The Instigator
starstriker1224
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
Sacbut
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Did the flood with Noah really happen?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 2 votes the winner is...
Sacbut
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 89653
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

starstriker1224

Pro

In the christian bible, it talks about a flood that destroyed everything on earth and God started a new life. However, most history and scientists believe that the flood did not happen. Which do you think?
Sacbut

Con

There is no evidence to suggest that Noah's Ark actually existed. The ark would need to hold all 8.7 billion species (2 of each of them actually) and he would have had to sail around the world to collect them before the flood then sail around the world again after the flood to distribute them to their respective habitats. To claim that any of this is even possible, let alone believe that it actually happened without evidence is ridiculous. Also, if the great flood actually happened and all humans were killed and only 8 survived, the world would be full of inbred morons.
Debate Round No. 1
starstriker1224

Pro

Sorry about my first post I am new at this and I am only 14.
Actually, they have found possible remains of the ark. And it is all what you believe. Some chose to believe and some don't. And as far as the boat holding billions of species; the Bible says that Noah only brought the clean animals; that means only the animals that were in God's original creation. So nothing that God did not want to survive did not go on the ark. Actually, a lot of historians are find underwater caves with human remains as though they were killed suddenly. So, I believe that God is more reliable than science and logic.
Sacbut

Con

If god only brought "clean animals" then how can you explain the other species that exist currently? Also it is a leap to suggest that not only did the great flood occur but that "god is more reliable than science and logic". Not to be rude but this actually weakens your argument. You are no longer attempting to prove your argument using "science and logic", so you are undermining your own credibility. Science and logic are not things to be believed in or "reliable", they are processes in which we as humans observe our environment, form hypotheses, and test said hypotheses. If you do in fact have evidence for the existence of such an ark I would consider it, so please cite some sources. If the flood wiped out all life on earth in such a short period of time, the fossil layers would show a uniformed dispersal of all types of animals. Instead there is a clear pattern that formed over millions of years.
rock layers sources:
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
starstriker1224

Pro

First of all, I am new at this debating thing so you are not being rude giving me tips about what proves my argument and what doesn't. And this is my first time starting a debate.
Second of all, there is actually evidence that it existed because there is a boat shape imprint in the mountains. And it is the same length and width as in the Bible. However, i cannot say how the other animals survived.
Sacbut

Con

First of all that ark shaped image in the mountains is questionable at best. I wont go into details but here are some articles going into detail.
http://tinyurl.com...
http://tinyurl.com...

In conclusion, the idea that Noah was able to even build an ark that large in ridiculous. The largest ship built out of wood was the Wyoming, which was built by skilled shipwrights. The problem was that the ship would twist due to the long wooden structure. It eventually sank due to leaking. The Wyoming was built by the New England shipwrights, the best ship builders in the world at that time, and it was still unsuccessful. To believe that an unskilled family could build a ship larger than the Wyoming is already ridiculous. Then to claim that Noah was able to sail around the world and collect every animal and redistribute them after the flood is even more ridiculous. Also there is no way the land plants could have survived a full year underwater.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Brendan21// Mod action: NOT Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was only able to 'prove' ( no source) that a flood happened at one point somewhere (isolated flood, not world wide) that left an imprint on a mountain supposedly similar to the one described in the Bible. Pro does not proved adequate explanation on how Noah knew how to build such an ark, how the animals arrived, or what they were fed or how they refrained from killing each other as per the natural order of things. Con also questions reasonably how plant life remained alive for a year under salt water.

[*Reason for non-removal*] The voter does examine specific arguments made by both sides to determine the outcome of the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by starstriker1224 1 year ago
starstriker1224
http://www.viewzone.com...
Sorry here is the link to the page for my scource
Posted by MicaylaMae 1 year ago
MicaylaMae
You post a valid argument, Starstriker1224. Exept remember that voters will vote for you more likley if you have recources and websites backing up your opinions with proof. Good Luck to both of you!
Posted by DoctorFight 1 year ago
DoctorFight
um... you have to pick a side first.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Brendan21 1 year ago
Brendan21
starstriker1224SacbutTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was only able to 'prove' ( no source) that a flood happened at one point somewhere (isolated flood, not world wide) that left an imprint on a mountain supposedly similar to the one described in the Bible. Pro does not proved adequate explanation on how Noah knew how to build such an ark, how the animals arrived, or what they were fed or how they refrained from killing each other as per the natural order of things. Con also questions reasonably how plant life remained alive for a year under salt water.
Vote Placed by DBPDX 1 year ago
DBPDX
starstriker1224SacbutTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: For a first debate, Pro did exceptionally well. He had good arguements and took advice willingly to show he wasn't stuck in his ways. Hey quoted the Bible, and did exceptionally well with it. The only thing i would add for him, would be to mention that the animals came to Noah, he didnt have to collect them. Plus he lived for 800 years, so he had plenty of time to build the Ark.