Literal belief in the flood story

[orangebox21]

I was with your post until here. How can you scientifically demonstrate that 4000 years ago, the thoughts of mankind were not exceedingly wicked?

Can you scientifically demonstrate there was a flood, and that you understand why reversal of the burden of proof is not proof nor valid?

The burden of proof lies with the original claim. Shifting the burden of proof (a fallacy) is requiring the contrary view point to be proven in order to prove the original claim false. In our conversation, the original claim is that God killed innocent children. Any and everyone making the claim bears the burden of proof. Asking me to prove that He didn't (kill innocent children) is asking me to prove the contrary and would be shifting the burden of proof to me, and would thus be fallacious. I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary.

The quote above is that science can prove the original claim. I'm asking for clarification on that assertion. This is not shifting the burden of proof as it is evidence for the initial claim and thus bears the burden of proof.

My scientifically proving the flood would actually shift the burden of proof to me. The op claimed the flood for the sake of the discussion.

Is "Okay, maybe God drowned every baby on earth, and every other man, woman and child, but they were all really bad anyway, except the 900 year old drunk and company" really a compelling argument to you?

Shifting the burden of proof to me again? Is a man who is on record as getting drunk once a drunkard, is being drunk once exceedingly wicked? Outside of Christ there is no one who can fullfill the requirements of the law. This is recorded throughout all the men of great faith. All men sin, all the men of the bible, everyone who has ever lived, including me and including you. What happens next is of greater importance. Will you repent of your sin and place your faith and trust in Christ, or will you continue to live your life of unbelief and sin?

True. A couple options:
God orchestrated the timing of the flood in such a way that there was no person before the age of accountability at the time. None existed so as to drown.

While possible in the strictest sense of the word, it's doubtful. With more and more generations, they would start to all blend together, making there be children continuously. Case in point: my dad is a child from the oldest of seven children. He has a cousin who is the youngest of the youngest of those seven children. That kid (my dad's generation) is only five years older than me. My cousin is actually older than him, despite being a generation behind. So, for several generations, there was at least one person below the age of accountability just in my family alone.

Your initial claim involves so called 'magic'. To initially claim 'magic' as a possibility then reject any concievable possibility is inconsistant.

The other problem with this is basically, God decides they're so bad that he needs to kill them all that he... waits for years until somehow all the generations are space out just so.

On one side of the coin if you read the judgments in the OT you'll notice that God often waits until the "fullness of sin" or for "sin to be complete." In other words He waits for the crimes to be great enough to warrant the punishment. On the other side of the coin it is written, "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." God is patient, not wanting any to perish. Noah was a preacher of righteousness for about 100 years as he called people to righteousness and told them how to escape the coming judgment. Mankind was forewarned then as they are now. No one listened then, who will listen today?

Oh, and there's no biblical support for it either. You're just making it up to try and make it so God didn't kill any children.

While I am under no logical obligation to prove the contrary (burden of proof) and I wouldn't need Biblical support to show that you're using an either-or fallacy, only an example of a third option, I don't mind providing a defense. Actually there is Biblical support for there being no one younger than the age of accountability. The only families named in the account at the time of the flood were Noah and his wife, Noah's three sons and their wives. So there are four married couples, and (after Noah and his wife had the three sons) there was not one child among them their entire married lives (pre-flood about 100 years). 100% of the named families had zero children for at least 100 years. While this is not conclusive proof that no other families had children it is the Biblical support for my claim you have asked for.