The Instigator
Casiopia
Pro (for)
Losing
123 Points
The Contender
Rezzealaux
Con (against)
Winning
128 Points

Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,755 times Debate No: 4660
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (55)

 

Casiopia

Pro

Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides with the Genesis account of Noah's Ark

This is my first post on the site and look forward to hearing from anyone who would like to debate this topic. Peace.

1)Global flood evidences include:

The earth's features (such as mountains, canyons, regional stratigraphy (large-scale single rock beds), soft bending of rock strata, etc.) require some type of catastrophic explanation.

Sedimentary rock formations (formed through water deposition) cover substantial portions of North America and other continents.

There is no evidence that coal, oil, or ore deposits are being formed today, yet massive deposits are found in the earth.

Likewise, the earth contains many great fossil beds, none of which appear to be forming today either. Fossils require rapid burial to be preserved.

Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five continents.

Exceptions in the geologic column indicate that it was not formed in a gradual manner, such as the appearance of single trees that extend vertically through multiple "ages".

2.There are other, non-geological, evidences that point to a start (or rebirth) of the earth approximately five to ten thousand years ago, as would be the case if a global flood has occurred.

The origin of civilization is generally agreed to be in the Middle East, which is where Noah's Ark landed. The Middle East just "happens" to be a good, centrally located place from which to repopulate the world.

The oldest written materials date back five to six thousand years.

The first signs of civilization, things like pottery, agriculture, the domestication of animals, metallurgy, and the first cities are dated by secular scientists to approximately 10,000 years ago at the earliest.

The oldest known living things, the Bristlecone pine trees in California, date to about 5,000 years ago.

Study of the build up of human population makes it clear that humans have only existed for a few thousand years (not millions), even when the maximum likely effects of war, disease, disaster, and other population-reducing factors are considered.

An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon dating results published in the "Radiocarbon" journal shows an unmistakable spike in the death of living things about 5,000 years ago

All this information can be found at the website below.
http://emporium.turnpike.net...
Rezzealaux

Con

Welcome to debate.org, Casiopia.

I am its resident Geass Canceller.
_________

I'm going to be assuming that Genesis's account of Noah's Ark and The Flood is true for this debate, as I lack the space in this measly 7,800 characters-per-round setup to critique that standpoint.

[COINCIDE] is defined by dictionary.com to be "to occupy the same place in space, the same point or period in time, or the same relative position".

[*] = looked the thing up on Wikipedia.

With that, let's begin the refutations.



"The earth's features […] require some type of catastrophic explanation."
1) He gives no reason to believe that it requires, so drop the whole point.
2) Floods do not explain mountains, canyons, or regional stratigraphy.
3) The earth's features give reason to believe otherwise.
3a) Mountains: These are caused by plate tectonics, and even the newest [well known] mountain range, the Himalayas, started to form over 70 MYA*. They're still forming today because the Indian and Eurasian plates are still at odds with one another. I fail to believe that a flood can cause two such plates to create this in about a year (according to his site)
3b) Canyons: Let's use everyone's favorite; the Grand Canyon. It started forming over 17 MYA, and is still forming today because the Colorado River is still running. I also doubt a flood could create canyons either. Both the Grand Canyon and the Himalayas already knock out PRO's entire position, as they started forming way over 1MYA, whereas the Biblical account of the world is quite under 100,000 years.
3c) Stratigraphy: "Stratigraphy, a branch of geology, studies rock layers and layering (stratification)."* From my understanding, if there was a great Flood that was all around the world, then the sediments would be so mixed up that somewhere in the last several thousand years, geologists EVERYWHERE would be able to see this obscenely wide layer in the sedimentary forms. Until there is such evidence, Stratigraphy PROVES that such sedimentary formations formed so OVER TIME, as different eras/ages/times have their own "signature".

"Sedimentary[…]"
1) Re-apply 3c from above.
2) Rivers do this too. You don't need a flood for every Sedimentary form.
3) "Sedimentary rocks are formed because of the overburden pressure as particles of sediment are deposited out of air, ice, wind, gravity, or water flows carrying the particles in suspension."* Apparently, you don't even need water for every Sedimentary form.

"Coal, Oil, Ore"
1) These deposits happen over time.
2) He has no evidence to show that there is no evidence.
3) Any swamp in existence is a forming coal deposit. http://www.dkimages.com...
4) How does a flood explain any of this?

"Fossil Beds"
1) LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, YOU CALLED FOR A FORMING FOSSIL BED. WHAT'S THAT? YOU'RE JUST DYING TO SEE IT? BEHOLD, I GIVE YOU: http://images.google.com...
2) Any mud slide is also a forming fossil bed.
3) Probably rock slides too.
4) And let's not forget the Swamps.
5) Or the Quicksands.
6) Or the Volcanoes.
(source: http://science.howstuffworks.com...)

"Ocean fossils are found at high altitudes on all five continents"
1) I thought there were seven continents. Last I checked I didn't fail earth science.
2) I'll use the Rocky Mountains as my example. (Way way way way way way) Way back in the day, the Rocky mountains did not exist. In its place was a sea. Which was presumably filled with living things. Those living things presumably were not immortal. Some of those presumably fossilized, along with some of their ancestors from previous eras. The Rocky Mountains formed, again to our friends at Plate Tectonics. (source: http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov...)

"Exceptions"
1) Then they're the EXCEPTIONS and not the RULE. Some great flood eh?
2) I would like to see some of this. As in reports and pictures. Or some websites.



Before we dive into this part, I think we need some definition clarification. His link/site says that dating of the flood is at about 3000BC, but it does not say what exactly was dated in order to find out when the flood happened. The second reason to disregard that dating is because it's not from the Genesis, and the resolution is clearly talking about the Genesis account of the flood, not some radiocarbon dating that doesn't even tell us what was dated. So, I looked it up and got Answers in Genesis (lol pun): 2304 (+/- 11) BC. This will be the date of the flood. (source: http://www.answersingenesis.org...)

"The origin of civilization is generally agreed to be in the Middle East, which is where Noah's Ark landed[…]"
1) Egypt: "The civilization began around 3150 BC[1] with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh, and it developed over the next three millennia."* And that's AT UNIFICATION. Their society existed long before that. The flood happened WAY after Egypt's beginnings.
2) Mesopotamia: "The history of Mesopotamia begins with the emergence of urban societies in southern Iraq in the 5th millennium BC"* Using either the false date or the real date of the Flood, neither would have worked as Mesopotamia existed over 2000 years before.

"Oldest Written Materials"
1) Sure, but does not coincide with the flood since it only happened four thousand years ago, instead of five to six.

"First signs of civilization[…]"
1) Wrong: "Two pottery pieces were unearthed at Liyuzui Cave in Liuzhou, Guangxi Province dated 16,500 and 19,000 BC." (Ancient China)*
2) Still no link, as the flood did not happen in ~8000BC.

"Bristlecones"
1) Still no link, as the flood did not happen in ~3000BC.

"Study of the buildup of human population[…]"
1) I would like a citation on this, as I cannot find it in the link.

"An analysis of 30,000 radiocarbon datings[…]"
1) I can't find this paper on JSTOR, nor Google, so I would like a copy of it. Nonexistent papers have nonexistent weight in debate. But even if we were to assume it was true…
2) I'm sure 30K radiocarbon datings means a really accurate answer, so let's assume that it was right and there was a spike of death in living things at about ~3000BC. Well, the flood happened in ~2000BC. Therefore, no coinciding.

I look forward to the following rounds.
Debate Round No. 1
Casiopia

Pro

Thx Rezz,

1. Point taken...I will say desire to inquire.

2. Uniformitarianism: Estimating changes over long periods of time with the ASSUMPTION that scientific laws & geological processes & forces that operate today also operated in the past.

Con believes "the present is the key to the past"

2a) MOUNTAINS:
The Bible refers only to ‘high hills', & the mountains today were formed only towards the end of, and after, the Flood by collision of the tectonic plates and the associated upthrusting. In support of this, the layers that form the uppermost parts of Mt Everest are composed of fossil-bearing, water-deposited layers. This uplift of the new continental land-masses from under the Flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose & the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion & shaped the basic features of today's Earth surface.

The tectonic changes include significant vertical motions of the continental surfaces to allow for the deposition of thousands of meters of fossil-bearing sediments, lateral displacements of the continental blocks themselves by thousands of kilometers, formation of all of the present day ocean floor basement rocks by igneous processes, & isostatic adjustments after the catastrophe that produced today's Himalayas, Alps, Rockies, and Andes.
http://www.icr.org...

To cancel cons "I fail to believe a flood can cause two plates to create a mountain in one year" please see "Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood"
http://creationontheweb.com...
http://creationontheweb.com...

The Himalayas forming 70 MYA is a debate for another day.

3b)CANYONS:
Monument to the world-wide Flood
For more than a century, evolutionary geologists have tried to explain how the Grand Canyon might have formed slowly over millions of years. Ideas that the Colorado River eroded the canyon, or that enlargement of streams and gullies caused it, have been shown to be improbable. Both of these theories have a difficult time explaining where the products of tens of millions of years of river erosion went.

Geologist Dr Steven Austin says:
'The crystalline-basement rocks exposed deep within the Canyon (schist, granite, and gneiss) represent some of earth's oldest rocks, probably from early in Creation Week. Tilted, deeply buried strata show evidence of catastrophic-marine sedimentation & tectonics associated w/ the formation of an ocean basin midway through Creation Week, & may include ocean deposits from the post-Creation, but pre-Flood world. The Canyon's characteristic horizontally stratified layers (the "Paleozoic Strata") are up to 4,000 feet thick & are understood to be broad sedimentary deposits in northern Arizona dating from the early part of Noah's Flood. Remnants of strata overlying the rim of Grand Canyon (the "Mesozoic Strata") are associated with a widespread erosion surface. Dr Austin says these features suggest tectonics, sedimentation, & erosion during the last half of the Flood year as the Colorado Plateau was lifted more than a mile above sea level. The catastrophic erosion of Grand Canyon was associated with river-terrace gravels, lake sediments, landslide deposits, & lava flows of the post-Flood period.

3c) STRATIGRAPHY:
2 links below are recent scientific evidence of sediment layering that give evidence to the flood theory.

Velafrons coahuilensis, a new dinosaur find from Mexico gives a vivid insight into the enormous extent of Noah's Flood catastrophe.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...
http://creationontheweb.com...

SEDIMENTARY: See above also
The sedimentary rock formations created by catastrophic flood waters are located across the globe & are unique b/c scientific evidence proves they were created quickly, in contrast to the long process of the sediment formations con mentioned.

Referencing the Three Sisters Mountain range in Australia geologist Dr Patrick Conaghan said, From the size of the cross beds, we determined the conditions under which the sand was deposited. In 1994 he described a wall of water up to 65 feet high & 150 miles wide coming down from the north at enormous speed. This catastrophic interpretation is consistent with what we would expect during the Biblical Flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org...

COAL, OIL, ORE:
PLEASE SEE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE
The Chemistry of Oil - Explained by Flood Geology
Oil was formed rapidly from the remains of plant & animal matter. Oil originates in sedimentary rocks which were originally deposited by moving water. This is exactly what we would expect from the year-long Flood of Noah's day. A very reasonable model of petrogenesis can be based on the assumption that most of the oil and gas deposits of our day date from the worldwide Flood of about 2500 B.C., or about 1600 years after Creation.

Pro postulates Coal strata accumulated from plants which had been rapidly transported & deposited under flood conditions & is called the allochthonous theory. Evidence for it is as follows: Marine animals and terrestrial (not swamp-dwelling) plants in coal imply transportation. The microstructure of many coal strata shows particle orientation, sorted texture, & microlamination indicating transportation (not growth-in-place) of plant material.

Referring to cons statement that "deposits happen over time"
Pro cites Experiments in the alteration of vegetable material show that coal resembling anthracite does not require millions of years to form, but can be produced rapidly by a short heating process.

In regard to cons swamp coal it would take 1500 years to get 6 inches of coal which doesnt jive w/ our the current coal status. The website article below diffuses cons Swamp Theory
http://www.creationontheweb.com...

FOSSIL BEDS:
Con is referring to single fossils, not huge fossil beds that resulted from a catastrophic flood.

See pros article cited below: Need I say more?

"Found in a Wisconsin sandstone quarry, it must have been an extraordinary set of circumstances that preserved them, geologists say, for fossilized impressions of jellyfish, which have no skeleton or other hard parts, are extremely uncommon."
http://creationontheweb.com...

OCEAN FOSSILS FOUND AT HIGH ALTITUDES ON ALL 5 (or 7) CONTINENTS
1. Some experts argue that N & S.America comprise 1 continent bc they're connected by the Middle American land bridge, & Europe/Asia bc they're a single land mass w/ no intervening body of waters separating them.

2. Con, thx dude you are now defending my position w/ this statement. I'll just add catastrophic flood to it.

EXCEPTIONS
1. Con took it out of context, but here's the rule:

2. The phenomenon of vertical fossil tree trunks

Broken tree trunks deposited vertically in thickly bedded sandstone 25 miles north of Sydney, overlooking the S. Pacific Ocean http://www.answersingenesis.org...
http://www.icr.org...



PRO's debacle & request to CON: Can I respond to this section & your reply in the 3rd round & or in the comments section due to limited characters.

PRO will close with this fact to ponder for the next round:

"In the year 1CE, 300M people were living on earth. This doubled to 600M in 1650 (took 1650 years). It took 200 yrs to double again, & then 100 yrs to double again. It now doubles every 45 yrs." Reference: "Idiots Guide to Geography"

Last I checked I didn't fail basic math, but according to these numbers w/in the last 10,000 yrs population could have coincided with the catastrophic flood of The Bible.
Rezzealaux

Con

SUMMARY VERSION [OVERVIEW]

Let's look to the resolution. It reads, Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark. Now, when I look through my opponent's case, I don't ever see an argument formed to prove the topic as true. Instead, I see points that affirm this: "The Genesis account of Noah's Ark and the Global Flood is reflected in geographical evidence". The difference between that and the actual resolution is quite simple: The resolution says that ‘the evidence points towards an X conclusion'. This is AKA the scientific method, as conclusions are formed after looking at what cumulative evidence points to. However, my opponent's case assumes that a certain conclusion is true, and then picks out the evidence that supports it. Simply put, his case is nontopical. As you have seen or will see, every single one of his points has a naturalistic explanation, and do not NECESSARILY point towards a global flood (and some can't be explained by floods to begin with), which is what the resolution asks him to do.

I believe quite so that "the present is the key to the past", as I use that format (the scientific method) to show the evidence today does not point to a flood in the past. My opponent is supposed to believe that as well, as the resolution asks him to prove it is true. It's a pity that my opponent took the position that "the past is the key to the present" (and assumes a certain past is true to begin with).

Again, I am only assuming that the Genesis account of Noah's Ark and the Flood are true. This by no means dictates that my position also accepts the Genesis account of the age of the world, the origin of the world, or anything else in the Bible for that matter.

My position in this debate is to show that the evidence does not point towards the Genesis's Global Flood, and my opponent's is to show that it does. Since he also has the burden of proof, even if you don't buy anything I'm about to say, you still vote for me because his case is nontopical.

THE LINE BY LINE
Note: Unless I say otherwise, my referencing of other points is from within this round. Also, [*] still means it's in Wiki.



MOUNTAINS
1) His last two links are exactly what they say they are: Ministries. Not the scientific community as a whole, and not even the majority of its views. If such a model were actually scientifically viable (meaning that there is actually such evidence), it would've been all over the media, as a catastrophic plate tectonics model would mean that the theory of plate tectonics, nay, GEOLOGY AS A WHOLE would need some SERIOUS revamping. In short: We would have heard about it. Well, we didn't. Conclusion: It was rejected by the scientific community. As for the second link and UHP's, my opponent doesn't argue anything with it (and neither does the link), so it can be dropped.
2) As for the ICR paragraph, I don't have anything to say against it, since it very nicely sums up what I was trying to say about plate tectonics. Then again, that section doesn't really do anything for him either, since he didn't use it to prove a point.
3) His entire first paragraph lacks a warrant. The Bible is not Geographical Evidence.
4) Himalaya's age is certainly not a debate for another day. His case claims that Earth's features today were all created about 2000 years ago, while scientific evidence clearly points to the contrary – IE, Himalayas formation starting ~70MYA.
5) Extend "Mountains" from R1

CANYONS
1) Improbable? Link me to the calculations please. As for the tens of millions of years of erosion, the Grand Canyon's formation was blocked for some time due to lava flow*.
2) Unless Noah's Flood existed 500-250MYA, the Paleozoic Strata clearly shows evidence to the contrary. As for "lifted a mile above sea level", we have an explanation backed by evidence for that. (Geology of the Grand Canyon)*
3) http://home.comcast.net...

STRATIGRAPHY
1) He doesn't claim anything, so you can drop the "points". Linking is not equal to debating.
2) The Dino doesn't show anything. It makes false claims such as: "Even though the animal was judged to have been young when it died it would still have been some 25 feet long. Its remains would have needed to be buried promptly to be preserved, and this would require a considerable quantity of sediment." and then makes even more false claims to prove it. Nothing NEEDS to be buried promptly to be preserved, there's no evidence to believe that is true. Reapply "Mountains 1" here.
3) Extend "Obscenely wide layer". It flies unrefuted and already destroys his entire position.

SEDIMENTARY
1) Scientific Evidence? Omg where!?!!
2) Reapply "Obscenely wide layer".
3a) "The soft sandstone of the Blue Mountains is easily eroded over time by wind, rain and rivers, and the cliffs surrounding the Jamison Valley are being slowly broken up. Formations like the Three Sisters are created when water seeps into small cracks in the rock, gradually enlarging them over time to form large indentations. Eventually, the Sisters will be eroded away completely."*
3b) Which also means that the Three Sisters CANNOT have been formed by a flood, as the soft sandstone would have been completely blown away by waters that supposedly formed the Grand Canyon and the Himalayas.

C,O,O
1) Oil forms over quite a few million years, not a few thousand. http://earthguide.ucsd.edu...
2) Experiments? Omg where!?!!
3) Yes, transportation happens. It doesn't mean that there needs to be a flood, though. Different types of fruit trees are growing all around the world, does that mean that there was a flood to make that happen? No, of course not! There's other explanations for it: such as people planting them; animals eating fruit, then travelling, and then visiting Mother Nature for a few minutes; wind; water; among other things.
4) I don't know what he means "jive by our current status". It's not like the earth only existed for a few thousand years and therefore coal had to be created from the Flood. Therefore, extend "COO 2" from R1
5) Extend "COO 3" from R1

FOSSIL BEDS
1) The only difference between "fossil beds" and "single fossils" is the amount of organisms present. Which means if fossils can form today, so can fossil beds.
2) Reapply "Mountains 1"
3) Today's jellyfish are different from past jellyfish. It's not a reasonable to expect them to fossilize the same way.
4) Apply "Exceptions 1" from R1.

OCEAN FOSSILS
1) Extend Rocky Mountains from R1. It flies unrefuted and destroys his entire position.
2) Continents has no claim warrant or impact, so you can drop it.
3a) Sure no problem; whatever "floats your boat". You're going to have to form an argument though.
3b) This is what I meant when I said he looks for evidence to fit the conclusion, instead of a conclusion to fit the evidence.

EXCEPTIONS
1) Extend "Exceptions 1" from R1. If the flood really did happen, we'd be seeing that everywhere, not just in isolated pockets. I did not take anything out of context.

THE REQUEST
You can do whatever you want; I don't really mind. Just don't expect the voters here to think the same way: Some don't allow dropped arguments to be picked up again, and some think that debating in the comments is dishonest. Oh yeah, don't expect me to comply either.



Extend everything. None of the things he provided point to the flood, as EVERY LAST ONE of the items date to before the flood took place. In this section alone I have won the debate, as this geographical evidence points AWAY from the conclusion of a global flood.

As for his endnote, you can disregard it as he doesn't show us how the statistics actually point to a flood. He can say he did the math all he wants, but until we actually see some evidence, the point holds no weight. Finally, "could coincide" is very different from "pointing to".

Vote CON.
Debate Round No. 2
Casiopia

Pro

Hi Rezz,

I like your new picture, she's much nicer looking than the blue haired cartoon guy with the gold eye patch.

Anyway...Agree to disagree

Time has become a problem for me so I'll keep it short.

Science: A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observations and experiments.
Broad, but increasingly precise and concise, relationships are sought between causes and effects. These relationships, called scientific laws, help predict future phenomena and explain past events.
Notice, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with natural, cause-and-effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Furthermore, if the first cause were a natural consequence of something else, it would not be the first cause. Scientific laws can provide great insight on ultimate origins even though the first cause cannot, by definition, be duplicated. Yes, there was a beginning. Scientific conclusions, while never final, must be based on evidence.
scientific evidence: Something that has been measured with instruments or detected with our senses, is verifiable, and helps support or refute possible physical explanations.
All evidence I presented is based on observable, natural phenomena that others can check. To most people, this evidence implies a global flood. Also, the consequences of a global flood have been misinterpreted as evidence for evolution, not as evidence for a flood. That misinterpretation, unfortunately, is taught as science. Explanations other than a global flood may someday be proposed that are (1) consistent with all that evidence and (2) demonstrable by repeatable, cause-and-effect relationships. Until that happens, those who ignore existing evidence are being quite unscientific.
People that disagree the flood best explains many features on earth, object to a global flood, because the Bible—a document they wish to discredit—speaks of such a flood. Still others object to the starting point for the flood, but in science, all starting points are possibilities. The key question must always be, "What best explains all the evidence?"
Also, the source of a scientific idea does not need to be scientifically derived. For example, Friedrich Kekul� discovered the ring structure of benzene in a dream in which a snake grabbed its tail. Kekul�'s discovery laid the basis for structural chemistry. Again, what is important is not the source of an idea, but whether all evidence supports it better than any other explanation. Science, after all, is a search for truth about how the physical universe behaves.

http://www.creationscience.com...

I don't see why it matters if the information I posted is from a Christian website. All the information/studies/experiments they site are from secular and Christian scientists. That is like saying that if a Muslim gave you a Bible it's not really a Bible because it came from a Muslim. There are Christian scientists all over the world, they do not get published as often as as secular scientists b/c the majority of the scientific community are liberals. The information below is off CNN if that makes it more credible for you.

http://archives.cnn.com...

There's no dispute that the Black Sea was flooded when rising world sea levels caused the Mediterranean to fill the Black Sea. Prior expeditions show the flood was so monstrous it raised water levels by 511 feet, and submerged up to 60,000 square miles of land, an area the size of Georgia.

The questions are when did it happen, and how rapidly? Until recently, scholars believed the drowning occurred about 9,000 years ago and was gradual. But marine geologists Walter Pitman and William Ryan wrote in 1997 that the flood was sudden and took place about 7,150 years ago.

http://www.cbsnews.com...

If you want to see more awesome evidence for the Flood go to this website...

http://www.creationscience.com...

Sorry Rez it is a Christian Website but the author was an evolutionist most his life so you might like him.

Walt Brown received a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where he was a National Science Foundation Fellow. He has taught college courses in physics, mathematics, and computer science. Brown is a retired full colonel (Air Force), West Point graduate, and former Army Ranger and paratrooper. Assignments during his 21 years in the military included: Director of Ben�t Laboratories (a U.S. Army research, development, and engineering facility) near Albany, New York; tenured associate professor at the U.S. Air Force Academy; and Chief of Science and Technology Studies at the Air War College. For much of his life Walt Brown was an evolutionist, but after years of study, he became convinced of the scientific validity of creation and a global flood. Since retiring from the military, Dr. Brown has been the Director of the Center for Scientific Creation. He devotes full time to teaching, research, and writing on creation and the flood.

People...whether you vote for me or Rezz please look at the information and websites we both posted to come to your own conclusion. Thanks for my first debate Rezz; I learned a lot.
Rezzealaux

Con

PRO's explanation of science was superb, and I agree with every last bit of it. However, the fact of the matter is, the evidence we have seen in this debate doesn't lead us to the conclusion that a global flood occurred. Whereas it's true that the origin of ideas is indeed irrelevant, evidence and theories still must be able to support whatever claim the idea makes. Genesis's global flood simply is not the same as the structures of benzenes or fullerenes when it comes to science – the evidence just does not point in that direction.

He is correct in saying that he provided empirical examples and phenomena that others can see for themselves. The only reason why this doesn't mean he wins the debate is because I have shown how each of the items do not point to a global flood (refer to line-by-line in R2).

As for the "Christian website" thing, I'm not arguing against Christianity here. I'm arguing against MINISTRIES, which the two sites openly admit themselves as such. A ministry is by definition dogmatic, and I think the probability that its dogma is "let the evidence take us where it may" is very, very low. This rigidness is not congruent with the paragraph my opponent wrote about science; ministries DO NOT ask "What best explains all the evidence?" oh no, they TELL you what the answer is and then they TELL you to find evidence that supports such a conclusion. And to exclude/ignore anything that doesn't. Science? No, far from it.

The CNN thing does not prove the flood happened, as the flood according to Genesis happened around 2304BC, whereas this Black Sea event happened around ~5000BC. This goes for everything in "Section 2" from earlier in the debate as well; none of the dates correlate in a way that leads us to believe a global flood really took place. The dates actually lead us to believe that such a flood could not have happened at the time that Genesis said it occurred.

The CBS link proves exactly what I was trying to say about PRO's position in my R2. The title of the article reads, "Seeking Evidence of Noah's Flood". This assumes that an event happened to begin with, which, by my opponent's definition of science, means that it's fallacious. Such an approach to science is not scientific at all, it does not use "[t]he key question [which] must always be, "What best explains all the evidence?"".

"Geographical evidence points to a global flood that coincides w/ Genesis account of Noah's Ark", meaning that if we started out tabula rasa and simply looked at the evidence, then we would conclude that the Genesis's account of Noah's Ark is true and that such a global flood really did take place. I have proved in every example my opponent brought up that we would not reach such a conclusion. Since my opponent has not reached his burden of proof required by the resolution as his case was nontopical, and since I have shown that most if not all of the evidence points away from the conclusion of a global flood,

you vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by quantummechanics97 2 years ago
quantummechanics97
Pretty much every religion has a flood story where a god saves the people. so this realy only proves that stories are copied from culture to culture and simply altered a bit. and just pointing out that if this did happen we wouldn't be here today. i mean think about it: if water covered the entire earth, the freshwater and saltwater would mix causing presure heat and a ton of other things to alter causing all fish to die. and there is no possible way that we could fit that many animals into that small an ark. and you need at least 75 different animals for one species to survive. and what about all the poop? and food? the meat would go rotten. just saying
Posted by jason_hendirx 5 years ago
jason_hendirx
I like how unified and regimented the conservatives are. So little variation and independent thought. It's quite refreshing on this site.
Posted by Rezzealaux 5 years ago
Rezzealaux
previous comment: 0/10
Posted by SolaGratia 5 years ago
SolaGratia
Reazzealaux, I don't think this was an appropriate debate for submission to the Cleaners. I think you were simply out-debated. It's just my opinion, but I think this is the kind of self-serving idea that the Cleaners were formed to fight. I don't know all the specifics, and I may be wrong, but I voted for your opponent.
Posted by Rezzealaux 5 years ago
Rezzealaux
The only time PRO gets more points is when I get more points.
This has happened multiple times.
Conclusion: It's Casiopia and his self esteem.
Posted by jason_hendirx 5 years ago
jason_hendirx
Those who voted pro failed science and will, if God is just, fail at life.
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 5 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
The votes show a pretty darn sharp split on Christian v. Atheist voters :D
Posted by PoeJoe 5 years ago
PoeJoe
122-120? The "votes" tab is actually useful now!
Posted by TheSkeptic 5 years ago
TheSkeptic
108-120?!
gotta be kidding me..
Posted by jason_hendirx 5 years ago
jason_hendirx
Plus, a ship big enough to carry two of every animal would have to be the size of Jerusalem.
55 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Orangatang 11 months ago
Orangatang
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Smithereens 1 year ago
Smithereens
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 1 year ago
1dustpelt
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter VB
Vote Placed by badbob 1 year ago
badbob
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: To counter wallstreetatheist and because pro had better arguments. Quite convincing.
Vote Placed by Wallstreetatheist 2 years ago
Wallstreetatheist
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Campy288 5 years ago
Campy288
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by SolaGratia 5 years ago
SolaGratia
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 5 years ago
Robert_Santurri
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by PwnzorDebaterLyncher 5 years ago
PwnzorDebaterLyncher
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Danielle 5 years ago
Danielle
CasiopiaRezzealauxTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70