The Instigator
BrettBoelkens
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
kenballer
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Did Noah's Flood Occur as Depicted in Genesis

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 536 times Debate No: 103340
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (0)

 

BrettBoelkens

Con

I am arguing that the Noachian Flood Deluge as depicted in the biblical book of Genesis is a fable, with no basis in reality. My opponent is required to be a creationist who believes in a worldwide flood. He can not however, just ignore problems and say that God did it. He can't used faith as a justification for belief, and must prove it with evidence. Of course, positive claims require positive evidence, and that is what I expect.

Meteorology and Thermodynamics
Leonard G. Soroka and Charles L. Nelson in their Physical Constraints on the Noachian Deluge examined four separate methods for flood waters, being rain, hypothermic springs, and two types of cometary impact. None of them work, due to excessive energy and heat.

Rainfall Model
The amount of water presently in the oceans is about 1.37 billion cubic kilometers, and to cover all the high mountains of the earth would require 4.4 billion additional cubic kilometers or approximately 3 times the amount of water present in the oceans. Not only would this make the air unbreathable due to it being 99.9% water vapor, atmospheric pressure being 840 times what it is now. Then take the latent heat of vaporization, when a kilogram of water vapor condenses and 2.26 million joules of energy are released. This is what powers thunderstorms and hurricanes. Condensing 4.4 billion cubic kilometers would create 10^26 joules of energy, making the planet 3500 degrees C, temporarily making the planet the second hottest object in the solar system. The oceans would boil and the ark would burn.

Hydro Plate Model
How about the hydro plate model, where all the water required to flood the Earth was put in the Earth's crust. Ignoring how the water got in that impossible position, what happens when you have highly pressurized water released. Assuming the water would be as hot as the water surrounding it, from the geothermic gradient the average temperature of the water would be approximately 1600 degrees C, steam cooking the planet before boiling everything alive.

Cometary Strikes
How about a comet, large enough to contain the necessary water (Calculation 3). A spherical comet composed of this mass of frozen water would have a diameter of approximately 2100 km, or about twice as large as Texas, or more than the radius of the moon. A comet of this size would release the energy equivalent of 12 trillion megatons of TNT. One of the largest nuclear bombs, the Tsar Bomba, only could produce a maximum of 25 megatons or 480,000,000 times less than the proposed comet.

How about a cometary hailstorm, causing mass tsunamis for 40 days and 40 nights? Though this would reduce the impact damage, it wouldn't reduce the potential energy of the comet. This would make the earth 6800 degrees C, temporarily making the earth's atmosphere hotter than the surface of the sun.

http://nagt-jge.org...

Archaeology
Young Earth creationists typically have used the James Usher model for calculating the age of the Earth. This was done by adding up all the chronologies, and days of creation. This is where they often get the 6000-10,000 year old Earth. But they typically disagree on the date of the flood at 1493 BC, since this is the approximate time of Moses. AiG puts the flood at 2370 BC, though some other creation ministries disagree. But either way, at this date, the Pyramid of Giza would have been built, flooded, and still be around just fine. This also means that the Egyptian's started their 6th dynasty while at the same time being drowned by billions of cubic kilometers of water. This also ignores the rise of the copper age, and the birth of Sargon and Gilgamesh.

Biology/Zoology
Food

What would be done with koalas; who eat only eucalyptus leaves? What would be done with pandas; who eat bamboo almost exclusively? Did Noah have a greenhouse on the Ark before they invented greenhouses? The same problem applies to every herbivore. One must ask how they survive if their only food source is miles underwater.

What would be done with predators such as lions, bears, alligators, crocodiles, cheetahs, and hyenas? Carnivores require a great deal of food to survive. With most species on the Ark, every time they would be fed there could very well be minor mass extinction. The only real creatures that would have abundant food would be termites and they can't eat the Ark.

Even if Noah could separate the animals on the Ark, he couldn't do that once they were off the Ark. Predators would have a buffet of beasts to feast upon when the Ark landed, ruining all the work just put into making sure they were still alive. If only 1 member dies before being able to breed, the unclean species is done for due to the lack of a mate. As soon as all the prey is gone, then the predators are screwed since they don't have food.

Evolution and Species Diversification
Of course, evolution is thrown out the window automatically, ignoring what 98% of all scientists in the American Association for the Advancement of Science who believe in the scientific process, as well as several popes.

If all of the animals of the world repopulated in the Middle East after the flood, and went outward, why do we not see species diversification decrease the farther away from there. If Noah's Ark was true, why do we not see this? Additionally, one must ask how we don't have problems arising from excessive incest. Genetic defects and disfigurations would be common, due to major genetic bottle necks.

Microbes
Were microbes on the Ark or not? Genesis makes no mention of them, either in the creation story or the flood. If Noah knew about microbes, this would at the very least require a microscope, something that wouldn't be invented at least till the late 15th century. And this would of course help explain that disease isn't caused by sin or the devil, rather germs. This may be something super helpful to write down in a book of wisdom. Additionally, microbes very specific needs, including refrigeration, incubation, high-pressure and low-pressure environments, incredibly diverse food substances (many which can't share the same space because some are toxic to others), diverse gas or fluid environments (again exclusive to each other, such as for aerobes and anaerobes). And please don't tell me Noah had a refrigerator full of deadly bacteria.

One must also what happened with viruses. Unlike bacteria, viruses can hardly reproduce on their own and require a host. Who is the poor idiot who had to hold AIDS, Rabies, Smallpox, etc. Even if we ignore the high mortality rate for these viruses, there are of course a great deal of parasites, such as the human exclusive host parasite the African Eye Worm, which only survives by burrowing into human eyes. One must also wonder how to deal with parasites and viruses in other animals. If one gets infected with a debilitating disease, for most animals you just screwed the whole species (Maybe that's why there are no unicorns?). Fleas ticks, mites, mosquitoes and intestinal worms would all have a place on the ark, with abundant food sources by the way.

Insects

What's the deal with insects? One must ask how Noah caught all these insects when butterfly nets were invented, but that isn't even the most major problem. Insects are the most diverse group of animals on the planet and include approximately 2,200 species of praying mantis, 5,000 dragonfly, 20,000 grasshopper, 82,000 true bug, 120,000 fly, 110,000 bee, wasp, ant and sawfly, 170,000 butterfly and moth, and 360,000 beetle species described to date. The number of extant species is estimated at between six and ten million, with over a million species already described. Taking the very lowest number, 6 million bugs are quite an insect collection.

Aquatic Species

One must ask how ocean life dealt with salinity changes, turbulence, massive pressure changes, sediment accumulation, and habitat destruction.

Engineering
Structural Stability and Required Materials
One must wonder how a ship more than half the size of the Titanic could even supply this amount of wood. The Middle East isn't exactly known for it's forests. Add to this that the largest wooden ship ever built, The Wyoming, was 450 ft long, and required iron braces and mechanical pumps to prevent the hull from flooding. And it still flooded. One must ask how some of the best ship makers to ever live couldn't even come close Noah, a pre dark age senior citizen.

Let's take a more similar example. Ken Ham's AiG created a life size ark, sadly on land. No real life test. But never the less, construction took more than a year-and-a-half and involved more than 1,000 craftspeople, in order to build an Ark that only housed stuffed animals. And remember, this is 1,000 modern workers, with actual technology. Noah didn't exactly have hydraulic cranes, forklifts, buzz saws, steam pile drivers, bolt cutters, or nail guns, did he? Add to this that these workers didn't need to worry about where their next meal was coming from. How could 8 people without real technology accomplish an even greater feat than what 1,000 workers could do with modern technology?

Methane Poisoning
Of course, one has to deal with the problem of methane and extrement. Without proper ventilation, methane buildup would occur, killing everyone via methane poisoning. And again, it's kinda hard to make advanced ventialation without ventilation nor air conditioning being invented yet.
kenballer

Pro

For starters, I am taking the position that Noah's story involved a worldwide flood, but not a global flood. There is a difference. A worldwide flood model claims to destroy all of human life (except Noah and his family), which covered only a local area at that time in history. A Global flood model claims to destroy all of life in general except Noah and his family, which would cover the entire planet. Here is the source that proves it was a worldwide flood and disproves a global flood [1].

I have noticed that most of Con'sarguments are scientific objections that refute a Global flood model, which puts him at a disadvantage. He is going to have to explain why he feelsthat the Bible depicts aGlobal flood rather than a worldwide flood in order for his arguments to stand.

According to studies, all humans were still located in Africa beyond some 50,000 years past during which a population bottleneck occurred: The number of humans plummeted, and the shrinking remnant became more genetically similar. Back then, mutations that were only slightly damaging had a greater probability of being carried from one generation to the next. As a result, harmful mutations or genetic disorders within humans started to arose and eventually become what it is today [3].

In fact, a research paper published in Current Anthropology provides scientific evidence for such a lost ancient civilization, evidence that confirms much of Genesis 1"11"s historical account of humanity"s early days. University of Birmingham archeologist Jeffrey Rose reports on the discovery, conducted over the past six years, of over sixty new archeological sites along the shoreline of the Persian Gulf. Rose states that "these settlements boast well-built permanent stone houses, long-distance trade networks, elaborately decorated pottery, domesticated animals, and even evidence for one of the oldest boats in the world." [4]

Finally, In almost every culture and religion of the world lies a story of a lost civilization. The ubiquitous nature of these stories, accounts, and legends lends additional credence to the idea that in the early days of humanity"s history a relatively advanced civilization was indeed lost by a flood[4]. This is because the culture that Noah was supposedly apart of was the originator of all the other cultures that mention a flood story. For example, Quentin Atkinson at the University of Auckland wondered if phonemes could be used to study humanity"s origin. What further motivated his idea is the phenomenon in genetics known as the serial founder effect. When a subpopulation breaks off of the main population, that smaller group displays much more limited genetic variability than the parent population. If the subpopulation, in turn, spawns another subpopulation, that resulting group of "break-a-ways" will display an even more reduced genetic variability [5].

When people began to migrate around the world, a small group left the point of humanity"s genesis. Serial fracturing of the migrating population took place, consequently generating the serial founder effect. According to Atkinson"s hypothesis, this phenomenon should be evident in the phonemes of the world"s languages. Atkinson analyzed 504 languages and discovered that African languages displayed the greatest number of phonemes. (African populations are the most genetically diverse and thought to be the oldest people groups.) He also determined that languages of people groups in South America and Oceania possessed the fewest number of phonemes. (These people groups are believed to be the youngest.) Atkinson also noticed a gradual decrease in phoneme numbers as the languages moved away from Africa and into Europe and Asia. The phoneme patterns Atkinson discovered closely match the genetic diversity data, and independently support the Out-of-Africa model.

Con's Objection: "Any modern day engineer will tell you it is impossible to make a vessel of that size made strictly out of wood; without any steel reinforcements and still float. "

The obvious problem with this objection is that it either presupposes that the wood Noah used still exists today or that the term "gopher" , which was used to describe what wood Noah used, is referring to modern day wood. Let's start with the latter assumption.

The fact is the Hebrew word "gopher" is used only once in the Bible, in Genesis 6:14 when God told Noah to "make yourself an ark of gopher wood." Since no one knows for certain what "gopher" means in this context nor is there a consensus on what it means among scholars , the King James Version and the New King James Version simply leave the word untranslated and say "gopher" wood. Most modern English versions of the Bible do translate it as "cypress", but this is just a filler or a guess to fill in gap of knowledge.

In regards to the former assumption, we have reason to believe that the plant species that produces "gopher" wood no longer exist today. This is because science tells us that 99.9% of species that have ever lived are extinct, and the bible tells us that the area where he lived was devastated by the Flood, which explains why most of Africa is a desert now.

The only sort of basis you can claim that this gopher wood still exists is if you assume a global flood model since it claims that every species around the planet back then was preserved on the ark. This would be less speculative but still somewhat speculative given the amount of species that exists today, as mentioned above.

However, we not only have reasons to believe that these assumptions are speculative but we have reasons to believe they are FALSE. For instance, If you read part of Noah's story carefully, you will notice that God gave Noah very specific instructions on how to build the ark he wanted built, which includes a specific type of wood called "gopher" wood. This suggest that this specialty wood, which God ultimately made, was strong enough to build a sustainable ark for Noah's journey. The Adam and Eve story is another instance where God created a special type of fruit, which obviously no longer exists today, that potentially allowed a human to live forever. Therefore, we have good reason to assume that the wood Noah used back then was viable enough.

[1] http://www.godandscience.org...

[3] https://www.sciencedaily.com...
[4] https://www.livescience.com...
[5] Quentin D. Atkinson, Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa," Science 332 (April 15, 2011): 346-49.
Debate Round No. 1
BrettBoelkens

Con

To begin, I think you're merely playing semantics. You agreed to argue for a worldwide flood, not a local one. This may suit some other debate, but not this one, making me win on merits sake.Whether or not I was clear on the matter, global and worldwide are synonyms for each other. The very first synonym for worldwide in Oxford Dictionary is global, and the first synonym for global is worldwide. Some dictionaries make local as an antonym of worldwide. Either way, if this was merely a local flood, how does this fit into your theology?

The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.” But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. (NIV Genesis 6:5-8)

If the flood was local. how was God's attempt to remove the great wickedness of the human race from the face of the Earth and start anew with Noah effective? He left all the Chinese and Egyptians and the Native Americans. Genesis didn't say that they found favor in God's eyes. A localized flood in the Iraqi floodplain isn't the whole world. And in Genesis 7:23 says that only those on the ark survived, and every living thing on the face of the Earth.

Rebuttals
My opponent has not covered several topics due to him arguing for a debate that he isn't in. Either way, my arguments from meteorology and biology still stand. The engineering arguments were at least partially debated against with his gopher wood arguments.
Genetics and Archaeology
I don't understand why this adds anything to the discussion, being complete non sequiturs. Science has said we have descended from Africa for years
Mythology
My opponent says that almost all cultures and religions have flood myths. Of course, there are thousands of flood myths, why do you think yours is true. Why not the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Zoroastrian, Egyptian, and Assyrian flood myths or perhaps the Islamic version of your same story. Either way, what is more likely, a flood engulfing the entirety of Earth, or pre dark age people making mistakes. It isn't like all the stories generally agree upon what happened, nor are all of them global. Celtic myths say the Earth was flooded by blood and a pair survived on a boat made by a titan. Transylvanian myths say man lived in a paradise with meat trees and wine rivers, yet the world flooded when someone broke a promise. Scandinavian myths say that giants survived by clinging to logs to later begat a race of ogres. Even if his argument was valid, without additional argument to show it was Noah's Flood and not others, this is just a broken compass argument. Positive claims require positive evidence, and he has yet to provide any.

Even if we take the presumption that this argument was true, would not earlier flood myths be true? Perhaps the Epic of Gilgamesh, a far older text than the Genesis story, that includes their God being angry at man, but warns a single man of future terrors, causing him to build a boat loaded with all living things. When the flood was almost over, the man sent out birds to see if the waters subsided, and when they did he sacrificed animals. Sound similar?

http://www.ancient-literature.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...

Gopher Wood
It is correct that we really have no idea what species of tree this gopher wood is, if it ever even existed. But either way, wood is wood. Wood bends and eventually snaps under pressure. And no matter what species it is, trees are primarily carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, all nonmetals. If a tree was to be without this you couldn't create cellulose in the tree. Without the advent of nanotechnology and atomic theory, we typically can't make malleable nonmetal material stronger than most of it's metal counterparts. The few nonmetals that rival or surpass metal strength are gems and crystals, with the most famous of whom being diamond. Diamond isn't malleable, nor could you build a boat out of it.

If the Ark ever existed, it would be more than half the size of the Titanic, and be a considerable portion of an aircraft carrier. To be similar to modern ships, the Ark would require metal like properties such as that of steel, iron, and aluminium so that it wouldn't twist and turn in every direction. However, if a tree was to be primary metal, it would die due to it's lack of ability to create polymers such as cellulose. And how would he cut down these trees if they were made of these materials.

Gopher trees could very well still exist, but be under another name. People gave all sorts of names to things that didn't stick, and we don't have perfect archaeological records. If the flood was local, the trees could just be in Northern Africa or in other parts of Asia Minor. But why does this even matter? Why did the wood have to be special? It could just very well be a harder hardwood than most other trees in the area. It didn't have to be magical.


kenballer

Pro


Unfortunately, someone has decided to make a one-sided smearing campaign against me to make it seem like I was intentionally taking someone else's work and passing it off as my own when it is not the case at all.

In the first round, although I cited where I got my facts to my argument, I copy and pasted a summary of those FACTS (NOT arguments) from a "secondary" source without citing or qouting it since I did not have access to the Original article, which compelled me to rely on secondary sources and their summary of those facts.


If this bothers people , here is the source that I carelessly did not quote or paraphrase the verbatim text from the summary of those facts:

http://www.reasons.org...


You agreed to argue for a worldwide flood, not a local one. This may suit some other debate, but not this one, making me win on merits sake.Whether or not I was clear on the matter, global and worldwide are synonyms for each other. The very first synonym for worldwide in Oxford Dictionary is global, and the first synonym for global is worldwide. Some dictionaries make local as an antonym of worldwide.


Need I remind Con that He never said "as depicted in the Oxford Dictionary". Instead, He specifically stated "I am arguing that the Noachian Flood Deluge as depicted in the biblical book of Genesis ". Even the title he chose for the debate said, "Did Noah's Flood Occur as depicted in Genesis". If Con said "I am arguing that a Global Flood model in Genesis is a model with no basis in reality", then maybe he would have a case. However, He did no such thing. Therefore, Con needs to make an attempt to showcase why we should assume that Noah's flood as depicted in Genesis should be interpreted as a Global flood rather than a worldwide flood that is referring to the whole world at that time. It is not my fault that he chose ignore the other viable interpretation of Noah's flood.



"Either way, if this was merely a local flood, how does this fit into your theology? "

Here is a source that explains how it fits into my theology in detail.


http://www.godandscience.org...


If the flood was local. how was God's attempt to remove the great wickedness of the human race from the face of the Earth and start anew with Noah effective?



As Hugh Ross pointed out, Peter addresses the extent of Noah’s flood. In both cases, Peter qualifies the Greek word cosmos, translated as “world.” In 2 Peter 2:5 he writes that the “world of the ungodly” was flooded. Here, Peter implies a distinction between the whole of planet Earth and that part of Earth inhabited by ungodly human beings. He does this again in 2 Peter 3:6 where he refers to the world that was deluged and destroyed as cosmos tote, which literally means “the world at the time the event occurred.” By attaching the adjective tote to cosmos, Peter implies that the world of Noah is not the same as the world of the Roman Empire. The limitations that Peter imposes upon Noah’s flood are consistent with a great many biblical texts that declare the doctrine that God’s judgment wrath is always limited to the extent of human reprobation. God’s refusal to wipe out the Amorites living in the hills of Canaan at the time that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah would be the obvious example.

http://www.reasons.org...



He left all the Chinese and Egyptians and the Native Americans. Genesis didn't say that they found favor in God's eyes. A localized flood in the Iraqi floodplain isn't the whole world. And in Genesis 7:23 says that only those on the ark survived, and every living thing on the face of the Earth.


This is because all humans were still located in Africa beyond some 50,000 years past before the flood happened.

https://www.sciencedaily.com...





Meteorology and Thermodynamics

I am not exactly sure what Con's objection entails here since his source was operating under the Global flood model that young earth creationists pioneer NOT Old earth creationists. So I will provide more evidence for my model, instead.

A new review of the archeological literature reveals evidence that the Persian Gulf region was once a lush oasis, during the last glacial maximum. As Rose points out, the Gulf Oasis was watered by springs upwelling from subterranean aquifers. Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 7:11 identifies “springs of the great deep” as part of the source of the flood waters that wreaked havoc upon the ungodly of Noah’s generation, which would explain why todays geography is different compared to the past. Thus, the Gulf Oasis vindicates the unique claims Genesis makes about the sources of water .

[1] Jeffrey I. Rose, “New Light on Human Prehistory in the Arabo-Persian Gulf Oasis,” Current Anthropology 51 (December 2010): 849–83.

Biology/Zoology


It is important to acknowledge that God has not revealed the entire creation process in the Genesis creation account, but only that which is particularly relevant to mankind for a reason. The Bible indicates Exodus 3:10-12 that God's communication to Moses was centered on the relationship between God and man and the rules by which God wanted man to live. The animals within the Garden of Eden were made to relate and be Adam's friend. For instance, the word nephesh is applied onto both animals and human beings, and primarily has the meaning "soul." The term encompasses the ideas of mind, will, and emotion. These characteristics apply to the higher animals, such as the birds and mammals. Finally, those same animals were referenced in Genesis chapter 6 , which Noah brought into the Ark. This means that not every single species on the earth was in the Ark and ,again, I am assuming a worldwide/local flood model.


Food


It specifically says in Genesis 6:21, "You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them". So the animals and Noah and his family had all the food they needed on the Ark.

Engineering


"How could 8 people without real technology accomplish an even greater feat than what 1,000 workers could do with modern technology?"


Noah and his family had over a hundred years to finish the Ark including instructions from an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God. So I don't see the issue here.

Methane Poisoning


I think this is speculation on Con's part. The text simply does not provide enough evidence or clarity on the subject to make a judgement on this.



Archaeology

The Genealogies are not made to be added up like that because there are many gaps between those lineages and this source adequately shows and explains how:

http://www.reasons.org...


Mythology
"My opponent says that almost all cultures and religions have flood myths. Of course, there are thousands of flood myths, why do you think yours is true."


This is because the culture that Noah was apart of was supposed to be the originator of all the other cultures that mention a flood story. I provided evidence for this already based upon this source:

Quentin D. Atkinson, Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa," Science 332 (April 15, 2011): 346-49.

Gopher Wood

I addressed this already. If you read part of Noah's story carefully, you will notice that God gave Noah very specific instructions on how to build the ark he wanted built, which includes a specific type of wood called "gopher" wood. This suggest that this specialty wood, which God ultimately made, was strong enough to build a sustainable ark for Noah's journey. The Adam and Eve story is another instance where God created a special type of fruit, which obviously no longer exists today, that potentially allowed a human to live forever. Therefore, we have good reason to assume that the wood Noah used back then was viable enough because God himself specifically created it for a defining purpose.


"If the flood was local, the trees could just be in Northern Africa or in other parts of Asia Minor"


This is because science tells us that 99.9% of species that have ever lived are extinct, and the bible tells us that the area where the gopher wood was located and he lived was devastated by the Flood, which explains why most of Africa is a desert now.


"But why does this even matter? Why did the wood have to be special? It could just very well be a harder hardwood than most other trees in the area. It didn't have to be magical."

This is not about magic but its about being consistent with the text as depicted in Genesis. That's it.


Debate Round No. 2
BrettBoelkens

Con

Plargirism
To begin, let's deal with the issue of potential plagiarism. Plagiarism is serious and should be considered when voting for conduct. I really don't know if my opponent plagiarized, or just forgot to insert quotation marks. I really don't know his intentions. But it should be considered that this is a possibility. I tried to check similarity using some similarity using plagiarism checkers, but everyone I tried said we both plagiarized from Debate.org. Oh, the irony. However, I did check for similarity using a similarity checker, and not a plagiarism checker, since it would only compare two documents. When comparing paragraph 6 of round 1 (When people began-Africa and into Europe and Asia) to reason.org's paragraphs 7-9 (When people began-evangelicals might think), it found 92.9% to be identical. Other examples are present, as Warped showed in the comments. If you wish to check for yourself, just compare his writings to his sources. I left the first sentence of both aforementioned excerpts below if you want an example.

When people began to migrate around the world, a small group left the point of humanity"s genesis. -KenBaller on Debate.org


When people began to migrate around the world, a small group left the point of humanity’s genesis. -Dr. Fazale Rana on Reasons.org

http://www.reasons.org...

Again, he may have forgotten to put quotation marks, but if he didn't this isn't good. I didn't cite my sources for some paragraphs, though this is not plagiarism. I apologize for this laziness on my part. Here they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

https://www.curbed.com...

http://www.wave3.com...

https://en.wikipedia.org...(schooner)

Similarity Checker

https://copyleaks.com...

Resolution
I said in the introduction of the first paragraph while dictating the rules of the debate, "My opponent is required to be a creationist who believes in a worldwide flood." [emphasis added]. You then said

"For starters, I am taking the position that Noah's story involved a worldwide flood, but not a global flood. There is a difference. A worldwide flood model claims to destroy all of human life (except Noah and his family), which covered only a local area at that time in history." -Ken Baller [emphasis added]

I then said worldwide and global are synonyms for each other, and that global is often an antonym for local. In the very beginning of the debate, I said my opponent must believe in a worldwide flood in the directions of the debate.
My opponent is right, the resolution makes no mention of whether the flood was global or local, yet I clarified this in my introduction. I did not say this debate was about Noah's flood being worldwide or local in the book of Genesis? If I did, I would likely agree with my opponent, due to the Hebrew translations. But nevertheless, this is not the question of the debate. You argued for a local flood, not a worldwide flood, and because of this we have been talking past each other a lot. If it was merely a local flood, I win on merits for the debate.


Biology/Zoology
If God only saved everything with the breath of life, and remade everything without it, why did he need to make Noah take the animals on the ark? God could have just remade every animal and not force Noah's family to take all of them.

You do realize that we have bacteria inside of us, helping make sure we live. This would have to be created with humans and other animals, or else we would all croak over. Again, I am arguing for a global flood, which my opponent is refusing to argue for.

Engineering
God could be stopped by chariots of iron (Judges 1:19), and the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years under divine guidance.

Methane Gas
Did you know you can commit suicide by turning your car engine on in your garage if the door is closed? Gas poisoning is actually really hard to deal with in confined spaces. With animals, you would have the production of carbon dioxide and methane.

Food
I have argued against a global flood, not a local one. If the ship size was smaller, the events could be plausible. But again, this debate isn't about global vs local, it's about the existence of a biblical global flood.

Mythology
What evidence do you have that Noah was the originator, rather than the Epic of Gilgamesh or such. Keep in mind that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates your book. Your source only says that language originated in Africa, and there are still many other myths. In Africa alone there are myths from Cameroon, Masai, Komililio Nandi, Tanzania, Pygmy, Ekoi, Kikuyu, Bakongom, Yoruba, and Mandigo.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

Gopher Wood
I really think you are reading in between the lines here, without reading the lines. In Genesis 2:9, the trees are described as the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The Tree of Knowledge is the plant that helped cause the fall of man. They are clearly magical/supernatural, and not ordinary plants. There are many completely ordinary plants in the Bible. What is more likely, that a plant we don't know about is magical or that we don't know what it is.

99.9% of all species are now extinct, but that doesn't mean this one is. Wouldn't people wish to cultivate a plant that defies the laws of physics? I don't understand why you say that most of Africa is desert when almost half of it is Savannah. It also doesn't follow that a flood would cause desertification, the yearly flooding of the Nile makes some of the richest soil. And it doesn't say anything about the trees only being in Africa.

Conclusion
Through this debate, my opponent has potentially plagiarized and has attempted to move the goalposts. When voting I hope you consider this. For my opponent to win, he can't merely cite that man came from Africa, everyone has flood stories, and therefore Noah's flood is true. He must explain why there there is, in fact, a common origin for these stories, and why Noah is the basis of them rather than other earlier myths. Now I must hand it off to my opponent. I thank him for debating me, and I wish him good luck.
kenballer

Pro


Lets get something straight here. In the last round, I was in no way trying to justify plagiarizism. Instead, I was trying to explain why I did NOT plagiarize in the first place. So let me elaborate.(wikipedia) Plagiarism is the "wrongful [borrowing]" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work. In other words, it is taking someone else's work and passing it off as if its your own by NOT referencing it in some way.

This means that Warp's definition of Plagiarism and application of it here is inaccurate. I DID reference every information I copied and pasted including the source in question. Moreover, there was nothing about that information I copied that would give the impression that it was my own thoughts and ideas because I mentioned the author of the study and provided a source to the study in regards to the Primary source. The secondary source and the author of it simply extracted the relevant information from the primary source that I did not have access to because it was a subscription journal. So ,at the most, this would simply be a case of improperly citing a source NOT plagiarism let alone intentional plagiarism that Warp claimed I committed. With that said, I probably could have paraphrased some of the language that the secondary source presented that maybe attributed to that secondary author. However, I still would not have changed that much of it in order to stay true to the primary author's argument.


Again, he may have forgotten to put quotation marks, but if he didn't this isn't good. I didn't cite my sources for some paragraphs, though this is not plagiarism. I apologize for this laziness on my part.



I am afraid Con DID in fact plagiarize according to Warp's inaccurate and abritrary definition of plagiarism:


"You make no implications that these are quotations by either citing a source OR putting them in quote marks. And these are entire segments of your argument that you play out as if they are your own words."



I then said worldwide and global are synonyms for each other, and that global is often an antonym for local. In the very beginning of the debate, I said my opponent must believe in a worldwide flood in the directions of the debate. My opponent is right, the resolution makes no mention of whether the flood was global or local, yet I clarified this in my introduction. I did not say this debate was about Noah's flood being worldwide or local in the book of Genesis?


Let me clarify what I meant about holding to a Worldwide flood model. Hugh Ross who is a old creationist explains in his article why he describes his position on Noah's story as the worldwide flood:

"At the extreme ends of the interpretive spectrum are these two positions: the global flood view and the local flood view. The global view says that the floodwaters covered the entire planet, destroyed every living thing, and generated all of Earth’s major geological features. The local flood view asserts that the event was a relatively minor one, affecting only a tiny fraction of the planet and of the human population. The RTB scholar team takes a view that differs from both of these, as will become clear in a series of three articles on the topic. Based on the meaning of the word [worldwide], “encompassing all members of a category or group,” in this case “all humanity,” our position can best be described as the [worldwide] flood view. "

"The same is true of the Old—and New—Testament references to 'the world.' Modern readers instantly think of the globe. Ancient readers (mostly hearers, because manuscripts and reading ability were limited) never even imagined a terrestrial ball. 'Earth' or 'world' to them meant 'land' or implied people and societies..........Two familiar Old Testament passages narrate 'worldwide' events other than the Flood: Genesis 41:56–42:6 and 1 Kings 10. The same Hebrew word, ’eres, translated as 'the earth' in the Flood account, is translated as 'the world' in these passages. So their meaning is essentially interchangeable."


"In all these and other Bible passages the words translated as 'all the world,' 'the whole world,' 'every nation under heaven,' and 'all over the world' refer to geographical or geopolitical regions somewhat less extensive than planet Earth’s entire surface. Therefore, one may reasonably conclude that references in Genesis 6–8 to “all the surface of the earth,” and “under the entire heavens” need not imply a globally extensive event. "

http://www.reasons.org...


There, this is essentially why I agreed to the debate since I am a creaitionist who believes in a worldwide flood, which is what Con required. Moreover, I got the impression that the debate was going to be about whether the story of Noah as depicted in the biblical book of Genesis was supported by science. I ,then, proceeded to provide empircal support for it as Con required from me in the introduction:" He can't use faith as a justification for belief, and must prove it with evidence. Of course, positive claims require positive evidence, and that is what I expect." I even addressed all the problems that Noah's story presented potentially. However, Con wanted to assume that there was only one interpretation of the Noah's flood story or dismiss the other model throughout the debate. He tried to justify this by appealing to secular definitions that suggest "Global" and "worldwide" mean the same thing, but this is not necessarily the case. Worldwide has additonal connotations to it that involve life forms, specificallly humans where Global is strictly referring to the earth. https://en.wikipedia.org...

All in all, there is no reason why Con could not have just shifted his gameplan to accomodate the situation because ,ultimately, its his fault that he did not do enough research on creationists literature. Instead, he tries to restructure the resolution in a way that does not require him to argue for a global flood interpretation of Noah's flood story depicted in Genesis and force me to address his scientific arguments against a global flood.


God could be stopped by chariots of iron (Judges 1:19), and the Israelites wandered in the desert for 40 years under divine guidance.

This has nothing to do with the Noah's flood story, but I will entertain it anyways. Yes, God cannot do everything but can only perform acts that are consistent with his nature. For instance, It is impossible for God to allow his mercy to override his justice. His holiness never conflicts with his love. Thus, God must be true to "all" his attributes at once and is bound by them.


What evidence do you have that Noah was the originator, rather than the Epic of Gilgamesh or such. Keep in mind that the Epic of Gilgamesh predates your book. Your source only says that language originated in Africa, and there are still many other myths.


I don't see why this is relevant since I am not arguing that the story of Noah depicted in Genesis was divinely inspired in order to show that God exists. The resolution only required me to provide empirical basis for the flood, which is described in the bible as being an event that happened before the emergence of all other cultures. Thus, the story of Gligamesh would simply add more evidence that it happened, ESPECIALLY when Con himself argued in round 2 that both stories were virtually the same in regards to fundamental aspects.




Gopher Wood

"I really think you are reading in between the lines here, without reading the lines."

If that is how Con feels, then let us just say its inconclusive because there is not enough textual evidence to determine which assumption is correct and just drop this point.



Conclusion


"For my opponent to win, he can't merely cite that man came from Africa, everyone has flood stories, and therefore Noah's flood is true"


Despite what my opponent claims, I provided more evidence than this. He just did not respond to it so I will lay it out again.
According to the science daily article, all humans were still located in Africa beyond some 50,000 years past during which a population bottleneck occurred: The number of humans plummeted, and the shrinking remnant became more genetically similar. Even though this study does not claim that the population bottleneck occured because of a flood, it essentially confirms everything else that can be confirmed about the story.

As far as evidence that shows that this bottleneck occured by a worldwide flood, the livescience article I gave in round one revealed evidence that the Persian Gulf region was once a lush oasis, during the last glacial maximum. As Rose points out, the Gulf Oasis was watered by springs upwelling from subterranean aquifers. Genesis 2:6 also states that “streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground.” Genesis 7:11 identifies “springs of the great deep” as part of the source of the flood waters that wreaked havoc upon the ungodly of Noah’s generation, which would explain why todays geography is different compared to the past. Thus, the Gulf Oasis vindicates the unique claims Genesis makes about the sources of water .


Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by kenballer 5 months ago
kenballer
I have already explained the difference between a global and worldwide flood within the last round of the debate and I gave you a source. So this should be enough.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
I understand what you are saying completely. It is more likely than not that the Bible does depict this if one goes into the literal Hebrew. This is why Muslims take such focus in reading their scriptures in Arabic, due to it being easy to lose something in translation.

I admit I didn't make it clear in the resolution, but I clarified it in the instructions. It may be advisable to do both next time.

Second, I still don't understand what you mean by the difference between global and worldwide. It may mean something different in Hebrew, but the instructions for the debate were in English. If you could expand upon this, I'd be grateful.
Posted by kenballer 5 months ago
kenballer
Brett, let me bring some more clarity so you won't feel I was being sneaky or something.

Biblical Hebrew has a very limited vocabulary (approximately 3,100 words) compared to the English vocabulary (estimated to be 1,000,000 words). Hebrew words often have several literal meanings. For example, Linguistic scholars acknowledge the Hebrew word yom (translated "day" in English) has several literal meanings: a period of daylight, 12-hour day, 24-hour day, time, period of time with unspecified duration, and epoch of time. While modern English has numerous words to describe a long time-span, no word in biblical Hebrew adequately denotes a finite epoch of time other than yom. Thus, since the Hebrew and English language are fundamentally different languages, this would naturally create errors for English interpreters as they read it. In other words, the English translation itself would not only potentially create an error, but its the interpretation from a English native that would also be in error.

Therefore, when I argued for a worldwide flood, I was not necessarily ignoring what the English translation of the bible, as you alluded. In reality, I am just trying to show how it is consistent with the TRUE word of God by taking everything within context of the whole bible and Hebrew translations. Thus, what I argued in the debate WAS a literal fundamentalist interpretation. If you want to learn more as to how and understand the differences between flood models, Just read this source: http://www.reasons.org...

Next time, you should be more clear in your debates, especially if you want to do another debate like this. If you do, make sure you specifically state a "Global" flood. I also would discourage you from saying that the flood occurred "as depicted in the bible" if you want the debate to be more on the scientific side. For example, I would say "did a global flood actually occur" and I would not even mention the bi
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
thanks
Posted by Smithereens 5 months ago
Smithereens
Debates with implied definitions are supposed to be respected when the instigator opens with a case in Round 1. For future Reference Brett, if you want to debate a Global flood, and present a case against a global flood in round 1, you should call off the debate if your opponent redefines the topic to worldwide flood.

You are the owner of this debate thus you have every right to debate what you want to debate.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
Dude, I totally agree with you that it probably doesn't say that it was a global flood. I wanted to debate on a literalist fundamentalist interpretation like AiG says, since that's what most creationists believe. Again, I said worldwide flood. If could explain the difference between global, local and worldwide, I'd really appreciate it, since I really have no idea what you mean on this point.

Sorry, this debate ended up with us talking past each other so much.
Posted by BrettBoelkens 5 months ago
BrettBoelkens
That awkward moment when you have to look up a basketball metaphor. :(
Posted by Warped 5 months ago
Warped
You are not understanding, this is not about who wins or loses. And this is not about not properly citing sources. This is about integrity and plagiarism. Passing off other people's work as if it is your own. And copy and pasting other's work, re-working a few words to make it fit the flow of your argument, and pretending it is your own work (until called out on it) is dishonest.

If Con did it too then point it out and i will join you in calling him dishonest. But im betting he probably did not. And even if he had, two wrongs do not make a right.
Posted by kenballer 5 months ago
kenballer
Then just do it and show how biased you are in focusing your attention on one debater so you can make an excuse for voting for Con rather than focusing on the merits and fairness of the debate in general.

so Go ahead and be a 6th man off the bench to help CON win the debate for him. I will focus on the debate from here on out.
Posted by kenballer 5 months ago
kenballer
Then just do it and show how biased you are in focusing your attention on one debater so you can make an excuse for voting for Con rather than focusing on the merits and fairness of the debate in general.

so Go ahead and be a 6th man off the bench to help CON win the debate for him. I will focus on the debate from here on out.
No votes have been placed for this debate.