The Instigator
Imagination
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Could the story of Noah's Ark as written in the Bible have literally occurred?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Imagination
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,263 times Debate No: 28771
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (1)

 

Imagination

Con



TOPIC
: Could the story of Noah's Ark as written in the Bible have literally occurred?

CON: I will be arguing that it is not scientifically possible for the story of Noah's Ark, as written in the Bible, to have occurred, using a literal reading.

PRO: My opponent will be expected to prove scientifically that the story of Noah's Ark, as taken literally from the Bible, could have occurred.

_____________________________________

These are the terms of conduct expected in this debate. If you do not wish to and/or do not intend to follow them please refrain from participating. Thank you.

EVIDENCE: Opinions based on faith ("It's true because I think/believe it is") will not be accepted. Both sides are expected to provide valid scientific evidence supporting their hypotheses while legitimately responding to the other party's evidence, and furthermore, if they disagree, to produce evidence supporting their counter-argument as well.

SCOPE: Religion and the literal interpretation of the Bible are huge topics. By participating in this debate both parties agree to make an effort not to extend arguments outside of the debate topic. Arguments that do so need not be responded to in order to save time and space and keep the debate relevant. In the same vein, please let us not resort to semantics; as we are discussing the *literal* interpretation, figurative meanings, or indeed any that depart from the literal definition of the word when the Bible was written, are not relevant to the topic.

SOURCES: Unless you want your source ridiculed, and in an effort to keep the debate fair, please choose valid sources of information/evidence that both parties have access to. Sites such as Wikipedia that anyone can edit, and personal, subjective remarks made by bloggers / YouTube celebrities, etc., do not meet these criteria unless they draw evidence from sources that do. For Bible quotes please provide a http://www.biblegateway.com... link. We will be using the New International Version Bible for the most up-to-date translations.

COURTEOUS: Avoid swearing/name-calling please. Let's keep this mature.

_____________________________________

The debate is designed to follow this structure~

| ROUND I |
- State POV (Pro/Con)
- Agree to terms of conduct specified in this post
- Provide summary of general arguments
- Provide evidence for general arguments
- DO NOT yet respond to opponent's arguments

| ROUND II |
- Respond to general arguments of opposing party
- Provide evidence for counter-arguments

| ROUND III |
- Respond to & make arguments
- Provide evidence
- Free to provide fresh arguments

| ROUND IV |
- Respond to & make arguments
- Provide evidence
- Free to provide fresh arguments
- After this round, no new arguments accepted, so start wrapping it up"

| ROUND V |
- NO NEW arguments accepted
- Respond to any argument that has not previously been mutually recognized as proven to be true/false
- Don't bring back a counter-argument that both sides agree has been previously disproven
- Make closing argument / final statement
- Provide evidence
- This is the structure of the final round should a previous round be designated as such due to an unforeseen brevity in the debate.

_____________________________________

{ POINT OF VIEW }

As Con/No to the topic: "Could the story of Noah's Ark as written in the Bible have literally occurred?" I will be arguing that it is not scientifically possible for the story of Noah's Ark, as written in the Bible, to have occurred, using a literal reading. I agree to follow the terms specified in this post.


{ ARGUMENT I - SPACE & GRAVITY }


Genesis 6:15 -- [1]
"The ark is to be three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high."

According to the most up-to-date scientific analysis, that would make Noah's Ark ~450 ft long, ~75 ft wide and ~45 ft high. The current estimate of Earth's species is ~8.7 million [2].

Genesis 6:20 -- [3]
"Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

Even assuming the *lowest* estimated figure is correct (7.4 million), that would mean *at least* 14.8 million animals are expected to fit in a 450x75x45 ft space.

Genesis 6:14 -- [4]
"So make yourself an ark of cypress wood [...]"

The NIV Bible does allow that the definition of "cypress" is uncertain. Still, I challenge my opponent to please explain to me how an ark of such a size is capable of holding all species on Earth in regards to space, and how it would manage to stay afloat under all the weight. Even with the majority of the largest animal kingdoms consisting of individuals that are comparatively very small (especially insects), with vertebrates comprising 3% of all known species, that leaves 444,000 amphibian, bird, ray-finned fish, and especially reptile and mammal species that can reach enormous sizes.

Let's take an example of just 3/14800000 of these species. The minimum length of two blue whales is 140ft [5]. The minimum length of two humpback whales is 98 ft [6], and that of two gray whales is 80 ft [7]. Then the weight! The average mass of 2 blue whales, according to the smallest figures, would be 200 tons; of 2 humpback whales, 70 tons; and of 2 gray whales, 60 tons (see previous sources).

So not only must this ark of Noah's still be floating after shouldering hundreds if not thousands of times ~330 tons, but even when ignoring the impossibility of fitting in the whales horizontally or diagonally, if only less than 0.0000002027% of the animals on the ark take up over 0.02094% of the available space, and there are 887,994 more individual *vertebrates alone* (remember, that's just 3% of the world species estimate) on board, please explain how:

1) this ark can stay afloat
2) this ark is large enough to hold so many animals


When responding, please keep in mind the additional weight of supplies needed to SUSTAIN these animals! Which brings me to...


{ ARGUMENT II - SUPPLIES }


Genesis 6:21 -- [8]
"You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them."

That inherently means that ALL of the species among the 14800000 individuals on the ark that require the meat of other animals to survive had to have the weight of that much meat stored on the ark with them.

Genesis 7:24 -- [9]
"The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days."

Let's take an apex predator as an example. The African lion needs to eat an average of 5 kg of meat a day. For 150 days, a pair of ONE of the 7.4 million species on the ark alone will need 1,500 kg of meat to sustain them. That's 2.5 times their minimum weight [10]. Thus, in addition to the inherent weight of all the species, there is the added weight of sufficient meat and plant nourishment to last 150 days!

These are just two of my arguments. I look forward to an educated opposing perspective.

_____________________________________

[1] -- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[2] -- http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[3] -- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[4] -- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[5] -- http://www.marinemammalcenter.org...
[6] -- http://www.marinemammalcenter.org...
[7] -- http://animals.nationalgeographic.com...
[8] -- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[9] -- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[10] -- http://www.africaguide.com...

____________________________________

EDIT: There were several typing errors.
Marauder

Pro


I accept the terms of the debate. I will be posting 1 youtube video that gives a thorough explanation of the Hypothesis I support and believe lines up with a literal interpretation of the story of Noah in the bible. Now while I do believe it matches your criteria of a ‘youtube celebrity’ but on the video ‘sources are provided’ so I could use it as that, I’m not. https://www.youtube.com...


This Video is given just as a reference, as there is more to ‘literal’ interpretation than some people know and I don’t care to waist character space explaining it all myself. For example most don’t know a comet hitting earth is part of the YEC literal interpretation of events. Not because a comet is spoken of in the bible but its just a necessary catalyst to ‘break’ on of the things that is.


For the record I do not expect or want you to respond to all arguments made in the video, just the ones I use personally myself in this debate.


Anyway I will be arguing PRO to this resolution, and I would be ashamed of myself if I just gave a ‘I have Faith’ answer when there is so much ample evidence out there for my side. I will abide by your rules as you request and ignore your opening arguments until next round.


Evidence for the firmament:


A literal interpretation of the Genisis involves recognizing the existence of something as part of the global environment that is no longer there today. The Earth was said to rest on the ‘waters below’ and underneath ‘the waters above’. Gen 1:6-10 The Waters above I shall hearby refer to as ‘the firmament’ and waters below as ‘the fountains of the deep’. Before man sinned, God had ‘the fountains of the deep’ water the ground to make all the plants grow, sprouting out like a built in sprinkler system. Gen 2: 5-6


Most of us YEC interpret the ‘firmament’ to be an Ice Dome that covered all the earth kind of like a snowglobe. I argue the evidence for this structure in nature can be seen in 2 sources.


1) Such a Ice Dome would have increased the air pressure of the earth by a lot. Thanks to fossils like the amber encased mosquito with tiny air pockets in it, we know the earths air was purer and saturated with oxygen. http://blog.everythingdinosaur.co.uk...


http://minerals.cr.usgs.gov...


2) The affect this would have had on people living on earth at the time is they would have lived longer and probably grown bigger. Evidence points to just such a thing may have occurred for early mankind in various 12 foot fossils found around the earth, and the existence of our ‘wisdom teeth’ that show our bodies used to be large enough to handle more teeth in our head. http://www.biblebelievers.org.au... http://www.bedsorefaq.com...



Geographical evidence:


This all affects how we look at the flood when we read the literal interpretation of how it occurred, when ‘the fountains of the deep’ burst forth and rain came from the waters above, and below. From such a geological catastrophic event, its conceivable that it would have created to mountains to be as tall as they are (more in depth explanation on video). While that may sound far fetched being against everything we have been taught in schools the actual geological evidence shows something like this happed.


1) Mount Everest, the tallest mountain in the world, at the highest of elevations, has been discovered to contain petrified sea shells at its PEAK! This means that mountain had to have been shorter at one time, and during the flood when there was so much tectonic plate activity with the fountains of the deep bursting out, the mountain started to form as high as it is now, water from the sea that covers its top now froze with the sea shells in it, starting the petrifying process. http://www.learner.org...



So as to not overwhelm my opponent as he has respectfully chosen to not overwhelm me with a large number of different arguments to have to address at once, I will respectfully return the courtesy and not give some of my many other arguments until round 3. Thus shall give you the character space one would ideally want to devote to just a few arguments as you have given me.


I await my opponents response.


Debate Round No. 1
Imagination

Con

_____________________________________

Thank you Pro for accepting the terms and making succinct arguments.

"I will be posting 1 youtube video that gives a thorough explanation of the Hypothesis I support and believe lines up with a literal interpretation of the story of Noah in the bible. […] I do not expect or want you to respond to all arguments made in the video, just the ones I use personally myself in this debate."

As Pro's statements may build on fundamental concepts outlined in the video, I cannot totally avoid all statements found in the source. Because the video is nearly 2 hours long, I ask that, should a statement made in the video be quoted, a timestamp be provided.


{ ARGUMENT II cont. - SUPPLIES }

Due to character limit I won't make new arguments, but I'd like to add to my Argument II. IN ADDITION to all the food and plants on board, the ark also had to shoulder the water needed to sustain 14800000 individuals for 150 days – drinking the salt water around the ark would have killed them. For just Noah, his wife, his three sons and their three wives (6:18), the ark had to hold 1200 gallons of water, which weighs ~4542.5 kg. That's a little over 5 TONS. The RMS Titanic, nearly twice as large as Noah's purported ark, could not carry more than 7380 tons. So, adding the three whale species from Argument I (+330 tons), 12/14800000 individuals on the ark take up over 4.5% of nearly twice its weight capacity – not even counting the weight of half of them and food for them all??



{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT I - THE FIRMAMENT }

The Earth was said to rest on the ‘waters below’ and underneath ‘the waters above’. Gen 1:6-10 The Waters above I shall hearby refer to as ‘the firmament’ and waters below as ‘the fountains of the deep’.

I was unable to find the term "waters below" or "waters above" in that context, or indeed in Genesis, anywhere in our NIV Bible source (see source terms). I ask my opponent to provide a link to mentioned material before conceding the point: "The Earth was said to rest on the 'waters below' and underneath 'the waters above'."

Before man sinned, God had ‘the fountains of the deep’ water the ground to make all the plants grow, sprouting out like a built in sprinkler system. Gen 2: 5-6

I went to check up on this, and strangely enough, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. Genesis I appears clearly to state that the growing of the first plants was voice-activated, while the Genesis II quoted by Pro has the sprinklers theory…

Genesis 1: 1-12 -- [11]
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. […] God said, "Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water." God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. God called the vault "sky". […] God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land", and the gathered waters he called "seas". […] God said, "Let the land produce vegetation […]." And it was so. The land produced vegetation […].

Genesis 2: 4-6 -- [12]
This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, when the Lord God made the earth and the heavens. Now no shrub had yet appeared on the earth and no plant had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no one to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.

This isn't the first time the text, when taken literally, more or less contradicts itself. In Gen. I for instance, God makes living creatures on land, in the sky and in the waters (1: 20-25), and THEN makes man (1:26). In Gen II however, God makes Adam first (2:7) and animals AFTERwards (2: 18-20).

In essence, my argument here is that different parts of the Bible are incompatible with each other, undermining the Fundamentalist view. Using Genesis I, I could argue that the plants growing in response to the sprinklers was voice-activated. Before bothering to rebut arguments about the sprinkler system having been scientifically possible, I ask Pro to prove that plants can receive oral messages from God.

Most of us YEC interpret the ‘firmament’ to be an Ice Dome that covered all the earth kind of like a snowglobe.


Again, before bothering to argue about an Ice Dome, I stick to a LITERAL definition of terms in the Bible, which is somewhat of an obstacle in this case because the term "firmament" can't be found in my copy of the Bible. The reason I used the New International Version for this debate (see source terms) is to ensure both parties had access to the most up-to-date translations. The King James Bible was written in 1611, back when people still thought that witches poison wells and bathing / eating vegetables was bad for your health. Personally I fail to trust the Hebrew translation skills of the King's court scholars, who in any case had ample incentive to shape God's words to suit the expectations and customs of their time. Until Pro can indicate a NIV Bible quote that implicates an Ice Dome I exempt it from further discussion.



{ COUNTER-
ARGUMENT II - GEOGRAPHY }

This affects how we look at the flood when we read the literal interpretation of how it occurred, when ‘the fountains of the deep’ burst forth and rain came from the waters above, and below. From such a geological catastrophic event, its conceivable that it would have created to mountains to be as tall as they are (more in depth explanation on video). While that may sound far fetched being against everything we have been taught in schools the actual geological evidence shows something like this happed.

I really wanted a more in-depth explanation of how rain makes mountains more efficiently than the collision of tectonic plates [13] proposed by the heathen "evolutionists". At the same time, I was uncompelled to listen to a 2-hour lecture, especially one that frustrates me at every turn with subjective statements unsupported by valid scientific research. I ended up taking the quickest reference to mountain-making that I could find, at around 20 minutes, where the guy in the baby blue shirt said fountains exploded from the earth around 4,000 ya, causing the crust at the seams to … make mountains.

If Pro would be so kind as to answer the large profusion of questions (cut short by character limit) I have about this process, I look forward to a more lucid debate about the validity of its scientific implications.

1. What mountain range/s are proof of the Great Flood?
Do we have the Great Flood to thank for all mountains, or just some? If so, which ones?

2. Where were the mountains a la fountains located in relation to the eruption/s?
I find it as hard to see how an aqueous eruption along the "seams" of a tectonic plate would make mountains hundreds of miles inland as it is hard for me to believe such fountains would create mountains in the location of the eruption itself.

Finally, at 19:00 your "valid" video source says:

"[The fountains erupted] with an energy release exceeding the explosion of ten billion hydrogen bombs."

This is unfathomably ludicrous. EXCEEDING 10 billion times 10 million tons of TNT?! An international panel of 41 expert scientists hypothesized that an asteroid hit the Earth and exploded releasing 1 billion times 20,000 tons of TNT – causing over 99% of Earths's species to GO EXTINCT. [14] The kind of energy hypothesized in the video would have made ALL life go extinct and likely as not blown up the planet! [15] Man in Baby Blue Shirt is no longer a valid source until Pro can prove otherwise.


_____________________________________

[11] -- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[12] -- http://www.biblegateway.com...
[13] -- http://www.platetectonics.com...
[14] -- http://www.sciencedaily.com...
[15] -- http://clarionfoundation.wordpress.com...
____________________________________
Marauder

Pro


I don’t intend to quote directly from the video, just argue based off of the comprehensive theory that is shown in it, but if I do find a need to quote directly out of it I will do as I should and as you ask and give a time index of the quoted material.


Space and Gravity:


The main problem with your argument from this point is your numbers are wrong.


And anyone reading the debate I think can see what made your numbers wrong. You are incorrectly putting animals on that boat that would not be on that boat. And I can make this point summed up in 3 words….


Whales can swim.


If you will turn in your NIV translation of the bible to Genesis 6:20 you’ll see the precedent for excluding all the fish and marine life from the boat.


“Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive” http://www.biblegateway.com...


The bible described 3 categories of life, categories which are fairly close to our own classifications of the animal kingdom. ‘every kind of bird’ is all the bird kingdom, ‘every kind of animal’ is the mammal kingdom, and ‘every creature that moves on the ground’ would Reptiles, Amphibians, and Insect Kingdom.


Now if you think I am conveniently leaving marine life out of any of those categories, you can check Genesis 1: 26, God defined all the life on earth in the separate categories as Birds, Fish, Animals, and ‘creatures that move along the ground’.


Math with some more accurate numbers:


As you showed the bible says, the ark was 450 feet long by 75 feet wide by 45 feet high, this would give it a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. A modern railroad box car is about 2,669 cubic feet, so to put this in perspective Noah’s Ark would have the same space available in it as 569 railroad boxcars.


Now, the average animal on earth is smaller than a cat, but just to be safe to account for some the exceptionally weighty species that wreck the curb average of most animals, I argue treating the average animal as big as a sheep. The average double deck stock car holds 240 sheep. The Ark capacity would be about 569 x 240 equaling 136,560 animals of that size. However, that still is not accurate for our needs. Since most birds, reptiles, and amphibians are much smaller, let's double the boxcar capacity for them. Therefore, the boxcars could each hold 480 different kinds of birds, reptiles, amphibians.


There are 3,700 species of mammals that would have been on the ark, since they came in pairs there would have been 7,400. 7,400 divided by 240 = 31 boxcars used.


For birds we have 8,600 species. They came in ‘seven pairs’ on the ark so that gives us 120,400 of them on the ark. 120,400 x 480 = 250 boxcars.


Between Reptiles and Amphibians you have 8,800 species. Times 2 because there in pairs is 17,600 of them on the ark. 17,600 divided by 480 = 37 boxcars.


Adding all that up, you have 318 box cars being used, containing a total of 145,400 creatures in it. this would give the ark a total of 251 box cars worth of space left over.


Supply storage:


Given as I showed above that only about 56% percent of the ark was being used to store animals, its easily conceivable all the food and drinkable water and housing quarters would fit in the remaining space. Insects as well which I did not even consider cause there all so small there weight is really a trivial thing to even consider.


Predicting a challenge to my numbers and rebuttal ahead of time:


Now I’m a little ashamed to give my source as if you read you’ll see I nearly copy and pasted the case made in it (no law against it) but here it is http://carm.org...


But if you try to look up a source that’s not trying to speak about the ark specifically like this one it will give a slightly higher numbers (very slight) http://animals.about.com... this source has mammals listed at 5,400 species, Birds at 9,000, Reptiles at 7,600, and Amphibians at between 5000 and 6000.


The fact is any source listing that’s not one specifically intended to argue for the literal telling of the Global flood will not give the numbers I used in this debate. This is not because out of bias and some need to deny the truth to fit with the facts I would want to believe, this is only because the normal thing when not discussing the ark to do in counting up total of species of mammals for example is to count like….


Australian Shepherd (1), Pomeranian(2), Golden Retriever (3), ect…


And the normal thing to count if your considering all the animals on Noahs Ark is to count the species like…


Dog (1), Cat (2), Cows (3), Bears (4), ect….


As the reigning theory is from those of us who treat the story as literal is that we do not disagree with Micro-Evolution, only Macro. That when the bible said on the ark there 2 of every ‘kind’, a kind is a set of species that can mate with each other and bring forth offspring. A Zebra and a Mustang can mate and bring forth cause there both ‘horses’. There needed to only be 2 horses on that ark, the 2 horses that are the common ancestor of all breeds of horses today. Polar Bears and Panda Bears could have both come descendent from the same 2 Bears. Any birds that can cross bread like the Scarlet Macaw and Blue&Yellow Macaw I would say came descendent from the same 2 Parrots on the Ark. Golden Eagles and Eastern Imperial Eagles came from the same two eagles. http://en.wikipedia.org...


I suppose those same to birds that represented the Eagle example I just gave may have had to of been the ancestors to all the Hawks too considering they can mate with Eagles in some cases http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com...


I could go on forever on all the variety of ‘species’ that are genetically compatible enough to Cross Breed that I would call 1 ‘kind’ that was represented on the Ark by just 2 creatures, but I think you get the point.


I await My opponents response.


Debate Round No. 2
Imagination

Con

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT III: WHALES }

Pro: please tell me where the fallacy lies in the following counter-argument.

Whales are mammals.
Mammals are animals.
Therefore, whales are animals.

In an effort of good sportsmanship, I'm willing to give Pro the benefit of doubt and go ahead and assume he didn't know whales are mammals. Let's take another marine animal that is NOT a mammal to correct the fallacy in his arguments. A jellyfish, for instance.

Genesis 6:20
Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

Pro chooses the word "animal" as the group excluding marine animals such as jellyfish. Marine animals are animals. The dictionary defines a jellyfish as a coelenterate, and a coelenterate as "an aquatic invertebrate animal". The dictionary probably thinks this because the phylum Cnidaria that the jellyfish belongs to is in the kingdom Animalia. Please don't tell me I have to provide quotes for this information.

Pro, amusingly, continues to try and state that when God said "animal", he ONLY meant land animals. If so, why would God say BOTH "every kind of animal" AND "every kind of creature that moves along the ground"? I agree with Pro that God is sorting all animals into three types: those in the air (birds), the aquatic ones (all animals that don't move along the ground), and the terrestrial ones (creatures that move along the ground).

Furthermore, the distinction is also made clear in many different instances in the Bible. Here's one.

Genesis 2: 19-20
Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

"Man" has names for marine animals, so obviously they were included somewhere in that last sentence. I'm guessing marine animals wouldn't be "birds in the sky" or "livestock" – oh look! "All the wild animals"!

I find the argument that marine animals are not animals a little silly. I hope we can move on and give the point that, according to a literal interpretation, there were in fact whales on the ark, to Con.

My math is correct. And Pro's incorrect math comes from a highly biased source that does not list ANY other sources for its article – such as where it got the amount of mammal species.

This source has FAR larger numbers and is distinctly more reliable, drawing from the 2010 World Conservation Union. http://www.currentresults.com...

Once again, one of Pro's sources can provide no defense to the allegation that the numbers given were simply concocted out of thin air, as they do not correspond with my considerably more viable sources. Pro's website, Carm.org, is no longer a valid source until Pro can prove otherwise.



{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT IV: COUNTING }

The normal thing to count if your considering all the animals on Noahs Ark is to count the species like…

Dog (1), Cat (2), Cows (3), Bears (4), ect….

First off, it's et cetera (etc), not ect, and you're (you are), not your (possessive). Also what is "normal" about counting SPECIES according to their FAMILIES?


{ ARGUMENT III: LIFE EXPECTANCY }

As previously quoted, the ark was afloat for 150 days. I challenge Pro to explain how species such as the mayfly (http://insects.tamu.edu...) did not go extinct, considering they only live 1-2 days!



In Summary. Pro has not responded to Counter-Arguments I or II. I must assume he concedes his first and second arguments are fallacious. Meanwhile I have refuted both his counter-arguments. Vote Con!




Marauder

Pro

Whales:

Yes I’m fully aware whales have lungs, and thus we technically call them mammals but come on man, there fish. They were enough of a ‘fish’ to have not been on the ark. The same basic argument I extend over all Marine life that might get a technical categorizing as a Mammal.

Flood would kill Whales:

You charge that the flood would have killed whales too. Well sure it would have I don’t contest floods can kill marine life, but I do contest that it killed EVERY PAIR of whales on Earth. Only 2 needed to survive of every kind of fish. If I had to take a guess I wouldn’t doubt God sent 2 of each kind to hide out in the Marinas Trench perhaps. It wouldn’t be mentioned in the bible cause its not strictly a story about all life on earth, its about a Man and what God asked him to do and God did not need to tell Noah to do anything for the fish.

Bible on 3 categories of animals:

You being beyond a little selective of your quotes, I even gave you a chapter and verse last round from Genesis 1:26 where God named ‘fish’ as something different from the other 3. If the passage you quoted shows anything at all its only that Adam was not the first Marine Biologist since God did not have him give names to the fish.

Bad Math because of Bad Variables:

No your math is not correct, perhaps I didn’t make my point clear as to exactly why your math is wrong. I was not saying that you made mistakes in your abillity to add, your mistake came from using variable to add WITH that were not there. There are two things wrong with your variables

1) The addition of Marine Life

2) The number of 'Kinds was < the species there are today

Is my source biased? Aren’t all sources biased. I admit I myself couldn’t find where it got its numbers from. But its not so off from the real ones that I need to because I know and explained what the fundamental difference would be that would drastically change the number of species being considered on the Ark from the number of species today. As I explained about how one counts the species and the other one does. One counts the Panda bears, Polar bears, and Grizzly bears as 3 species, the other counts them all as 1.

You see from science we know all these examples of bears likely came from the same common ancestor, then through Micro-Evolution the species of bears diversified into the amount of kinds of bears we have today. On bear was born without color in its fur and it helped it survive up in the North, others were born they way they were through a mutation and they survive as a new species of bear.

For example if the ark were just said to have protected the Carnivores, your arguments treat it as thought there were over 250 animals on the Ark, but mine have about 11. http://animals.about.com...

While there might be 5,400 individual species of mammles we have today, to have an acestor for all of them you only need about 139 different mammals to cover all the ‘kinds’ of Family’s http://www.earthlife.net... that I counted listed off in this source. That the source I gave before has an even more generous number 3,700 for the mammals I can only assume they breaking it down a little further to account for something else I haven’t. But obviously it’s a much larger number so if its wrong its wrong because its adding too many not too little.

Mayflies:

Whether that particular species had evolved from other insects of its kind at the time I do not know and unless you can show me some Fossilized Mayflies, Then I don’t have to answer this question since they could have evolved later.

Ice Dome Defense:

Admittedly I did not even check the specific reading of the NIV bible before accepting the debate. I accepted the terms though anyway because Its my view that while the different translations may very its never that significant, not significant to effect whatever argument I would want to make. So I got no need to claim to only ‘one particular bible’ I simply believe any of them will do.

And my view is justified in this case. Yes the terms ‘firmament’ are not used but its still talking about them. Genesis chapter one still described the ‘waters above’

The ‘waters above’ could not have just been ‘clouds’. They are too dispersed and far apart to be considered as one collective thing. If it was just a cloud, it was a very think cloud that blocked all the light from beyond it to be considered ‘the waters above the sky’. This is why Water in the form of a solid rather than a gas makes more sense like Ice. Clear ice would let the sunlight and moonlight pass through.

And once again I bring up the scientific evidence for an ice dome that increased the air pressure of the earth, which you did nothing to refute yourself.

Hydroplate Theory Q & A:

1) Q: Which mountains do we have the flood to thank for? A: All of them. The Cataclysmic events as described by The Hydroplate Theory’s take on the flood led to the formation of all mountains

2) Q: ‘Fountain’ and Mountain location in relation to eruption? A: the ‘fountains of the deep’ was everywhere under the earth, much less water was above the crust back then. The seems of the Tectonic Plates are the scars left from the eruption of the fountains breaking through there during the flood. The Mountains form inland by the same mechanisms described by secular scientist http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...

3) Q: Wouldn’t that much energy blow up the earth? A: I do personally just wonder if Dr. Walt Brown is exaggerating, however for the sake of your argument, I will assume he wasn’t. Do remember he is talking about the energy in the eruptions of the streams of water coming out of the ground. The Streams so high in the atmosphere they propelled some objects and water into space according to Dr. Brown’s theory. Do remember we are not talking about TNT, H-bombs, or object as solid as an Asteroid coming with this theorized energy, we are talking about liquid water. And its this liquid from within the crust that’s bursting out with the this theorized energy, not hammering into it. So no it would not blow up the earth. However the resulting flood and Ice Age did kill most all life on earth.

Here is a better link about the fountains by itself on hydroplate Theory http://www.conservapedia.com...

New Argument:

Arguments from History:

I make this one argument not really from science but from history wich in some cases cannot just be completely ignored. If one were to go with the view that the Global Flood was not literal and only a Local Flood, what is one to do with the fact that even in Continent as far off as North America you have people remembering the Flood and continuing stories of it? Here is one where while not exactly the same as Noah’s story its similarities are unmistakable http://www.firstpeople.us... If it were just this one tribe that had a story like this it might be easy to write off as an odd coincidence but this is not some small cultural phenomena. If you scroll through all these Folktales http://www.firstpeople.us... passed down by the Native American Tribes, From A to Z you will see while they have a variety of different stories about the animals and even creation myths, most of the tribes believed there was a Global Flood. And this is not just in North America, its all over the word. In China, the Miautso people even preserved the story of the flood as having a man named Nuah who built an ark to save all the animals, his genology went back to the first Man whose name was a word for ‘Dirt’ (like Adams) and He had 3 sons That are so very earie close to the Names Genesis records Noahs sons as having http://ldolphin.org... http://www.ldolphin.org...

My question for you is if the Great Flood was only a local flood, then why is the story of it not a ‘locally’ kept story? Does not a Globally kept Story indicate a Global Flood?

Debate Round No. 3
Imagination

Con

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT III: WHALES }

Yes I’m fully aware whales have lungs, and thus we technically call them mammals but come on man, there fish.


http://badbooksgoodtimes.files.wordpress.com...

*facepalm* Whales are mammals. Dolphins/porpoises are mammals. Seals/manatees are mammals. They give live birth, they have skin not scales, they breathe through their lungs, they are warm-blooded, they lactate. If God is all-knowing He ought to know a tad more than my five-year-old cousin about the animals He created. Even your fallacious site source named, among their 3700 mammal species, "some [that] live in the sea". Furthermore, in this argument I have NEVER claimed that whales wouldn't survive the Flood. That is because so far I have ceaselessly argued that they would be on the ark. Besides, the pressures of the Mariana Trench would have killed any animal unadapted to them.


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT IV: ANIMAL GROUPS }

I wasn't disregarding you when you said, "God defined all the life on earth in the separate categories as Birds, Fish, Animals, and ‘creatures that move along the ground’." In fact, I agreed with you. I didn't ask you whether Adam was a marine biologist. I AM asking you:


What makes a fish NOT an "animal"?


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT V: ...EVOLUTION? }

Is my source biased? Aren’t all sources biased. I admit I myself couldn’t find where it got its numbers from. But its not so off from the real ones that I need to because I know and explained what the fundamental difference would be that would drastically change the number of species being considered on the Ark from the number of species today. As I explained about how one counts the species and the other one does. One counts the Panda bears, Polar bears, and Grizzly bears as 3 species, the other counts them all as 1. You see from science we know all these examples of bears likely came from the same common ancestor, then through Micro-Evolution the species of bears diversified into the amount of kinds of bears we have today. On bear was born without color in its fur and it helped it survive up in the North, others were born they way they were through a mutation and they survive as a new species of bear.

Hey, man, I'm the last person to argue with you about evolution ... but until you can provide a literal quote from the Bible clarifying that Noah was ordered only to take the ancestors of modern species on board, I cannot accept that as integral to the story found literally in the Bible, as it appears to directly exclude "two of every kind of animal". I will gladly debate you another time on whether post-ark macroevolution is even a viable theory. Also ... the World Conservation Union results are NOT biased. You must be a remarkable mathematician if you can "know" the numbers you "need" to make your case through pure estimation. That doesn't remove the necessity for a valid source supporting your hunch.

Also I think you mixed up "Macro-" with "Micro-evolution".


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VI: TRANSLATIONS }

Its my view that while the different translations may very its never that significant, not significant to effect whatever argument I would want to make. So I got no need to claim to only ‘one particular bible’ I simply believe any of them will do.

It is significant. You couldn't interpret the Ice Dome using a NIV Bible. That's because the translations are up-to-date and were written by a large panel of international, objective scholars. The King James Bible contains countless translations that have, in the last 400 years, been proven to be inaccurate. Even conservative Bible schools cautiously and reluctantly admit it. http://www.ucg.org...

If the words underpinning your argument cannot be found in the Bible as contemporarily translated, they are unsourced. Thus I need not address them as they are based off of an erroneous and ungrounded interpretation of the bible. Claiming "waters above" is synonymous with "sky" does not take the Bible literally. Water, air. Two different substances. Also, before this you were arguing the "waters above" were surface waters and the "waters below" were subterranean. There is no reason to change the element of the thing being described in order to explain the terminology used.


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VII: HYDROPLATES }

1. The Hydroplate Theory’s take on the flood led to the formation of all mountains

That's just silly. The Himalayas are being formed AS WE SPEAK through the collision of tectonic plates, *not* through fission of the Earth's crust miles and miles away. Why, then, should any mountains have been formed that way, when we can see the theory of plate tectonics be confirmed in mountains throughout the world today?

And for #2 – are you actually saying Hydroplate Theory can be reconciled with plate tectonics? Because that's what that secular source is describing. Plate tectonics is a result of the fluid movement of mega-hot rock layers beneath the crust … directly disproving the idea that there was even space benneath the crust for fountains. This site does a wonderful job of paraphrasing Glenn Morton, a Creationist and oil prospector who, through the simple use of algebraic equations, completely derails the notion that huge amounts of water could have existed beneath the Earth's crust thousands of years ago. http://mypage.direct.ca...


#3 – We ARE talking about TNT in that we are talking about ENERGY RELEASE. He is saying, if that occurred, energy would be released equal to the energy that ten billion times ten million tons of TNT exploding would release. Unless you can find a valid source contradicting the assertions of my valid source, your personal opinion, or that of your exaggerating source, cannot be taken seriously.

And come on. 4000 years ago? The Egyptian civlization was at its height. Don't you think they may have recorded, "Looked out the window today. Noticed fountains of water so high they're spraying stuff into space. Have persisted for 40 days & 40 nights. Earth cracked open. Empire flooded for 150 days. Had to clean plesiosaur corpses off pyramids."


{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT VIII: MISSIONARIES }

The remarkable similarity of ALL of those stories to the Biblical tale can be explained in one word.


Missionaries.

Besides, "evolutionists" can defend a localized flood. We believe homo sapiens wandered out of Africa and spread throughout the world. If a local flood happened close to the origin, stories of it could be carried in slightly different versions throughout the world.


{ ARGUMENT IV: TIME }

The tale of the Tower of Babel takes place but one or two centuries later – while Noah, who lived 900+ years, is still alive. HE HAD THREE MARRIED SONS. How did they create more than 100 people in that time? Then we have asteroid impact craters. Even assuming they were just 6000 years old – the flood would have totally eroded them. Yet they are still visible today.



{ ARGUMENT V: RECORDS }

If the Flood really happened less than 6000 years ago, or even as early as 4000 years ago, the Egyptian, Chinese, Babylonian and Mesopotamian civilizations would all have been flooded and all their people and animals died. How come their records fail to take note of such a terrifying development? How come we still find remains of buildings and pottery made in that time period?



{ ARGUMENT VI: A WEEK?! }

Collecting millions of animals from Australia to the North Pole is time-consuming and would have taken a liiiiittle longer than a week. (Gen. 7:4)
Marauder

Pro


Your 5 year old Cousin:


Your Cousin knows Dolphins and Whales to be mammals’ because that’s what we teach our 5 year olds today (facepalm). God did not inspire the book of Genesis to be written today though. To the people reading back in the day they probably would have thought of Dolphins and Whales to be fish, and God being all knowing would have known to refer to the aquatic life by what the people he was speaking to would have thought of those creatures as. They live in the water, they have fins and flippers, they would have been perceived as fish back then.


You are disregarding me:


You claim you have agreed with me God categorized the animals into separate categories in the Flood story, and I showed biblical precedent for presuming Fish would have been considered a separate category from ‘animals’ ‘birds’ and ‘things that move on the ground’ by showing were three of those categories are spoken side by side of the forth category of marine life ‘fish’ in Gen 1:26. Why are fish not considered animals for the story of Noah, because I showed you they are not considered animals in the bible and that’s all that’s important in regards to interpreting this story.


Micro-evolution:


No I am not mixing them up, I think you mixed up which one you think I said. I did not say Macro I said micro. Micro is the only kind I believe actually is proven to happen. Post-food Macro evolution did not occur but post flood Micro evolution did.


It is not an abrasive theory to a literal interpretation of the story of Noah’s Ark, because by ‘2 of every kind’ is including 2 of the kind called ‘Dog’ even if there are breeds of dog that did not get on board the ark. A ‘kind’ is not every breed, its every sort of animal that can ‘bring forth’ are the same kind. A wolf and golden retriever could reproduce so they are the same Kind. I guess the way you would understand it is a ‘Kind’ is a ‘family’. You challenge me to give you precedent for viewing it that way, well I challenge you for reading what the story would mean by ‘kind’ as what we would call ‘species’.


NIV on Waters above:


I didn’t come to debate to defend the KJV, or the NLT or NRV or any version for that matter. I said I accept your terms to stick with just the NIV this debate.


You are flat out lying or your just confused when you say I labeled the ‘waters above’ to mean the waters above the ground and not the sky before. I did not ever say that in this or any debate. When you show the term ‘firmament’ that divided the waters above from the ones below was not in the NIV I showed it was replaced simply by ‘sky’ dividing the two. If the ‘waters above’ were just the seas then what replaced ‘firmament’ would be called ‘earth’ or ‘ground’ but it was not. The NIV is clear there were once ‘waters above the sky’. I made my case for why its not rational to interpret that to mean clouds and you gave no argument to that so I am going to assume you concede the point. And you are beyond crazy if you think ‘waters above the sky’ is the seas. The seas are not above the sky, I think even your 5 year old cousin would tell you that (facepalm).


Hydroplate theory:


They are forming right now:


Yes but at a rate slower than they were during the flood


It’s not reconcilable with Tectonic Plate theory:


Sure it is. But first you have to consider a) the super molten hot fluid may have not been formed under after all the waters below were exhausted out of it. As you noted secular theory and observation is its still the movement of fluid (though molten hot fluid) that is forming the mountains. Before the flood that fluid though was water though, the fountains.


Your sources math from Glenn Morton would perhaps derail the Hypdroplate theory but only if we make the arrogant assumption that way things are now is the way they have always been. Go fill a water balloon up and observe the size. Then squeeze it all out and take a look. There is no space left to fit all that water inside the balloon. Now I am not saying the Earth is elastic but I am saying there was more space down there before the top layer of earths crust collapsed onto the bottom squeezing out the Water causing the flood and then causing enough pressure to heat up the rock in between to form the magma that is there now in the waters place. The left over extra earth from the top crust that covered the fountains before the flood was shot into space, as noted before.


The Earth would blow up:


I wish you would let this go, you are starting to sound kind of dumb. I do not have to find any source to ‘contradict’ yours that the force of an asteroid would wipe out all life on earth. That is a solid object whose energy release is being calculated to impact a smaller sized earth from an external angle. The energy release for the fountains is being calculated from all the earths upper crust caving in on the chambers that contain the waters below squeezing them out to exit in the seems of the earth. These are not even remotely comparable explosive forces in terms of there destructive forces on the earth and thus I do not need to prove one wrong to prove the other right. This point of yours should be dropped until you demonstrate such inward liquid pressure pushing out would shatter the world into pieces and hurl them all far apart into space. The source point of this explosion would never do that to the earth, even if the plates started to propel away from each other after a few inches they would fall back toward each other having released all the water pressure that was pushing them to start with. This argument of yours is thus invalid.


Missionaries:


I dont think the missionary explanation is good enough, However I do drop the argument anyway because I concede that your argument about all human life evolving from the same region and the flood story coming from that same region is a sound one. It accepts the same fact and proposes the same thing happened as my theory does except with just a slightly different perspective. That everyone still got it from the same ancestors to all mankind, but those ancestors only thought the flood covered everywhere. I suppose that’s equally possible, if this argument is considered by itself.


Time:


A) The story of the tower of bable is outside of the scope of this debate as we are talking about literally interpreting the story of Noah’s Ark and the Flood, not the whole bible


B) How did they populate the earth in that amount of time, Lots and lots of sex of course, did your parents never tell your about the birds and the bee’s?


Craters:


Tiny ones might have eroded, but the flood would not have made the world one giant smooth ball completely, and I don’t accept all the craters happened before the flood without you first proving this.


Records:


a) Once again the literal interpretation of time it took for adams children to beget there children is outside of the scope of this debate, this debate is about the flood and the ark alone.


b) Obviously as a YEC I would have to challenge the presently normally accepted time date for the beginning of the Egyptian empire as well as the others.


c) Of course there was potter from that time period; there was all sorts of stuff from before the flood that we find artifacts and fossils of, the world was full of sinful people with tech enough to build a great big boat. There were hundreds if not thousands of cities, towns, countries that were destroyed in the flood. We have even found cast iron objects like a hammer found fossilized in a chunk of coal before that supposed took millions of years to form.


Collecting the animals:


a) Gen 7:4 was not noahs first warning in this story, this was even after he had the ark finished and he was told to have 2 of every animal before when he was first told to build the ark (Gen 6:19)


b) I don’t think its indicated Noah had to collect the animals from all over the world himself, I think God probably gave all the Ark passengers the instinct to go to Noahs Ark


Debate Round No. 4
Imagination

Con

Thank you Pro for an engaging debate. It will be very interesting to hear the opinion of the voters.


It being Round V, per the rules I may not raise new arguments, nor shall I. I have reserved this round for continuing Counter-Argument IV. Here I will be attempting to prove my math still validates my prior arguments even when counting correctly by Pro's terms -- that is, by excluding all marine life and even amphibians and the "Others" group from the species count on the ark. As Pro brought up the argument, his was the BOP on whether "kind" referred to species or families. Unsatisfied by his arguments, in my math here I'll be referring to "kind" as "species".


Like I said before, there are by the lowest valid most recent estimate 7.4 million extisting species on the planet, of which, according to the World Conservation Union (http://www.currentresults.com...), as given in Round III, the left-hand column of numbers represents the live species from each non-marine animal group. I have multiplied each species by the represenatives from the ark per Pro's quotes from the Bible. I subtracted the 123 marine mammal species from the mammals number per Marine Mammal Commission (http://www.mmc.gov...).

5490 mammals -- 123 = 5367 x 2 = 10734
9998 birds x 2 = 19996 / x 14 [seven pairs] = 69986
9084 reptiles x 2 = 18168
1000000 insects x 2 = 2000000
102,248 arachnids x 2 = 204496

That makes for a total of 2,303,284 individuals.

According to the Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht "Latinum" book, a 50m large Roman ship, the most efficient naval vessel up to that time, carried 450 tons worth of food. Using a ratio, my math is as follows:

450ft = 137.16m
50m x 2.7432 = 137.16m
450t x 2.7432 = 1234.44t

A vessel 450ft long could carry no more than 900,000 lbs, or 1235 tons, before sinking.

An African elephant weighs at least 4 tons (http://worldwildlife.org...). Thus, only TWO out of 2,303,284 individuals take up 0.0065% of the available weight.

It is simply not plausible, however many species alive today you insist were not on that ark.



I would also like to point out that Pro has violated the source terms several times. He didn't use the Bible he agreed to using by agreeing to the terms. He quoted more than 2 sources that I pointed out to appear to be fabricating impressive numbers out of thin air, due to there being no back-up to any of their numbers and there being substantial evidence I provided that contradicted these numbers being anywhere in the realm of plausibility. In the last round especially, but in others as well, he quoted from Wikipedia and About.com, sites specifically named in the source terms as being unreliable.

Thank you and Vote Con :D


Marauder

Pro


If you continue to make your case based on “# of species that exist today” then your numbers are still wrong. LIFE HAS become more diverse in the last 4,000 years or whatever timeline since the flood you want to put on the story of Noahs Ark. We watch micro-evolution happening today, just in the past few years. That there were less species back then is not up for debate.


And because you have stubbornly refused to drop your arguments using todays numbers and instead try using numbers that would represent the number of species in Noahs time, all your math is to be considered null and void of making any point.


I have used the NIV Bible as per the terms agreement. It is the book I have been quoting from and have opened next to my computer since going through the debate. I even argued for the Ice Dome out of the NIV, a point you never refuted. I admitted I did not realize the language ‘firmament’ and ‘fountains of the deep’ were not in the NIV and I made a brief apology for not even checking that first. I double checked every verse there after for its exact phrasing in the NIV. I have broken no terms on translations.


The only time a wiki link showed up in my arguments was to show some pitchers of the birds. Its only use in this debate was to show what I was trying to talk about but did not have the space to go into on. It is not a ‘source’ for proving anything as I have not been trying to ‘prove’ that hybrid parrots exist as you have given me no reason to think your actually challenging hybrid creatures exist. All my arguments that reference the hybrid creatures where explaining the YEC interpretation what a ‘Kind’ is. The wiki link was not a source for that argument, just a link to help me explain the argument.


About.com was not specifically named in round 1, and I will note you never challenged any of the data presented in it, so you certainly have no right to start challenging it here in the final round. If you thought there was something flawed and wrong with you should have challenged it before. I find it historical in the final round you’re actually trying to discredit a source that speaks from an anti-YEC view and the authors would take your side of this debate. Your basically are just trying to trash it just to trash it with your trashing having no relevance to the debate topic. You’ve made no argument there are more than 11 subgroups of carnivores. You have only argued against the principal of using subgroups over every individual species. So do not complain about the source now and pretend it somehow has affected the debate.


You are flat out lying for some reason when you say you have pointed out more than 2 of my sources as having problems before this round. You have only done any such thing with one single source, Cam.org. With this site reference I came out right after using it without prompting from you and confessed what the limits of its accuracy was and the reasons for why its numbers are not at all the same as the numbers you will find on other sites.


If you really did give problems with other sources I must have missed them and am sorry for calling you a liar for the second time. But not the first, as I know I never argued the waters above was the seas. You were almost definitely lying then and I don’t understand why you would do that.


Well I guess I have enjoyed this debate just the same however, although in retrospect I think 5 rounds was too long to be worth it.


If there is one thing I hope readers will take away from this debate is that the literal interpretation has more too it than just ‘a big flood covered all the earth’. And also most importantly that none leave this debate without understanding this very simple truth………



…Whales can swim.


Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by justin.graves 4 years ago
justin.graves
I don't know which is worse... the lack of basic knowledge of biology, theology, or geology throughout this debate.
Posted by Imagination 4 years ago
Imagination
"like with Abortion, even if I argue till my face turns blue that the unborn baby is a life and that matters, but its only one angle of the debate and even if I was persuasive at arguing the fetus is a life if I did not make equal headway with the issue about the woman's decisions being argued I would not turn anyone from the other-side."

If you can't win someone over to your side without disregarding 50% of the issue you're debating, maybe you're on the wrong side? O_o
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
@Elmakai: Yeah I bet it would and I might issue a challenge on something narrower on the topic. I believe all the big controversial issues stay controversial cause there are so many grounds to stay divided on them. like with Abortion, even if I argue till my face turns blue that the unborn baby is a life and that matters, but its only one angle of the debate and even if I was persuasive at arguing the fetus is a life if I did not make equal headway with the issue about the woman's decisions being argued I would not turn anyone from the other-side.

Debates really need to be on a contentions of an issue rather than the whole issue itself I think to be persuasive or informative at all.
Posted by Elmakai 4 years ago
Elmakai
@Marauder: The debate you proposed would be interesting. By narrowing the scope you can focus on a specific issue or two. I wouldn't know what to suggest to be the specific topic, but I would love to read it. Like I said, I found the debate to be educational and interesting. I'm sure another along the same veins would be just as much so.
Posted by Elmakai 4 years ago
Elmakai
@Imagination: I reread your last round and you are correct. I apologize. For some reason, I read it as you were keeping the marine mammals on the list, not subtracting them.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Marauder does not honor his agreements, but I honor mine.

Perhaps I should change my RFD to "Marauder was coming off as stupid?"
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
Had I it all my way, there wouldnt have been any 'facepalms' but after my opponent reduced the tone to that.... I felt a need to let him know he was coming off as stupid to me with some of his statement as I was to him.

I will do better with sources in the future. I understand my choices weren't the best this debate. In retrospect I really wish the topic could have been approched from a narrow spectrum so the character space could be focued on one kind of contended issue like the functionableness of the boat alone or the geological science behind hydroplate theory and the Ice dome theory or those theories bases in the NIV version of the bible. after the debate spread out so much you really begin to lack room to adequately continue all of ones arguments and counter arguments.
Posted by Marauder 4 years ago
Marauder
@defool: No Evidence terms in the first round do not support any aspect of your position whatsoever. archeology is not even mentioned and it specifically refers to the evidence needing to prove the scientific possibility of the event. archeology for the most part proves the history of something, not the science. your name is rather fitting right now as your are purposely blinding yourself to what should be a very simple truth to understand. You could have voted against me for legit reasons like the ones given by other commenter on this debate but instead you have chosen the worst possible reasons for your vote there could be, that I did not argue on the subject with the issues that are only important to you personally, but rather I argued with the issues that were important to my opponent and to the resolution, the issues of Science.

There is just flat out no room to see this as an archeological debate topic the way it was spelled out.
Posted by Imagination 4 years ago
Imagination
"I personally would have checked the math to see if the Ark could hold the remainder of the animals without whales."

That's exactly what I did in the last round O_o
Posted by Elmakai 4 years ago
Elmakai
@imagination: I felt the part of the argument that I would have accepted from you more is the whales = mammals bit. We all know that. The thing is, like Marauder said, the translation of a book that predates the definition of a mammal would not be bound by it's definition. In other words, it was written for people who did not define it as such.

And, just to play devil's advocate (pardon the expression), that might not be how a divine being defined it. I personally would have checked the math to see if the Ark could hold the remainder of the animals without whales.

@marauder: I think there were times you shot yourself in the foot when you kept admitting to behaviors that casts you negatively, such as plagiarizing, not knowing the facts on several areas (which you could have looked up) and not knowing the website's sources.

Both of you could have done without "facepalm". Other than that though, I've learned quite a bit about this subject. Very interesting to say the least.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
ImaginationMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G to Con, for better language, and fewer mistakes. Arguments also to Con, for the following reasons: In R1 it was stipulated that only evidence was to be presented - faith was expressly forbidden. This requirement, agreed to by Pro, meant that archaeological evidence be used almost exclusively. This was never seriously attempted by Pro. Well reasoned logic presented by Con, who, like most of us, was faced with formatting issues. I hope to see more of this debater in the future.