...Some sources are so consistently full of it that pointing this out reasonably constitutes a refutation for all practical purposes. If something is bullshit 99.9% of the time, it may not be worth investigating... - RationalWiki's page on the Genetic Fallacy.
Due to the fact that the blog known as "Frum Heretic" spewed (as it has fortunately not been updated in several years to my knowledge) so much misninformation and fallacious arguments I hereby establish this page as the "Frum" Heretic Debunking Zone. Unforunately most of his arguments aren't even PRATTs so they require individual debunks... Or do they (see above quote)?
Despite the fact that the tale of Aqhat came about a century after the Torah (about 1350 BCE; it may even be younger/older, because our dating methods aren't very precise), he says that it's possible that the tale of Torah copied from the tale of Aqhat. If I make a song, and a century later someone else releases the same song on their own album, who is the copyright-infringer (supposing it's not in the public domain)?
I won't really investigate that one much but one of the first things he says is that the first mentioning of the miracle of oil is in the Talmud. He says that because the Talmud is very recent compared to the time that Chanuka celebrates, that is one reason to deny that miracle. The Talmud is a collection of oral history, much of which given directly by G-d (not the Chanuka story, however). The methods of transmitting that tradition is pretty airtight, so the fact that it is in the Talmud is more evidence of it occuring.
We don't know that the flood didn't happen, and we know that it did, because the Torah says it did. When corrected on this, he calls the correction "lamo". He will never correct his errors. Anyway, he also uses the Argument from Incredulity fallacy to dismiss the possibility, assuming falsely that the flood didn't happen, of the flood being a false story with a theological message.
I already debunked it, but on RationalWiki. You can read it here.