The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

A Worldwide Flood Most Likely Did Not Happen on Earth

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/31/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,437 times Debate No: 31916
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)




My opponent will take the position that a worldwide deluge actually happened. Worldwide will be taken to mean throughout the entire earth, covering every square inch of land. Also just to clarify for a more creative crowd- I mean within the last ten thousand years, and I mean a flood of water. And let's assume water covered the earth for at least a month consecutively.

Please use points 1, 2, 3 and so on to make it easier. Please use sources other than the bible or other religious text) to back up the theory, including recognized science, especially peer reviewed papers.

I'll take the BOP for proving it's more likely than not that it didn't happen, unless Con would rather have it.

I'd be OK with con going first, but since I accepted the BOP, it'd be fine to just have me do it.



I. Plate Tectonics

Plate tectonics is one of the best evidence for a global flood. More rigidly, it is known as catastrophic plate tectonics. In this debate, I will use a well recognized PT modelling program known as TERRA. [1] It has been clearly shown on more than one occasion that continental drift, mountain formation, such as that of everest, and ocean valleys are caused/begun by CPT. In fact, catastrophic beginnings of continental subductions have been used as explanations in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters [2].

However, I must needs explain myself. In [3], Baumgardner has provided quite a technical explanation, which I will quote somewhat. (For verification, see citations in [3], I will not cite those.)

Silicate minerals make up approximately 90% of the earth’s crust. [4] All silicate minerals contain Si or O.

“Experimental studies of the deformational behavior of silicate minerals over the last several decades have revealed the strength of such materials not only depends strongly on the temperature but also on the deformation rate. ..
In this type of solid deformation, material strength depends on the deformation rate in a strongly nonlinear manner, proportional to the deformation rate to approximately the minus two-thirds power. At somewhat higher levels of shear stress, these materials display another type of deformational behavior known as plastic yield, where their strength decreases in an even more nonlinear way, in this case, inversely with the deformation rate... When these deformation-rate-weakening mechanisms are combined with the temperature weakening discussed above, the potential for slab runaway from gravitational body forces is enhanced dramatically...these weakening mechanisms can reduce the silicate strength by ten or more orders of magnitude without the material ever reaching its melting temperature(Emphasis original)

This is the basic background to the issue, without which we would never understand the issue fully. It can be found anywhere.

Runaway subduction[5] is the theory that (and I will quote from TalkOrigins): “Baumgardner's computer model shows that runaway subduction explains how the global flood occurred. The cold, heavy crust of the ocean floor sinks into the lighter, hotter mantle, releasing gravitational potential energy as heat. Runaway subduction posits that this process greatly accelerated: "As the plates deform the surrounding rock, the mechanical energy of deformation is converted into heat, creating a superheated 'envelope' of silicate around the sinking ocean floor... As the plates pull apart, the gap between them grows into a broadening seam in the planet. This sends a gigantic bubble of mantle shooting up through these ridges; [w]hich displaces the oceans; [w]hich creates a huge flood" (Burr 1997, 57). God "caused an enormous blob of hot mantle material to come rushing up at incredible velocity through the underwater midocean ridges. The material ballooned, displacing a tidal wave of sea water over the continents. . . . Then, after 150 days (Genesis 7:24), the bubble retreated with equal speed into the Earth" (Burr 1997, 56).”[6]

Now, for the final portions, I will quote [3] again, “supersonic steam jets were almost a certainty along the spreading boundary between diverging ocean plates during the runaway phase of the catastrophe...jet velocities exceeding the Earth’s escape velocity might be possible...the energy per kilogram of steam escaping to space is sufficient to accomplish the bulk of the lithospheric cooling while the plates are moving apart and do so without depleting the oceans of all their water. At a velocity of 14 km/s, for example, 1 kg of steam has about 108 J of kinetic energy. Removal of this amount of heat is enough to cool 140 kg of rock by 1000 K, for a representative specific heat of 710 J/kg-K. On the order of 1000-1500 m of water would then be needed to cool the present ocean lithosphere to its current state. Although this is a lot of seawater, it is not... beyond...comprehension.

...seawater is converted to supercritical steam as the water penetrates downward through the fractured and porous newly formed sea floor, and then emerges almost explosively at the throat of the jet... heating of the bulk ocean is...modest. Moreover, the seawater entrained in liquid form at the ocean-jet interface and lofted in widely dispersive trajectories provides a potent source of heavy rain so long as the jets are active...With this entrainment mechanism... the water that falls as rain is not required to condense from the vapor state”

It is clear from this that plate tectonics support a global flood. This has been modelled via TERRA, a scientific modelling program, and it passes all physical tests. So we see that there is indeed enough water, because Everest was not around yet. We also see that it is not impossible for a flood to have happened. Combined with the following, there is strong evidence for it.

II. Fossil conditions

Fossils are frequently, almost consistently, found in flooding conditions [7]. Note that it is not merely bottom of the water kind of sediment. Such sediment are generally undisturbed. Flooding sediment, however, shows that the sediments are much swirled and “muddied” when the animal has died and it allows the creature to be buried quickly. This is consistent with a global flood, but not with a meteor impact.

What is far more fascinating is the fact that most, if not all, of these fossils demonstrate another aspect of being in flooding conditions. They all suffer from torn ligaments and broken bones [8]. Fast currents, with lots of sediment and “swirling,” consistent with a global flood, must have had to occur. Local floods are just too small for fossils in such conditions to be strewn throughout the world.

III. Strata

“Sedimentation experiments have been conducted in still water with a continuous supply of heterogranular material. A deposit is obtained, giving the illusion of successive beds or laminae. These laminae are the result of a spontaneous, periodic and continuous grading process, which takes place immediately, following the deposition of the heterogranular mixture.

The thickness of the laminae appears to be independent of the speed of sedimentation but increases with extreme differences in the size of the particles in the mixture. Where a horizontal current is involved, thin laminated superposed layers developing laterally in the direction of the current, are observed.”[9] (Emphasis original)

From this we can see clearly that laminae is not the product of eons of slow sedimentation, but rather fast to very fast water laying down sediments, consistent with a global flood.

1. TERRA is the doctoral thesis of J.R. Baumgardner. See: (It is not well updated, though.)
9. (The English translation of a paper presented to the French Academy of Sciences in Paris)
Debate Round No. 1


RedCoyote forfeited this round.


Anti-atheist forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


RedCoyote forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
Lol, source?
Posted by Anti-atheist 3 years ago
Shut up 16k. Muted took that from me i wrote it first and published it in creation magazine
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago

Plagiarism pro wins.
Posted by 16kadams 3 years ago
Massive Regional floods happened in the Middle East area.
Posted by brian_eggleston 3 years ago
I'd like to accept this one and argue on the basis that a worldwide flood definitely did not happen on earth in the last ten thousand years. That would be an easy win.
Posted by Nimbus328 3 years ago
I would argue that the earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago, and would debate that there was water covering 100% of the surface of the planet between now and then.
Posted by Pennington 3 years ago
Make it 4 rounds and drop the 1 month stipulation.
Posted by RedCoyote 3 years ago
Ugh my first post was a bit of a mess. Thanks for helping me sort it out guys.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Pro, I think I agree with what you intend, but you should clean up your motion, as Philo indicated. A worldwide flood is trivially POSSIBLE (Imagine aliens with the ability to teleport water or, if you don't like the idea of teleportation, the ability to transport large volumes of water via vacuum and ship).
Posted by philochristos 3 years ago
If I were you, I'd try to make this debate more tidy. Your resolution says "A worldwide flood is impossible," but then in the first round you say you want your opponent to say, "the Worldwide deluge theory shown in thebible is possible." But those are two different resolutions. When you say "shown in the Bible," are you talking merely about a worldwide flood, or are you talking about all the details in the Biblical story? For example, do they have to show that all those animals could fit on an ark in addition to showing that it's possible for there to be a worldwide flood? I would try to make the resolution more simply and explicit if I were you. Also, it's not clear in the first round whether you are placing all of the burden of proof on your opponent to show that a worldwide flood is possible or whether you are also accepting the burden of proving that a worldwide flood is NOT possible.

I know I'm being nit-picky, you don't want to get somebody to accept only to discover that they had the wrong idea about what their burden actually was in this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.