Literal belief in the flood story

[Esquilax]

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.

You've been provided that proof: it's a biological fact that babies aren't self aware until at least fifteen months of age. Given that, until that time, there is no sentient actor through which acts or thoughts could make a person guilty, then it is a simple fact that any child prior to self awareness cannot be guilty of anything, being that there's no being to be guilty. Therefore, they must be innocent.

And given that your only evidence that they were guilty (which, by the way, is itself a positive claim that must be proved) is "bible sez," then that's really the end of the conversation, until you can gin up something a little stronger than the word of a book that is demonstrably not infallible.