God and the bible
Debate Rounds (3)
There are so many stories about Santa Claus, vampires, alien invaders. That doesn't make them real, it just makes them popular. I'm not familiar with the Indian and Chinese cultural stories you are referring to, but it wouldn't be too hard to imagine how people afflicted by monsoon's and devastating floods could make up a story about a great flood.
Nobody has found any fossils to indicate a great flood. If there is such evidence, you really should cite your sources. In fact, it's quite the opposite. As Bill Nye pointed out in his debate with Ken Ham, There has been no kangaroo remnants/fossils found anywhere outside of Australia. If all animals in the entire globe were to emerge from a single vessel after a flood, there would be huge swathes of evidence of their migrations to their current positions. Not to mention, if there was something as apocalyptic as a worldwide flood, destroying all terrestrial life on earth save for that on a single boat, there would be clear markings in Earth's sediment. Nearly all plant life would be under salt-water for at least a half a year and die out, yet we have a wide variety of plants today.
Also, I really wish you would've cited your claim that Noah's ark has been found because there are many such claims, and none have been substantiated. One such example turned out to be a natural rock structure . Also, skeptics have demonstrated how eager some creationists are to accept false evidence, such as the case with George Jammal playing the center role in a documentary by David Balsiger on discovering the ark .
There is no reliable evidence of a flood covering the whole globe, and if there was it'd be obvious. There might be stories about the flood, but that's all they are: stories.
Kalemac01 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|
Reasons for voting decision: As Con pointed out, none of Pro's claims were substantiated, thus Pro failed to fulfill his/her burden of proof, which is sufficient enough for a loss. Conduct to Con for Pro's forfeit. Sources to Con for being the only debater to use sources. I should mention that Con exhibited one of the few times I've seen a blog cited effectively, so well done to him in that regard.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.