The Instigator
9spaceking
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThinkBig
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Destroy Yourself

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 3 votes the winner is...
ThinkBig
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 435 times Debate No: 92438
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

9spaceking

Pro

Round one, my opponent accepts, states a topic and his/her stance on the topic. I will attempt to refute the opponent while building up my side, which will oppose the opponent's side.

In round two, each my opponent and I have to cite a source that REFUTES our side of the topic. We may choose a published news site, newspaper, magazines, scientific studies, scholarly journals, etc, etc. We may also pose a general logical argument (that is still against our side) for a more philosophical or abstract concept. You cannot choose super untrustworthy sites such as the Onion, Uncylopedia, or other troll sources. (Remember, some sources can still be trustworthy with a troll argument!)

After we refute the refutation, the following third and fourth rounds will have us argue about the following, which the voters will vote on:
-How well the refutation was constructed
-How credible the source or argument was

Remember, if you cannot find a (credible) source against your topic, then either you haven't tried hard enough, or your argument is a truism!
ThinkBig

Con

I thank 9spaceking for posting this unique debate. I look forward to it.

The topic will be "The Global Flood as described in Genesis never happened." Since I am con, I will be arguing for this notion, since that is the opposite of what Con is, therefore, that is what I will have to prove.

I will be using sources, and logic, to show that the global flood as described in Genesis never happened and 9spaceking will have to show that it did, via sources and logic. I'm looking forward to a wonderful debate!

Debate Round No. 1
9spaceking

Pro

My opponent's acceptance round was confusing but I think I get what he/she's trying to say.
Here's my source: http://www.bibleinterp.com....
Trustworthiness: the source is meant to be credible, because it is the writer for UCLA Center as well as the "Visualization Project". The author cites his sources throughout (easily verifiable on a single scan through), and even the bible itself, thus solidifying his already-trustworthiness.
The source's arguments:
- N.A.M.I.'s claims are incorrect
- worldwide flood is combination of two flood stories
-It is from earlier Mesopotamian flood accounts; stories which "were apparently modified to conform to a monotheistic faith, but retained characteristics such as the destruction of nearly all living things via a flood...."
-There is the key claim that "not only are different numbers used for the number of animals on the ark in the two Hebrew flood stories, but different time periods were given for the flooding after the rains: 40 and 150 days."
-God is referred to YHWH
-Scientific evidence: "
One estimate of the volume of water in the atmosphere at any one time is about 3,100 cubic miles (mi3) or 12,900 cubic kilometers (km3). That may sound like a lot, but it is only about 0.001 percent of the total Earth's water volume of about 332,500,000 mi3 (1,385,000,000 km3)

If all of the water in the atmosphere rained down at once, it would only cover the ground to a depth of 2.5 centimeters, about 1 inch."
-Not enough water

These arguments seem solid enough, however, there is also contrary evidence. Note first, the date, May 2010. It may have been applicable for the time, but I have new evidence to counter it: http://abcnews.go.com.... (published in december 2012).
Essentially, the website from ABC news (arguably more trustworthy than one man's blog, since the newspaper is reviewed by an editor and then published), citing a study involving a man named Ballard. "By carbon dating shells found along the shoreline, Ballard said he believes they have established a timeline for that catastrophic event, which he estimates happened around 5,000 BC. Some experts believe this was around the time when Noah's flood could have occurred." The website states. The website also refers to past events that are similar to the Bible's seemingly unbelievable flood: "Catastrophic events of this kind are not unique to the Bible. Some contemporary examples include the 2004 tsunami that wiped out villages on the coasts of 11 countries surrounding the Indian Ocean. There was also Hurricane Katrina, described as the worst hurricane in United States history." One also has to keep in mind that the man who wrote about the scientific evidence did not think about the possibility of the different geography, which may have altered the mountain's relative height to the land beside it, or a different amount of volume of water within the atmosphere which may have somehow allowed a giant flood to be able to sustain a massive boat.
Finally, don't get distracted by the great amount of sources on the first one. Most of them are trying to explain the origin and/or background of the events listed within the source. There are only two sources that truly provide some sound evidence for the argument!

In conclusion: the source seems valid, with many claims and supports to its stories. However, when one looks closer, most of the argument does not attempt to support just why the Hebrew story must precisely match the biblical story, neither does it support that the atmospheric argument applies in all situations. (Would it still apply in extreme weather and temperatures? How would one know how much water was in the atmosphere thousands of years ago?) Also look carefully at the scientific source itself. It is a school specifically for teaching elementary school kids (or perhaps even younger!) The diction is not high and some technical words are even highlighted (which any educated middle school and higher people should know!)
http://prntscr.com...; (this displays just how childish, or at least basic; the source is-from http://water.usgs.gov....) The fact that the blog was written by a professional means that he should have known better than to pick an educational and very basic source. It is surely missing important information, especially upon earlier time periods in which the weather was crucially different. On the other hand, the news site soundly refutes the first source, because it displays relevant scientific information, which was newer than the first source, and strongly suggests at the fact that the global flood DID occur.

ThinkBig

Con

I wish to thank pro for this interesting debate format.

My sources

I have chosen to rebut two sources:

Source 1) High and Dry Sea Creatures by Dr. Andrew Snelling from Answers in Genesis (AiG hereafter).
Source 2) Why Does Nearly Every Culture Have a Tradition of a Global Flood by Dr. Morris of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) http://www.icr.org...;

Trustworthiness

As far as creation websites are concerned, AiG is reliable. This article links to several different articles written by Dr. Andrew Snelling. Dr. Snelling holds a Ph.D. in geology from the University of Sydney and has written several publications. Furthermore, each article has references to scientific articles .

Rebuttal

Rebuttal to Source 1

Dr. Snelling claims that marine fossils have been found high on the mountains and in places that you would not expect them. Snelling writes:

"The fossilized sea creatures and plants found in rock layers thousands of feet above sea level are thus silent testimonies to the ocean waters that flooded over the continents, carrying billions of sea creatures, which were then buried in the sediments these ocean waters deposited. This is how billions of dead marine creatures were buried in rock layers all over the earth."

He claims that the only possible explanation for this is that the ocean waters at some time flooded over the continents.

Talk Origins notes that this is not evidence for a global flood because "the shells and other fossils on mountains are easily explained by uplift of the land. This process is still observed today and it accounts not only for the seashells on mountains, but also for the other geological features of those mountains. Although the seas used to cover those areas where the fossils are found, it was not at once and at the same time. Furthermore, a global flood cannot explain these fossils because In many cases, the fossils are in the same positions as they grow in life, not scattered as if they were redeposited by a flood. Other evidence, such as fossilized tracks and burrows of marine organisms, show that the region was once under the sea. Seashells are not found in sediments that were not formerly covered by sea." [2]

Rebuttal to Source 2

Dr. John Morris claims that one of the strongest evidences of a Global Flood is the presence of multiple Flood legends from around the world.

He notes the following similarities in the legends:

  • Is there a favored family? 88%
  • Were they forewarned? 66%
  • Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
  • Is catastrophe only a flood? 95%
  • Was flood global? 95%
  • Is survival due to a boat? 70%
  • Were animals also saved? 67%
  • Did animals play any part? 73%
  • Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
  • Was the geography local? 82%
  • Were birds sent out? 35%
  • Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
  • Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
  • Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%

Talk origins notes:

"If the world's flood myths arose from a common source, then we would expect evidence of common descent. An analysis of their similarities and differences should show either a branching tree such as the evolutionary tree of life, or, if the original biblical myth was preserved unchanged, the differences should be greater the further one gets from Babylon. Neither pattern matches the evidence. Flood myths are best explained by repeated independent origins with some local spread and some spread by missionaries. The biblical flood myth in particular has close parallels only to other myths from the same region, with which it probably shares a common source, and to versions spread to other cultures by missionaries (Isaak 2002)." [3]

Furthermore, there are many cultures that lack a Flood myth including the Celtics and the Eygptians [4].

Finally, floods are quite common and happen frequently.

Over to pro.

Sources

1. https://answersingenesis.org...;

2. http://www.talkorigins.org...;
3. http://www.talkorigins.org...;

4. http://www.skeptic.com...

Debate Round No. 2
9spaceking

Pro

9spaceking forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
9spaceking

Pro

My bad for forfeiting. I forfeit the rest of the debate because I don't have enough time; and I also barely know about this topic. Con wins.
ThinkBig

Con

Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 5 months ago
9spaceking
you can refute all your sources.
Posted by ThinkBig 5 months ago
ThinkBig
OK. Can I also refute more than 1 source or can I only refute 1?
Posted by ThinkBig 5 months ago
ThinkBig
Awesome. I'm always up to try different ways to debate.
Posted by 9spaceking 5 months ago
9spaceking
of course, you can use ANYTHING you want to refute the source, even the source's own sources!
Posted by ThinkBig 5 months ago
ThinkBig
Just a quick clarification of the rules - am I allowed to use sources while I am attempting to refute a source?
Posted by 9spaceking 5 months ago
9spaceking
the more sources, the more likely the voters are likely to give you points. :)
Posted by 9spaceking 5 months ago
9spaceking
sorry, I meant to write "one or more source(s)"
Posted by ContraDictator 6 months ago
ContraDictator
allow multiple sources for the refutation round and I'll accept. One source only is utter nonsense.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by fire_wings 5 months ago
fire_wings
9spacekingThinkBigTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: concession
Vote Placed by lord_megatron 5 months ago
lord_megatron
9spacekingThinkBigTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro conceded
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 5 months ago
42lifeuniverseverything
9spacekingThinkBigTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF'd. So Con wins conduct. Con also wins sources because his sources within the debate perameters were better chosen, (answers in genesis, institute for creation research). Con also had more sources than Pro period. I won't comment on arguments because they were not completed. S&G was equal. Good attempt at a debate both of you.