison to Fossil Fishes. Loma Linda University, 2003.
  21. https://creation.com/fast-fossils
  22. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/do-fossils-show-signs-of-rapid-burial/)
  23. Ham, Ken, and Hodge Bodie. A Flood of Evidence. Master Books, P 142, 2018.
  24. https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/how-are-fossils-formed/do-fossils-show-signs-of-rapid-burial/
  25. https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/a-creationist-perspective-of-beneficial-mutations-in-bacteria/
  26. https://creation.com/lactose-intolerance
  27. https://creation.com/has-aids-evolved
  28. https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/speciation
  29. Bergman, Jerry, “The century-and-a-half failure in the quest for the source of new genetic information.” The In-depth Journal of Creation 17.2 (2003): 24.
  30. https://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-4-argument-natural-selection-leads-to-speciation
  31. Green, Jay Translator. The Interlinear Bible: Hebrew-Greek-English. Hendrickson Publishers, p. 5-6.
  32. https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/it-was-the-most-astounding-thing-demystifying-the-largest-dinosaur-eggs-ever-discovered
  33. https://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark
  34. https://www.stopliveexports.org/images/documents/Resources/Reports/Livestock_Trucking_Guide.pdf
  35. https://creation.com/the-lion-that-wouldnt-eat-meat
  36. https://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway
  37. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081211112307.htm




Round 4
Published:
Thank you for this debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed it. In this round, I will crystallize my arguments and appeal to the voters as to why they should vote Pro.
 
I. Grammar and conduct
 
I think my opponent and I showed superb grammar and conduct throughout this debate. These points should be left as a tie.
 
II. Sources
 
In science debates, sources are absolutely critical. My opponent relies on Young Earth Creationists for the vast majority of their arguments. Sadly, these have shown to be woefully unreliable. First, let’s take a quick look at Answers in Genesis. In their Statement of Faith, AiG states “By 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.” This is how openly dishonest they are. They start with the conclusion and refuse to acknowledge any evidence to the contrary. In contrast, no scientific journal like Nature or Science forces their papers to conform to evolution or the scientific consensus. Indeed, Ken Ham even stated point-blank in his debate that no amount of evidence can change his mind. [2]
 
Second, let’s look at Creation Ministry International. Their statement says: “Facts are always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information. By definition, therefore, no interpretation of facts in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record.” [3] Again, this is not how science works.
 
Lastly, let’s look at Dr. Andrew Snelling. Dr. Snelling does have a real degree in geology, so that’s one plus for him. However, a meta review of his work shows how utterly dishonest he is. For example, in one paper, he cites the full geological timescale column with the consensus age and doesn’t even try to correct it. In fact, here’s a verbatim quote from this paper [4]:
 
“Geological setting. The Fish River area near the Queensland-Northern Territory border (Fig. 1) has geological similarities to the Alligator Rivers Province. The basement rocks in the region are Early Proterozoic Murphy Metamorphics, the Nicholson Granite multiphase complex, and coeval acid lavas and ignimbrites of the Cliffdale Volcanics (Fig. 2) (Swear et al., 1981). Unconformably overlying these are the Middle Proterozoic Peters Creek Volcanics and Fickling Group sediments (including the Fish River Formation and the Walford Dolomite). These units are in turn unconformably overlain by thick sequences of Late Proterozoic quartz sandstones and siltstones of the South Nicholson Group. In the Fish River area, the Constance Sandstone is the basal unit of this sequence and contains the lenticular WaUis Siltstone Member (Fig. 5). Flat-lying friable sandstones, conglomerates and minor shales (Mullamen Beds) of probable Cretaceous age occur as mesa and plateau cappings, and valley fill. The area includes the Westmoreland deposit (4,700 t U308)”
 
He's one of the lead authors on this paper so it’s not like he was just following along with his peers. Moreover, if he actually disagreed with their findings, why would he agree to have his name appear on the paper?
 
Dr. Ritchie makes further note of Dr. Snellings blatant dishonesty. He notes that these papers were written while he was working with Answers in Genesis, so it can’t be that he later changed his mind. He states: “These remarkably contradictory, and unexplained, claims by one of the very few Australian creation 'scientists' who has genuine scientific qualifications, calls into question whether anything said by this group on the subject can be taken seriously.” [5]
 
So, will the real Dr. Snelling please stand up?
 
With sources this blatantly dishonest, it’s no wonder that they would blatantly misrepresent scientific papers.
 
Sources go to pro.  
 
III. Arguments
 
A.  Drops
 
In my opening statement, I showed buildings other than the pyramid pre-date Noah’s Flood. Despite the fact that it was under its own heading (see contention 1 subheading D), my opponent never tries to rebut it. Moreover, I pointed out this drop in the previous round and he still didn’t try to answer it. At this point, it’s too late to try to rebut as it would be unfair to me.
 
The impact on this argument cannot be understated. The fact that we have historical buildings pre-dating the Flood shows that the Genesis Flood did not and could not have happened.
 
This alone would be enough of a reason to vote pro.
 
B. Constantly going outside the Biblical Text
 
The resolution says that the Flood, as described in Genesis, did not happen. Con has the burden to show that the Biblical text actually happened. Con constantly goes beyond what is written in order to make his calculations work. For example, I pointed out that the text clearly states that they were sexually mature. Con calls this a strange interpretation, however, I merely quoted the NIV translation. In fact, the ESV also makes the same translation.
 
Second, con makes the claim that Noah hired outside help. I pointed out that this is not in the Biblical text and he fails to respond. Thus, this is an issue that is dropped.
 
C. Dubious calculations
 
My opponent accuses me of cherry-picking data, but I do no such thing. I merely point out that Con’s attempt to use the sheep average doesn’t work. When we have a wide range in animal sizes, proper statistical evidence simply does not work. How did Noah fit 2 million pounds of water? Again, this is dropped. Additionally, how did Noah fit 75,600 pounds of food for just two species? Again, this shows why a statistical average does not work.
 
IV. Conclusion
 
There are plenty of reasons to vote Pro. The most damming reason is his drop on the historical monuments contention. 
 
 
V. Sources
1. https://answersingenesis.org/about/faith/
2. https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/bill-nye-wins-over-science-crowd-evolution-debate-n22836
3. https://creation.com/what-we-believe
4. Dickson, B.L.; Giblin, A.M.; Snelling, A.A. (1987). "The source of radium in anomalous accumulations near sandstone escarpments, Australia". Applied Geochemistry. 2 (4): 385–398.
5. https://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/realsnelling.htm


Published:
I would like to thank Pro for this debate. I too have greatly enjoyed it. I certainly hope we shall debate again. I would like to thank all voters who have taken the time out of their day to read this far. It seems a little review is in order. I will now dive into my closing remarks.

Reiteration, Radiometric Dating and the broken model for an old earth:

To be clear, I will remind voters that I have addressed Pro’s reference to other non Egyptian buildings traditionally considered to be older than the Genesis flood. As I stated in my initial rebuttal:
"Since Egyptian dating is relied upon heavily to date other archeological finds, civilizations dated prior to and during Egyptian civilization are also subject to drastic time line revision. Traditional dating of the ancient world remains gravely flawed, and, until proper revisions are made to reconcile blatant discrepancies, traditional dating of ancient archeology remains replete with inaccuracies. The traditionally established ancient time line simply lacks credibility."
Pro later appealed to radiometric dating as a valid dating methodology for dating these older artifacts. I investigated the credibility (or lack thereof) of using radiometric dating and found that:
"Carbon dating assumptions have been calibrated based off of dating artifacts of known age [7]. These calibrated assumptions can then be used to carbon date artifacts of similar age. Therefore, the assumptions used in carbon dating artifacts such as Biblical manuscripts are well founded in evidence. However, no reference point artifact is available to properly calibrate the assumptions used for dating older specimens like Otzi man; therefore, these sorts of dates lack credibility."
So indeed my argument against the dating system for pre-Egyptian era structures has already been made. In summary, the dating of such pre-Egyptian structures is based on arbitrary radiometric dating assumptions and a broken Egyptian timeline. Since Pro made no attempt to address the lack of credibility possessed by radiometric dating and Manetho’s history, he is the one guilty of dropping the argument.

Case Summary:

Grammar and Conduct: I believe good conduct and grammar was used by both parties. It is quite refreshing to have such a civil debate, and I, too, advise voters to leave both of these as a tie.

Sources:
Pro would have the voters think that the creationists have a monopoly on bias. Nothing could be further from the truth. All scientists have bias. Creationists are simply more honest about their biases than evolutionists. Behind the curtain of secular peer reviewed journals such as nature and science is an elaborate structure of censorship. Much frustration has arisen among even evolutionists in regards to the blatant bias exercised within their own evolutionary ranks. Sir Fred Hoyle said, “Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down” [1]. Halton Arp said of peer reviewed journals, “The referees themselves, with the aid of compliant editors, have turned what was originally a helpful system into a chaotic and mostly unprincipled form of censorship” [2].These are quotes from renowned evolutionary scientists who have experienced the unprecedented bias of the evolutionary community first hand. Even the evolutionary community recognizes and condemns the gross abuses of bias exercised among their own ranks. The core of science involves testing theories against observations to arrive at the most supportable explanation for observations. Indeed, evolutionary driven peer reviewed journals are cherry-picking the observations that conveniently fit their theory. All observations in contradiction with the evolutionary viewpoint are inconvenient and therefore summarily discarded by these peer reviewed magazines. Indeed, the peer review practices exercised by evolutionary publications are anti-scientific.  Clearly, bias permeates the very core of the evolutionary community and secular peer reviewed journals are not the holy grail of sources as claimed by Pro.

Regarding Pro’s attempt to smudge Dr. Andrew Snelling’s credibility, a quick review of Pro’s quotation from Dr. Snelling reveals that Dr. Snelling is simply using the common scientific terminology for rock layers. Nowhere in this quotation is an evolutionary viewpoint implied. Pro has also made an unsupportable attempt to lump the creationist movement into the confines of a couple organizations. Indeed these organizations host the findings of many creation scientists. When I cite these sources I am quoting the scientist’s work not the website. The website is merely a medium of publication and a brief review of my citations will reveal that there are numerous highly credentialed creation scientists backing my position with empirical science.

Taking sources out of context:
At many points Pro takes sources out of context, attempting to mislead the audience as to the true intent and scope of authority of the original source:
  1. Pro claimed that Dr. Monty White was advocating for a population doubling rate of 150 years. When read in context, Dr. White determined that evidence supports a more realistic population doubling rate of 40 years [3].
  2. In response to the irreconcilably high rate of left-handed amino acids found in Fig Tree Chert that is supposedly three billion years old, Pro referred to a certain type of polarized light that causes slight increases in the number of left handed amino acids. What Pro didn’t want the voters to realize is that this form of polarized light is only found in space, and, therefore, holds no relevance to the Fig Tree Chert in question.
  3. Pro also took my claims out of context on one occasion. In regards to the land height prior to the Genesis Flood, Pro claims that, “Con assumes the land was leveled.” After investigating the context of my argument it becomes quite clear that my actual claim was that, “The land mass of that day was likely much lower than that of today.”
Clearly Pro has no ethical qualms with taking great liberties with the context of his sources. This begs the question, how many more liberties did Pro take with sources that I missed?

I have used strong sources cited in the context of their intent. Therefore I urge voters to vote Con on sources.

Arguments:

Pro Side-Step:
Pro side-stepped issues numerous times. For example:
  1. Pro makes no effort to explain how soft tissue could have survived for 65 million years. Instead Pro side steps the issue by changing the subject in his appeal to the supposed reliability of radiometric dating. This provides no explanation for how soft tissue could survive for 65 million years.
  2. When I addressed the fatal flaws with Manetho’s History (the basis for traditional Egyptology) Pro made no effort to reconcile the discrepancies. Instead he once again appealed to radiometric dating.
  3. In both of the above cases Pro appealed to the great evolutionary deity of radiometric dating, and yet I have already very clearly demonstrated the massive discrepancies found in radiometric dating. Indeed, Pro continues to rely on radiometric dating even after dropping all attempts to defend radiometric dating as credible.
Side-stepping the argument is a subtle form of an argument drop. I have revealed to the voters Pro’s unsupportable faith in radiometric dating, and Pro has made no attempt to justify his faith in this broken system. Indeed in both cases Pro dropped the issue at hand and appealed to an unsupportable alternative argument.

Circular Reasoning:
It is interesting that Pro should choose to bring up a problem with his own model. To reiterate he quoted Dr Monty White in saying [4]:
"With such a population clearly possible (and probable) in just a few thousand years, we could actually ask the question, ‘If humans were around millions of years ago, why is the population so small?’ This is a question that evolution supporters must answer."
The population chart Pro supplied demonstrates the bizarre and unsupportable assumptions that the old earth model must make to try to justify their model. This chart clearly states at the bottom, “Based on estimates.” So where did the ludicrously low repopulation rate of 0.04% from 10,000 to 1,700 BCE come from? Pro failed to offer any credible justifying support for these assumptions. The assumptions used when creating these “estimates” were clearly based on the necessity for a ludicrously low repopulation rate for the sole purpose of forcing the old earth model to work. So what we have here is a classic case of circular reasoning. The repopulation rate is projected based on the assumption the earth is very old and the earth is very old because the repopulation rate was very small. This is not evidence. This simply demonstrates how bizarre things can get when a bias beyond all reason prevails.

Pro Reaffirms My Position:
Pro was kind enough to provide three beautiful examples of mutations that resulted in a net reduction in useful information. Pro claimed that nylon eating bacterium, the LP allele (a mutation allowing humans to digest milk into adulthood), and HIV all represent “new genetic traits”. After further investigation, we find that these are the sort of mutations that will eventually drive a species to extinction. As Dr. John C. Stanford explains [5]:
“Based upon numerous independent lines of evidence, we are forced to conclude that the problem of human genomic degeneration is real. While selection is essential for slowing down degeneration, no form of selection can actually halt it…. The extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the death of organisms, the extinction of stars, and the heat death of the universe.”
Pro has not even attempted to explain how animals could have survived for millions of years under the high rate of deleterious mutation retention as observed by empirical science. Quite to the contrary, Pro has even provided three examples that affirm my initial claim. This evidence alone completely undermines Pro’s old earth alternative to the Genesis flood. Indeed, this argument alone provides sufficient grounds for voting against Pro’s argument.

Dubious calculations:
Pro’s objections to the feasibility of the Ark as a medium of protection during the flood all turned out to be unsubstantiated. To reiterate the peer reviewed collaborative work of nine scientists, “the Ark as a drifting ship, is thus believed to have had a reasonable-beam-draft ratio for the safety of the hull, crew and cargo in the high winds and waves imposed on it by the Genesis Flood” [6]. This provides highly a credible calculation verifying that the ark was:
  1. Large enough to hold the animals and provisions
  2. Quite capable and even well suited to the sea voyage that was demanded of it
Since Pro’s case for questioning the mathematical integrity of the ark is based upon hack job calculations it does not hold a candle to this highly credible source. Indeed, this source reaffirms the integrity of my calculations and leaves Pro’s position unsupportable.

Clearly Pro has used deceptive tactics to draw attention away from the truth. I urge the voters to vote Con for arguments as well.

Closing:The fossils, strata, genetics, and biological chemistry all testify to a young earth shaped by catastrophe. Indeed, empirical science mirrors the expectations of the global flood model. After careful investigation into the mathematical feasibility of the Genesis Flood, a remarkable pattern emerges. This account is remarkably sound mathematically. The weight of the evidence is greater than simply showing that this ‘legend’ is tenable:
  1. The author of Genesis would not have possessed the required knowledge to fabricate such a mathematically sound account, but God would.
  2. The author would almost certainly miss significant points if he did attempt to write account possessing a high level of mathematical accuracy, but God wouldn’t.
  3. It is highly unlikely that the author would even care if his ‘legend’ was mathematically sound; however, a true account would effortlessly lend itself to this level of accuracy.
It is the job of scientists, historians, and all those who seek the truth to examine the evidence and find the account that best fits that evidence. The case for the Genesis Flood is quite robust; indeed, the evidence fits the model extraordinarily well. Therefore, the only logical conclusion is that the Genesis flood is a true historical event.

  1. Quoted in J. Horgan, “Profile: Fred Hoyle,” Scientific American 272, no. 3 (1995): 24–25.
  2. Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Montreal: Apeiron, 1999).
  3. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/
  4. https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-against-evolution/billions-of-people-in-thousands-of-years/
  5. Dr. Sanford, John, Genetic Entropy. FMS Publications, 2014, P 89.
  6. https://creation.com/safety-investigation-of-noahs-ark-in-a-seaway



Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I'm sorry. I don't mean to keep on taking down your votes when you clearly are trying. I'm sort of obligated to though.
#41
Added:
--> @blamonkey
Got it
#40
Added:
Additionally, the sources points need to be explained better.
None of the sources were analyzed individually and it was unexplained why Con failed to utilize his stats effectively.
************************************************************************
#39
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: DynamicSquid // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: [5 points to Pro]
>Reason for Decision: Cool debate. Good job both you of!
Pro -
I liked how your formatting was neat and organized, and your contentions were very well laid out. You also laid out many facts and sources to back up your claims.
However, I would of liked to see some more direct clash with what Con said.
Also for Pro, dropping Con's case for a "young earth" damaged your text in a way. You should of disproved the flood in a young earth, and disproved the flood in an old earth (4.5 billion years old). Don't be afraid the challenge Con's definitions.
Con -
"everything can come from nothing [..] origin of the universe is quite a supernatural event"
We can't simply say god is the answer, but Pro doesn't refute this well enough, allowing Con to shape this round.
"no tenable explanation for this extraordinary phenomenon"
This has actually been proven. Also, I want a pet T-Rex!
Con also provides facts about how the Ark is feasible, however I find that Pro refutes this well enough.
Con also used sources, however very few of which actually add value to the debate.
Both -
This topic is hard. Mainly because it deals with lots of extra side topics like the existence of god. However, arguing for the existence of god would be off-topic, so I know how this could be a gray area. Here's my advice.
Instead of accepting {A} as true and basing all your arguments off {A}, you should instead present arguments if {A} were to be true, and arguments if {A} were to be false, therefore covering all scenarios.
End.
>Reason for Mod Action: Per the Voting Guidelines, the voter must survey and weigh both arguments and counter-arguments. While some arguments were surveyed adequately, others were not. For example:
"Pro doesn't refute this well enough..." Why does Pro not refute the argument well enough?
#38
Added:
--> @Ragnar
I agree. The subject really can't be done justice in a single debate.
Contender
#37
Added:
--> @Virtuoso, @Lazarous
I have not forgotten this debate, I've just had a couple unexpectedly very long days...
One immediate bit of feedback I'll give, is that a debate like this might be better served separated into a series of smaller debates for the directly connected sub-topics.
#36
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Sure, no problem!
So I felt like both sides used sources that directly supported a statement, rather than an idea. I feel like this is unnecessary and leads to overuse of sources (Trent xD). If something takes like 5 seconds to google, then a source doesn't need to be provided.
However, Pro's sources were arguments themselves, while Con had to manually tie its sources back to the topic. In this case, Pro used sources more efficiently and effectively.
In addition, upon further investigation of Con's sources, the websites were very biased, and based their information off little to no scientific evidence at all.
So that's why I feel like Pro won the sources.
#35
Added:
--> @Ragnar
Sure, no problem. Give me a sec
#34
Added:
--> @DynamicSquid
I haven't had coffee yet, but your vote looks like it is short on a justification for sources. You may want to amend that on.
To award sources points, the voter must:
(1) explain how the debaters' sources impacted the debate,
(2) directly assess the strength/utility of at least one source in particular cited in the debate, and
(3) explain how and why one debater's use of sources overall were notably superior to the other's.
#33
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
As someone whose already made it deeper into this debate than I, what is your opinion of cited the MtDNA genetic damage?
#32
Added:
At long last, I'm through the first half of this debate...
#31
Added:
--> @Virtuoso
I hold the flood to be a local flood.
#30
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: GeneralGrant // Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to Pro
>Reason for Decision: "I like how Con left Pro without being able to defend the problems with dating methods showing different time results. When Pro couldn't answer about different result in dating methods they stooped to criticizing sources."
>Reason for Mod Action: To award argument points, the voter must do the following things according to the Voting Policy:
1. Survey the main arguments and counterarguments presented in the debate
2. Weigh those arguments against each other (or explain why certain arguments need not be weighed based on what transpired within the debate itself)
3. Explain how, through the process of weighing, they arrived at their voting decision with regard to assigning argument points
While the voter mentioned individual arguments, he never weighed them to explain how they arrived at their voting decision. Additionally, he never explained why other arguments need not be weighed. Therefore, pursuant to the guidelines, this vote must be removed.
************************************************************************
#29
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
Quality is what gets votes removed, not which side was voted for.
#28
Added:
--> @GeneralGrant
Just mentioned each side's main arguments and why you believe one side's were more convincing.
#27
No votes yet