Did Noahs Ark Happen?
Debate Rounds (3)
The reason for this as the whole basis is filled with Logical Fallacies
The first is the simple issue of space.
Noah's Ark was 300 cubits by 50 and 30. This equals to 520 feet and 8 inches long, 86 and 9.3 inches wide, and 52 feet and 0.8 inches high.
According to World Book Encyclopedia, "So far scientists have named and classified more than 1 1/2 million animals. Over half of these are types of insects and other species are discovered each year. Scientists believe there may be from 2 million to as many as 50 million kinds of animals alive today."
This would mean if Noah truly took 2 of each kind of animal there would have had to have fit at least 4 million animals on that boat which is quite frankly impossible. Not to mention the food to feed them, every individual species, pens to keep them, and room for Noah's family.
The next issue is an issue of food.
There would not have been enough food to feed every animal on the bot especially individually. Even if they could it possibly 4 million to 100 million animals on the boat. Not to mention the predators would have eaten the prey on the boat. This is frankly quite impossible.
The next is an issue of placement.
Assuming that all other animals were killed in the flood, and assuming that two of each animal were taken on the boat. This is probably the biggest Logical Fallacy, is that if all animals left on earth were in that one boat. And if that boat landed (according to the Christian Bible it landed on "Mountains of Ararat" or Mount Ararat in Turkey) and the animals left on earth were all in that ONE boat, how are there animals in other places, such as penguins in Antarctica and Koala Bears in Australia?
The Next Is..... Well Plants
Did he take them? The Christian Bible didn't say he did, but if not they would have all died, read https://www.provenwinners.com... for more information on how plants drown just like humans and how water would kill them in a matter of days.
My next issue is with the water,
if their really was a worldwide flood, where did all the water come from, rain? In the bible it just said he "opened the flood gates" and the water "receded". Also where did it all go?
My final argument is how did Noah acquire all of these animals?
I mean the bible said he got them, but their were parts of the earth not even discovered, America wasn't discovered until 1492. And there was no way he could have gotten to places like Antarctica.
After reviewing the evidence I conclude there is no way the Noah's Ark story could have happened.
Could this be the case that this story is historically accurate? Is it possible for an extended family to live in this enclosed environment with so many animals for so long? Let's find out. It's easy, of course, to mock the biblical stories of the Old Testament. Then, again, it's easy to mock that which one is ignorant of.
I will just work on the positive evidences for the flood and Noah's ark in this particular round. In the next round, I will address some counter-arguments to the plausibility of the biblical story of Noah's ark.
Many, if not all, of the criticisms levied by my opponent against the plausibility of the biblical story are fairly "straw man"-oriented and have already been addressed elsewhere. 
So, there are three groups of evidences for a global flood and Noah's ark:
1.) Geological evidence that portrays catastrophic change unlike that which would be predicated upon slow, evolutionary grounds;
2.) Multiple cultures which testify to the existence of a global flood;
3.) Sightings of Noah's ark.
There are more evidences than these three sets, to be sure, but there is limited space in this forum. Another strategy would be to argue from the archeological or paleolinguistic evidence for the accuracy of other portions of the Old Testament narrative in Genesis, such as the Tower of Babel.
1.) For a universal flood to be true, there would have to be catastrophic change. What is observed in rock stratigraphy? Catastrophic change.
As ICR puts it: "Geological strata and their contained marine fossils provide critical evidence that the ocean once covered the continents, even the highest continental areas. Extremely widespread strata blankets argue for an intercontinental or global flood. The Sauk Sequence extends throughout North America and appears to extend into Europe. The Tippecanoe Sequence also covers much of North America and may well extend into Europe and Africa. There are also intercontinental redbed sequences, intercontinental tuff beds, and coal-bearing strata cycles."  The article concludes by indicating that more geologists are constructing a global flood model to help account for obvious catastrophism. 
Other geological evidences for a universal flood include the deposition of marine fossils near the top of mountains, archeological discovery of human technological implements which were date from a post-Flood chronology, and many others. There is a more thorough catalogue of evidences compiled online by Laurence D. Smart. 
Of course, my opponent could cavil at me for citing catastrophic, geological evidence for a world-wide flood since that does not entail that Noah's Ark happened. True enough. But it would certainly open the door to the credibility of the bibilical story of Noah's Ark. If there was such a devastating and catastrophic geo-event, such as Noah's flood, then we would be inclined to ask, "Were there any survivors?" The Bible certainly indicates a way in which that it possible. If the alternative is true, and Noah's Ark did not happen, how were there any survivors, given a universal flood? The Bible has answers; we just have to listen.
2.) Many cultures, separated by vast regions, testify to a flood.
How is it that so many cultures have an internal report that has been passed down through generations that they experienced a devastating flood where there were only a few survivors and a vessel was used as a means of escape/rescue?  These stories could be written off as extravagant camp-fire tales, if there were only a few and they were all endemic to one particular region. This might indicate a local flood that left only a few survivors in its wake. But since the stories are spread apart, it causes one to wonder, "Is it true that the Bible has recorded the original story which explains the extensive nature of the flood in yielding so much uprooting of civilization?"
Naturally, it would make sense if Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and their descendants kept this adventurous story of God's simultaneous destruction and provision through the many cultures which have orally ground languages. Often, these cultures have a way of sharpening the memory through the recitation of family, kin, and clan stories of origins.
3.) Sightings of what appears to be Noah's ark in and around Mount Ararat has really gotten secularists in a tizzy. Those who want to deny any possibility of the credibility of Biblical narrative will go to various lengths including filing a lawsuit, as anti-Creationist, Ian Plimer, did when Allen Roberts contended that he espied the ark. 6 Judging from publications like Humanist, there is some concern that perhaps Noah's ark has been sighted. 
Perhaps one of the most significant discoveries thus far has been wood which was discovered at an altitude of 4,000 meters or higher on Mount Ararat. Since scientists maintain that natural vegetation cannot occur at this altitude, it is very probably man-made. 
Thus, there are positive evidences for the biblical narrative of the preservation of Noah and his family and the animals lodged in the ark. While it seems difficult to conceive, it would help to explain a lot of things in our environment and in other cultures.
 For example, Ken Ham refers to some of the "straw man" arguments used by Bill Nye against Noah's Ark in his debate with him here: https://answersingenesis.org....
 ICR, "Much Evidence Exists for a Worldwide Flood," Institute for Creation Research website, http://www.icr.org....
 Laurence D. Smart, "Evidence for a Global Flood," http://unmaskingevolution.com....
 Berg enumerates many of these cultures which seems to testify to the same basic pattern of events. Obviously, an event of this magnitude is worth passing down through traditions. Randy S. Berg, "Flood Legends," http://www.earthage.org....
 Geoff Maslin, "Is He Arking Up the Wrong Tree?" Times Higher Education Supplement 1276 (04/18/1997): 12.
 Frederick Edwords, "Searching for Noah's Ark," Humanist 43, 6 (Nov/Dec 1983): 35.
Just a few links of my own. Might be worth reading. :)
In this portion of the argument I will refute my opponents claims.
You constantly stated that "Other cultures have flood stories, geological evidence their was a flood, etc. etc."
Yes....but all of those cultures have different version of how they survived that flood, how it happened, etc. etc. It might be significant evidence that they all had a flood story if they all went over that God made a flood, and a guy sailed a wooden boat, but it doesn't. So that proves nothing to your point but maybe there was a worldwide flood. This also explains none of the animals getting to different places, plants, etc. Yes, a worldwide flood would open the DOOR to Noah's Ark, but it would also open the doors to every other religion you stated had a flood story therefore its not truly significant evidence.
Sigh.... Yes. A boat was found but let me quote my good friends national geographic
"Another reason scholars are skeptical of the latest Noah's ark discovery claim is that Genesis"the first book of the Bible"never specifies which peak the vessel supposedly landed on in Turkey.
"The whole notion is odd, because the Bible tells you the ark landed somewhere in Urartu,""an ancient kingdom in eastern Turkey""but it's only later that people identified Mount Ararat with Urartu," said Jack Sasson, a professor of Jewish and biblical studies at Vanderbilt University in Tennessee.
Stony Brook's Zimansky agreed. "Nobody associated that mountain with the ark" until the tenth century B.C., he said, adding that there's no geologic evidence for a mass flood in Turkey around 4,000 years ago. (See "'Noah's Flood' Not Rooted in Reality, After All?")
The Noah's Ark Ministries International explorers are "playing in a very different ballpark than the rest of us," Zimansky said. "They're playing without any concern for" the archaeological, historical, and geological records."
"Even if the Noah's Ark Ministries International team did find a wooden structure or even a boat on Mount Ararat, there are other explanations for what the structure might be.
For example, it could be a shrine constructed by early Christians to commemorate the site where they believed Noah's Ark should be, Zimansky said.
Bible scholar Sasson said he thinks biblical writers intended the story of Noah's ark to be allegorical, not a true recounting of historical events. By presenting a scenario in which humanity is punished for its wickedness, "they were trying to draw us to the notion of a God who asks us to be acceptable," Sasson said."
Noah's Ark has been "found" countless times over the centuries, each one proving to be false. Looking at this evidence I would conclude it is VERY far from hard evidence.
Looking at these arguments, I would say this evidence is nowhere near substantial enough to conclude Noah's Ark is a likely probability.
I would also like to conclude us secularists are officially out of our tizzy.
Mechanic has now posted responses to two out of the three lines of evidence for Noah's Ark and he never really clarifies any of the "straw man" arguments against the feasibility of Noah's Ark in Round 2. That means that he has responded to 2 out 3 or 66.6% of the arguments set forth. That entails that 33.3% of the arguments were unaddressed by my opponent. That leaves open the possibility of Noah's Ark which he is arguing against. If there is a 33.3% that Noah's Ark did happen, it would refute his position and the debate would go to "pro."
Furthermore, one of the counter-arguments that Mechanic raises against the "sighting of Noah's Ark" line of reasoning actually strengthens the Creationist position that Noah's Ark is, in fact, real. He cites a blog which maintains that, biblically speaking, the ark could have landed on any number of mountains. Well, if the real ark could have landed on any number of mountains (plural) of Ararat (due to broader geographical language used by ancient Semites), then it follows that if any *one* particular proposed sighting is discredited, the real ark could be on a different mountain of Ararat. Perhaps the Mechanic does not see how this fact would strengthen the Creationist (or Bibilicist) position and I can further clarify in a forthcoming round if it appears complex.
It is urged against the numerous flood legends that they do not agree on every particular and do not specify exactly how many survivors there were. This is easy to address. If the biblical account is correct, then that account would obviously have more accurate details about the exact number of original survivors *and* what sort of vessel was carrying the survivors given that a universal flood would render some sort of rescue vessel necessary. Correspondingly, we would logically expect other cultures who were more geo-spatially distinct from the Semitic culture to paint a broader, less specific picture of the number of survivors and how they survived.
Kudos to Mechanic for not dredging up the old evolutionary argument that so-called "primitive" or ancient cultures could not report on real history! Evolutionists used to believe that older cultures and customs must have been less advanced and therefore more primitive and unscientific. Now, this has been widely discredited and evolutionists have had to revise their theories once again.
One more point on the flood legends: there are some crucial similarities in all of the legends and that is what matters. Mechanic believes that placing credibility in different cultures would entail validation of the religion (non-Judeo-Christian) or so he seems to imply. That is clearly fallacious. If there was a universal flood, it would be honestly acknowledged by different cultures representing different religions. Naturally, we would expect that. It would testify to the accuracy of the biblical account which offers the most details of what actually occurred.
To recap, Mechanic does not respond to the geological evidences of a universal flood that were proffered for his consideration. Additionally, he has strengthened Creationism and the Flood account, perhaps inadvertently by citing the blogs that he does. Furthermore, he never clarifies the "straw man" counter-Flood arguments (such as, biblical "kinds" versus modern-day "species" definitions) that have been brought to his attention.
I look forward to further discussion and debate on this topic.
Ok, please before talking about percentages and unanswered claims, lets be honest, you only refuted 2 out of my 6 (you did not answer my water, plant, placement, and locating the animals claims) which means you answered a grand total of 33.32% of my claims meaning that you left 66.68% of my claims unanswered almost just like I did to you...but reversed.
Just wanted to get that out of the way.
Next, in answer to your "straw man" arguments, even in this situation of having a certain number of kinds, where would he acquire all of the food? How would he even know what half of these animals eat? Further more why did the predators not devour the natural prey? And where are our beloved fossilized friends, the dinosaurs in all of this? And please before stating that "the dinosaurs lived among us humans" I would love for you to know this is easily disproven as dinosaurs formed in layers upon layers and not one layer was found with human skeletons in it. For further information on this topic please visit
Your geological evidence as you stated in your closing was answered in my previous rebuttal, that even if there was a worldwide flood, it opens up nothing but speculation about other cultures. Proving Nothing.
I would like to bring a final point and closing statement before ending this fine debate
If Noah and his family were on the Ark, 8 people as listed, how did they repopulate the entire earth in such a short period of time? How did Aborigines of Australia and Native Americans of both Americas form? How did they manage to spread in such a quick amount of time? Also, Noah and his family went on this ark from this flood from God supposedly, if they alone repopulated the WHOLE earth and ALL of its cultures of that time... How did the story ever get twisted? Noah would tell his son, his son would tell their son or daughter etc. etc. Now, maybe a few details, some fake bravery and such, this I could understand but how could the flood story if we truly are repopulated from Noah get twisted enough to turn into stories such as the African Kwaya story which reads:
"The ocean was once enclosed in a small pot kept by a man and his wife under the roof of their hut to fill their larger pots. The man told his daughter-in-law never to touch it because it contained their sacred ancestors. But she grew curious and touched it. It shattered, and the resulting flood drowned everything"
This miraculous flood story along with many others is nowhere near Noah so please explain how "Noah and his family went on an ark from a flood that killed everyone because of God" to "A Girl touched a pot with an ocean in it and flooded the earth" or the Northeastern Asia story that goes along the lines of
"A flood once covered the whole world and drowned everyone except for one couple, who climbed up a tree on the highest peak of the Leng hill. In the morning, they discovered that they had been changed into a tiger and tigress. Seeing the sad state of the world, Pathian, the creator, sent a man and a woman from a cave on the hill. But as they emerged from the cave, they were terrified by the sight of the tigers. They prayed to the Creator for strength and killed the beasts. After that, they lived happily and repopulated the world."
I conclude after observing all the evidence, it is more logical to reason that while there may have been a worldwide flood, the story of the biblical Noah's Ark was nothing more than just that, a story.
Thank You One Again For The Debate.
Thank you for the time and effort put into this exchange and for coming up with the debate topic.
My opponent spends his time in his last statement clarifying a few more objections to the feasibility of the ark and deploring the lack of consistency in the flood narratives.
I believe that if he and I were to sit down and scan over all of the flood stories from various and sundry cultures, we would discover a remarkable similarity rather than dissimilarity in the majority of the accounts. Yes, there are a few accounts which deviate from the norm but those are the exception, not the rule. As researcher, Mark Adams writes, "Most ancient cultures seemed to have a Great Flood myth.The Deucalion Flood, which the Sais priest says came after the greater cataclysm that sank Atlantis, is strikingly similar to the Noah's ark story and the Mesopotamian flood epic of Gilgamesh; in all three versions pious men are instructed by gods to build floating vessels in order to survive an inundation." (p. 36).
Another factor which would weigh in favor of the biblica account as more persuasive and accurate than the few accounts which do differ is the level of detail. A concrete plan of action is set forth
Yet SubtleMechanic keeps acting as though the geological marks of a universal flood do not necessarily tell in favor of Noah's ark. Again, the evidence of the biblical detail of the flood account suggest that only a few, very well-equipped people who were protected from the ravages of the flood would be able to survive. Thus, if there were ever such a devastating flood that covered the entire earth, who would be able to live through it to tell of their experiences? If a universal flood occurred, SubtleMechanic would need to come up with an alternative explanation for how there would result in any human survivors, let alone animal ones.
My opponent ask how Noah would be able to figure out what all of these animals ate and how to take care of them.
There is actually some evidence that ancients knew more about animal behavior than many modern scientists.
Woodmorappe writes regarding ancient animal husbandry: "Moore (1983, p. 19, 32) once again displays his ignorance when he asserts that an ancient personage like Noah could not possibly have gathered and cared for so many animals. For his information, many ancient individuals of renown possessed menageries with tens of thousands of animals (for histories of large-scale ancient animal-keeping, see Bodson 1984...) As an example of an ancient personage who had an animal collection comparable to the one that Noah needed to have (Fig. 6), consider the Roman Emperor Trajan. He had 11,000 wild and domestic animals in his collection (Mullan and Marvin 1987, p. 95)....As for animal transport, we now realize that the ancients managed and transported vast numbers of animals on a regular basis. For instance, a Sumerian tablet indicates that, in one year alone, a total of nearly 400,000 cattle and sheep had been received from foreign vassals (Bostock 1993, p. 9)" (p. 58).
Through the three lines of reasoning that I have developed, I have shown that Noah's Ark is a plausible phenomenon.
Thanks again for the great debate and discussion!
Adams, Mark. Meet Me in Atlantis. New York: Penguin Group, 2015.
Woodmorappe, John. Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study. Dallas, TX.: Institute for Creation Research, 2009.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.