The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is the story of Noah's Ark possible?

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: 9/5/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 447 times Debate No: 79406
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (0)




This debate is to show whether or not the biblical story of Noah's Ark is true of false.
Con: This is my position; I believe that Noah's Ark is impossible
Pro: Your position; you will have to prove Noah's Ark.

1) No forfeiting unless you warn about it.
2) No trolling or disrespect
3) Cite sources
4) If you use a website with sources on it, then just posting the link to the website counts.
5) BoP should be on Pro, but I will say it is shared because I know I can prove Noah's Ark to be false.
6) Round one is acceptance and position only.

1) Acceptance and position
2) First arguments; NO REBUTTALS
3) Rebuttals
4) Response to rebuttals and new arguments
5) Conclusion

Good luck!


Every culture in the world has a story similar to moans dark, Indians, Samaritans Egyptians, however, contrary to popular mythology, the flood was not 1000000 miles deep of water everywhere, the world was covered with water, some places were miles deep, but most were only inches, this would mold crops and destroy houses though, in addition many fossil records propose a flood, miles deep just isn't the story, but the flood did happen.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting. I will go through it part by part.

Part A: Morality
One of the qualities of God is that he is omnipresent. This means he could see the future when he created Earth. So why would God create humanity in full knowledge that he would have to drown his creations later. That does not seem fair. God also drowned fetuses, infants, young kids, and innocent pets and livestock. So in addition to God ruthlessly murdering kids who don't know right from wrong, God also aborted tons of fetuses for absolutely no reason. That doesn't seem like something a kind and loving God would do, so either God doesn't exist, or the flood never happened.

Part B: Preparing and building.
1) The Ark would not of been able to be build in less then a week by only a few people. Noah's small family had to gather millions of animals, gather food, load animals and food on, gathered fish and sea life, and gathered plant life. How can a few people do all that, plus build a massive boat in less then a week.

Even if the ark was built in time, it likely would not of floated for a year in the largest storm humans have expirenced. A wooden boat of similar length, the Wyoming, did not survive heavy seas. But this boat had the benefits of pumps, iron supports, more time to be built, skilled boat builders to make it, a lighter weight, and it didn't have to sail in the storm that the bible describes. If this boat didn't survive, the ark definitely would not of. The ark would of either leaked and sank that way, rolled over in the waves, or just fell apart. Also, how could Noah also have massive enclosures of both salt and fresh water for ocean life?

2) How could Noah and his family collect 2 of each animal? They would have to travel to undiscovered continents, go deep into the ocean to get sea life, go deep in caves, wander in forests, survive attacks by animals and humans, and do many other impossible tasks. There are an estimated 2-50 million species of animals on the planet. Collecting 2 of some, and 7 of others would take many lifetimes to complete.

3) Bacteria, parasites, and diseases.
In order to let every species continue to live, Noah and his family would have to of been infected by many parasites and diseases in order to let then live. In addition to having the duties onboard to be even harder, there now is the risk of Noah's family or animals dieing from illness, which means there is 2 extinct species of animals.

4) Food
Noah had to find a way to gather and keep fresh massive amounts of food for the animals. Even today, it is hard to keep plants and meat fresh for a year, but Noah had to do it without electricity, in a wooden boat, with massive amounts of food, several 1000 years ago. That simply could not be done.

Part B: Loading.
1) Noah would not have enough time to find a place for every animal, and load it in the time given. Even with around 15,000 animals, one "kind" would have to be loaded every 38 seconds, which would not be possible.

2) With millions of species of animals all crowded into one small space, multiple problems would arise. For example, what if a bee stings something and it does? What if a frog eats a species of ant? What if a fight between animals, like Rams, ends up in the death of that animal? What if a camel crushes a snail? What if a lion eats a zebra? There are too many problems like this that make this story inpossible.

3) There is nowhere near enough room on the ark to fit every single animal onboard the Ark. No matter how many ways you counter the other problems, you cannot fit 2 million plus species of animals onto a wooden boat already stuffed with supports, plants, food, water, and bedding/straw.

Part C: The actual flood
1) Where did massive amounts of water come from, and where did it go?

2) The flood would of killed every fish and sea creature as it would upset the balance of salt and fresh water. It also would of changed things such as water pressure and light levels, which would also kill many sea creatures.
It also would of killed plants. If they seeded, they would of been buried under many feet of poor sediment, so the plant would not of grown.

Part D: Life on the Ark
1) I will repeat this. There is not enough room.

2) How did Noah keep all the food fresh for the animals? Many carnivores require living food to eat, making the matter of space even worse. Also, how did Noah keep the food away from pests and keep it from spoiling?

3) How were several million animals exercised for one year? 8 people could not exercised millions of animals for a year, and they had many other duties as well. Certain animals also had health issues. Like hooved animals need to get there hooves trimmed.

4) How did a few people manage to dispose of hundreds of tons of animal waste each day? 1/3 of it would have to be hauled up at least one deck, which would be near impossible to move that much waste. You also would have to get rid of corpses and bones, which makes it even more impossible.

5) There would not be enough ventilation to get rid of methane, CO2, and ammonia from the animals. Everyone would of suffocated or died from toxic gases.

6) How were all the animals fed and watered? Many would of had to been hand fed, which makes it impossible for 8 people to do all these duties.

Part E: Aftermath
1) Most species tend to go extinct if they have less then 20 living members. How did every single species of animal come back from either 2 or 7 members?

2) There would of been no food for any of the animals to eat. All of them would of eaten each other or starved.

3) How did all the animals get back to their native lands, and how did they survive there?

4) How did Noah replant every single plant in their natural habitat?

5) The pyramids were built around 100-200 years after the flood. How did 8 people manage to produce enough offspring to make entirely different cultures and races, and enough people to build these things.

Part F: Lack of evidence
1) No evidence of a flood in tree rings
2) No evidence of a flood in DNA. (We would see that every animal came from just 2 ancestors)
3) Why are certain mountains eroded differently then others?
4) How were the polar ice caps not destroyed by the flood?
5) Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice cores?

There is many more things I could put down, but this is enough for now. I look foward to seeing your arguments!



Well my opponent certainly likes to talk a lot, let's start!
Here's my opponents argument:
Opponents debate
1. God would not ruthlessly kill so many people if he were loving
Considering how bad things were, it was most likely more mercifully to let them die as cruel as it sounds.
Opponents debate
2. Noah didn't have brought time to build the ark.
I would like to state that people lived much longer then, anthropology tells us this, Noah most likely spent years upon years to build the ark.
Opponents debate
3. Noah could not have gotten two of each animal.
Noah most likely lived on Pangaea so it wouldn't be as hard as you think. Plus they were also most likely technologically advanced at the time too and Noah could have bought some of the animals or had them shipped.
Opponents debate
4. Noah could not have kept clean and diseases would occur.
I would like to reinstate that Noah most likely had access to technology and would make it much easier to help hygienic.
Opponents debate
5. Not enough food.
Noah had access to refrigeration units.
Opponents debate
6. Where did the water come from.
I would like to reinstate that not the whole world was miles deep! It was covered but not by miles of water, it came from precipitation, and springs.
Opponents debate
7. After math.
Indeed many species went extinct.
Opponents debate
8. How did he replant trees.
Trees and other plants survived but with casualties.
Opponents debate
9. There's no DNA evidence to say that all the animals came from two ancestors.
Creatures at the time had much more genetic variation.
Opponents debate
10. Why did not all mountains erode.
The water was not miles deep everywhere, some places were only an inch deep.
Opponents debate
11. How did the recaps survive
They did not they just 're formed afterwards.
Opponents debate
12. No record in cores
Ice cores provide chemical compositions for the air, more water would not affect the ice cores.
Debate Round No. 2


Next round I ask that my opponent rebut the rest of my argument. Here are my rebuttals

1) In no case scenario is killing children ok. They are too young to be murdered. Young kids don't know any better.

2) No, Noah had one week to prepare to build the ark, which isn't enough time

3) Pangena did not exist 4400 years ago. Pangena existed 300,000,000 years ago. If Pangaea existed a few 1000 years ago, there would be 3 major problems. 1: Many animals could not survive in a 70 degree climate that existed on Pangaea. 2: The continents would of split up so fast that today there would be massive amounts of earthquakes as the plates moved around much more. 3: Tectonic Plates don't move fast enough to create the world we know of today.
Even with a supercontinent, Noah still would not be able to get all the animals.

4) What sorts of technology? In that time, there is no technology to keep diseases to survive but not kill.

5) Refrigerators did not exist in that time, and they would not have any energy. Also, evidence please.

6) The bible states that the water rose up to 29,000 feet, so Earth would be covered in water.
My points still stand

7) If many species went extinct, then why do we still have all of today's species? All the species would of went extinct do to genetic defects caused by inbreeding, lack of numbers, no habitat, and no food.

8) Please extend your argument

9) Evidence? That is not answering my question. We would see that every species came from just 2 creatures. Why is there no evidence?

10) See above

11)] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles.

I ask again. Please rebut the rest of my arguments.


1. Considering their condition, not that they deserve to die but that they were most likely in a Pompeii situation (which I think was also the wrath of God.
2. The flood happen 100,000 years ago, not 1000. Animals in Pangaea would have been already adapted to the climate.
3. Noah existed before the continental shift.
4. Anthropology shows us (through skull shapes) that humans 100,000 years ago were just as intelligent as they are now, if we developed advanced technology in 250 years we have no reason to believe that they did not develop that same tech in 1000 years.
5. Look to 4.
6. It was a record of sea level.
7. Not all of them, reptiles would had the most casualties.
8. More genetic variation.
9. Go to 8.
10. The little dedicate that can form over 40 days would have been gradually covered.
Debate Round No. 3


Please respond to the rest of my arguments. If you don't, then I am the winner as you can not rebut them.

1) Please explain in greater detail

2) Your argument has nothing to do with this

3) Noah's Ark happened 4400 years ago. Even if it was 100,000, Pangaea existed 300,000,000 years ago. So then how would Noah collect all the animals?

4 and 5) 4400 years ago, we see no evidence of us having this technology. If that technology existed then, then where did it go, where's the evidence, and why was it never recorded as existing? Plus, there was no electricity on the Ark for refrigerators as Noah could only use gopherwood.

6) What does that mean? A record of sea level, which would be 29,000 feet above sea level. What is your point?

7) I have absolutely no clue on how this rebuts my argument. Pro seems to concede defeat on this point as he states, "indeed, many species did go extinct." This is exactly my point.

8) How does, "more genetic variation" explain, "trees and plants survived, but with causalities?"

9) That also does not explain why we don't see how animals came from just 2 or 7 creatures.

10) What? How does that rebut how some mountains were more eroded then others.

11) I apologize, I did not see this. Ice caps take much longer then 2000-3000 years to form.

12) Pro concedes on this point.

I ask pro to provide evidence for his claims, and that he rebuts the rest of my arguments. If not, then he essentially concedes defeat.


harrytruman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent forfeited the round, which is breaking the rules and equals a DQ. Vote con!


I would like to state that I did not forfeit, my internet was acting up for a week, here is my argument:
You're first two statements aren't supporting statements, I will start at three.
1. Carbon dating is flawed, we have no reason to believe that.
2. Metal devices rust and would not survive, only stone would survive, many stone monuments are too precious I see to recreate even with our technology.
3. They were recording sea level, not land level.
4. My argument never stated that no animals died at all..
5. Most vegetation will survive.
6. Genetic variation increases the amount of genetic material held my an animal.
7. Because more water erodes more than less water.
8. Actually they can form very quickly, especially in an ice age which followed.
Please reply through comments thanks.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 1 year ago
All of them
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
Which ones?
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 1 year ago
Thank you Lavaguava! I am just waiting for him to respond to the rest of my round 2 arguments.
Posted by Lavaguava 1 year ago
ConservativeDemocrat for the win! The argument utilising omnipresence is extremely compelling, unfortunately I am unable to vote due to the annoying "confirm your identity" part.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 1 year ago
No, I mean the rest of my first arguments.
Posted by harrytruman 1 year ago
I did.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 1 year ago
Please rebut the rest of my arguments.
Posted by ConserativeDemocrat 1 year ago
It will be on the entire story
Posted by Blazzered 1 year ago
This should be interesting.
Posted by Lavaguava 1 year ago
Are we speculating solely upon the boat part, utilising only technology available at the time? Do the animals come into this? Do we discuss the flood?

I for one have no opinion as to whether the Ark story occurred or not, however am able to make logical deductions as to plausibility and so do not present bias from my own belief.
No votes have been placed for this debate.