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

It Is Not Probable That the Genesis Flood Narrative Actually Occurred

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/8/2015 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,217 times Debate No: 76778
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (17)
Votes (2)




You asked to accept this.

Full Resolution

It is not probable that the Genesis flood narrative, as related in the book of Genesis in the Bible, actually occurred.

You are defending the biblical story of the great flood. You cannot use revisionist theories. You must accept that the flood happened around 2300-2200 BC.

BoP is shared.


Probable: "Likely to [have] happen[ed] or to [have] be[en] true."[1]

Genesis Flood Narrative: "...makes up chapters 6–9 in the Book of Genesis, in the Bible. The narrative, one of many flood myths found in human cultures, indicates that God intended to return the Earth to its pre-Creation state of watery chaos by flooding the Earth because of humanity's misdeeds and then remake it using the microcosm of Noah's ark."[2]

Occurred: "To take place; come about."[3]

Myth: "A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature."[4]


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics or trolling.
4. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be posted in the comments sections or in an outside link.
5. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate. Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by con)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (no new arguments)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)




First round is acceptance!
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Alpha3141 for accepting this debate.

I. Problems with the Ark

There are several problems with the concept of fitting two animals of each species onto the Biblical ark. These include problems with the size of the ark and the required contents, problems with the care of the animals on the ark, and the shape of the ark.

I.i. Problems with the Size of the Ark

It is estimated that there are around 8.7 million eukaryotic species on Earth. However, this does not include prokaryotes, and it is estimated that this number is one-fifth the actual number (only that number have actually been found). It also discounts the fact that some species sexually reproduce, meaning that there'd need to be two animals of that species, one male and one female to allow for the repropogation of the species. I'll just stick with the very conservative estimate that there would have been 8.7 million animals on the ark.[1]

Genesis 6:15 says, "And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits." A cubit is approximately 18 inches, meaning the ark would be 450 feet long, 75 feet long, and 45 feet high, making the ark have a volume of 1,518,750 cubic feet. This would allow each animal around 0.17 cubic feet of space, which is around the size of a normal book.[2]

Clearly, even allowing for the microscopic size of many species, there are more than enough larger animals to cause spacing problems on the ark. The ark was clearly too small to hold all of the animals. To make the problem even worse, this also doesn't consider the space that would have been required to maintain the animals, which brings me to the next subpoint.

I.ii. Problems with Maintaining the Animals

Animals require several things. Most basically, food, water, and the ability to dispose of their waste. The food requirements for 8.7 million animals would obviously be enormous. Problems with food include volume (making the space per animal even smaller), spoilage (meat, for example, required for carnivores like lions and bears, would not keep for a year, requiring the ark to have additional animals to kill to provide meat), and variety (especially for herbivores, each of which requires a specific plant diet, meaning that there'd need to be thousands of different types of plants on broad, some having to be able to last a year). There were obviously no problems with water requirements though.

However, the ability of dispose of waste would also be a big problem. The big problem would be mechanism for removal (each "stall" would require a tube that the animal would have to be smart enough to know how to use, or Noah and his sons could physically remove all the waste, although that would be next to impossible), because if the waste were not adequately removed, sanitation and ventilation problems would abound, not to mention making the already very cramped situation even worse.

I.iii Problems with the Shape of the Ark

While the Bible does not explicitly say what shape the ark was, given Genesis 6:15 above, we can conclude that the ship was at least somewhat polygonic in shape, given that the length, width, and height of the ark could be measured. It could have looked like a modern ship, or it could have looked like a box. The best example we have of the shape of boats from the time period comes from the figurines of ancient Egypt. These ships were generally seaworthy, but they were also rather small. "The first dynasty boats found at Abydos were about 25 metres [around 80 feet] long, two to three metres wide and about sixty centimetres deep, seating 30 rowers." Even today, the largest ships only reach 300 feet in length, and these ships require a lot of reinforcement. There is no kind of reinforcement mentioned in the Bible, and the problem is further exacerbated by the fact that the ark was made of wood, making it in even more need of reinforcement. In other words, there are two problems here - one, the ark is way too big for ships of the time, and two, even ships approaching that size require significant reinforcement, which was not mentioned in the Bible.[3]

II. Problems with the Flood

There are several problems with the concept of a global flood. These include problems with the source of the flood, the dispersal of the flood, and the implications of the flood.

II.i Problems with the Source of the Flood

There must have been a tremendous amount of water on the Earth. Genesis 7:19 says, "And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered." The tallest mountain on Earth is Mount Everest, which is around 29,035 feet tall. Thus, the amount of water required to cover the Earth would roughly need to equal the volume of a spherical sheel with the radius of the Earth as the inner radius and the radius of the Earth plus 29,035 feet as the outer radius. Using the metric system, the radius of the Earth is approximately 6,378 kilometers and the height of Mount Everest is approximately 8.85 kilometers. The volume enclosed equals (4/3)*pi*(Ro-Ri)^3, where Ri is the inner radius and Ro is the outer radius. Plugging in the numbers, this would give an area of 4.53 billion cubic kilometers, which is three times the amount of water present on the Earth.[4]

Because of this, my opponent is going to have to provide some fantastic explanation for the source of the flood. There is very little water below the surface of the Earth, and rain would have to come from existing sources of water on the Earth, meaning that any rain would not result in any net change in water on Earth. Any extraterrestrial source seems highly unlikely, considering that are not freely mobile large bodies of water floating throughout the solar system, specificially ones which would require the amount of water that the flood required.

II.ii. Problems with the Dispersal of the Flood

Even if my opponent manages to put forth a satisfactory explanation for the origin of all this extra water, he would still have to explain how the water would disperse. Evaporation is not an option, because this would simply put an enormous amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which would be detectable even today, even given that it was possible. Going towards the center of the Earth is not an option either, because, below the surface, the Earth is very crowded and hot. Once again, my opponent is going to have to provide some fantastic explanation for the dispersal of the flood waters.

II.iii. Implications of the Flood

A flood, as large and devestating as the one documented in the Bible, would leave a plethora of presently noticeable effects.

For one thing, Noah and his family were Israelites, a type of Semite. However, today, we see many different ethnicities. It is unlikely that all of the ethnicities currently present on Earth could have evolved from Noah and his family, of which there were only eight in total, in the span of the 4000 odd years since the flood, considering that they were Israelites. "Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc."[5]

For another, there was the problem of inbreeding. While the two animals of each species were most likely not related, their offspring would have had to mate with each other. This would continue in noticeable form for several generations. Inbreeding causes serious problems for offspring. This is known as inbreeding depression. It is thought that this arises from "...the presence of recessive deleterious mutations in populations." In other words, organisms have certain harmful recessive alleles. These will sometimes be passed to offspring, but it's rare because the genes are recessive. However, the chances are significantly increased when two closely related organisms mate that both have the recessive allele, which means that that allele is passed on to its offspring. However, all of the species somehow made it out alright at the end. This is more than a bit too coincidental.[6]

Moving to geological considerations, there is no record of the flood in the ice cores, even though an event of this magnitude would obviously have to be present in them. "Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. 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, and probably other evidence."[5]


There are too many problems with the Genesis flood narrative to take it seriously. The ark was way too small to fit everything that was needed on it, maintaining the animals would have been a Herculean task and certainly not fit for just eight people to do, the shape and structure of the ark could not have supported a ship of that size, there need to be fantastic explanations for the source and dispersal of the flood, and there are many necessary implications of the flood that are not present, including human diversity, non-interbred animal populations, and ice core records. Overall, any story must be allegorical, for any literal story does not stand up to scrutiny.


[2]:;(KJV version)


Thank you for your position. You have many question, rightly so. But I have answers for each and every question. Much scientific work has been done on each point.

1) Too many animals?

The main question is "how did Noah fit all the animals in the ark?"
The problem is that you misinterpret what the bible says. When referring to animal groups and such, it uses the word "Kind". The word "Kind" is different than the word "Species". The definition that the bible uses when it uses "Kind" means in scientific terms "Family", not "Species"
(The original Hebrew text uses "min" which is translated to "kind", but in terms of classification, means "Family".)

Genesis 6:18"20
"18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark"you and your sons and your wife and your sons" wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive."

When understanding what the Bible says, and when we count the total number of "Family" classifications, we come to a number of about 1000 land and bird groups in the "Family" classification. This includes every bird and land animal. The number may vary some, but this requires at least 2000 animals be on the ark! That is plenty of room for every animal and bird that would be required. The ark would be able to easily support all of the animals comfortably.

2) Supporting the animals?

With only about a few thousand animals, supplying the food would be no problem. Removing waste would not be a problem either. Especially if Noah made preparations for waste disposal.

3) How well does the ark float?

There is a very basic system of ship building that Noah could have easily used, which consisted of a 3 prong system (triangles are the sturdiest kind of structure know in geometry). Also, Noah could have easily hired workers to help him and had help from others. With multiple people (who lived hundreds of years according to the Bible), their combined lifetime experience would easily allow Noah to build an ark.

4) Where did the flood come from?

Genesis 7:11
"In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

Now this shows where all the water came from. The "springs of the great deep" means that there was an underground water system, and that it "burst forth". Some kind of an underground water table or such would be expected in the pre-flood environment.
The "floodgates of heaven" have been interpreted by some that earth's atmosphere was different then today and contained more water, so that gives explanation of where the large amounts of rain came from. This is called the Hydrosphere, and it would have been beneficial for the environment because the extra water would have protected the earth from harmful radiation and UV rays from the sun.

Also, remember that the earth is covered with over 70% water! With all of this in mind, a flood seems very likely.
The flood was more than a little rain! The catastrophic events would have resulted in volcanos and disrupted the earth"s crust. Haven"t you noticed that the continents look like they could fit together? That is because Noah"s flood caused the earth to change drastically, and caused the continental drift that we see today. Because of that continental disruption, we have the mountains and valleys and ocean trenches and volcanos that we see today.

Where did all the water go? That"s easy to explain! Look at the ocean. In some parts it is miles and miles deep. It wouldn"t have been that way before the flood. The earth"s crust was effected, and caused the ocean trenches and mountains we see today. The mountains that we see today (like Mt. Everest and such) and ocean trenches (which are miles and miles deep) would have formed as a result of tectonic plates shifting and reacting to the catastrophic events. The world we see today isn"t like the world before Noah"s flood. Things changed, as expected if a flood of that magnitude happened.

5) What about all the people groups?

People groups (and animal groups) come through a proses that we call Natural Selection. This is when organisms go through changes that result in them being better suited to their environment. The genetic properties of all organisms during the time of the flood would have been very different. That is because Natural Selection results in the organism to LOSE DNA. Therefore, the rate of adaption would have been very different then today, and the genetic information would have been better, too. This results in better adaptation abilities, reproduction abilities, etc.
Noah"s family would have grown. Then after the Tower of Babble, after the languages where mixed up, people would have migrated to different parts of the world. They could have travelled anywhere in the world because the continents would have been different then today.

Now you talk about the problems with interbreeding of animals. Here is your problem though. Animals and people would have had perfect original genetic information when they were created. Their genetic information would not have been as corrupted and mutated, and they could interbreed safely before any mutations occur. Interbreeding is only bad now because genetic information, over time, becomes mutated and harmful.
We live in a different time then Noah. Different times, different people and animals and kinds of genetic information. Is it too coincidental as you say? No, you forgot to consider what the genetic information would have been like at that time. Things change over time, remember that.

6) Ice Cores?

Ice cores! But what causes them? They are caused when snow and water melts and freezes and melts and freezes and build up. But snow storms can create multiple layers of ice in just one year. A single snow storm can create many ice layers. Ice cores don"t represent annual layers. Ice doesn"t say "Oh, its January again, got to make another ice layer". Ice builds up, snow storms happen, so it"s impossible to accurately date ice cores.
Now, what would be the atmospheric repercussions of the flood? The ice age. The ice age would have gone on for about 500 years, and with the changing climate after the flood, create a variety of kinds of ice layers. Ice Cores only support the flood. They are to be expected if the flood happened.
To use ice cores to disprove the flood, you would have to assume that snow storms NEVER happened, and snow falls and ice builds up exactly the same much every single year. But there is lots of proof for an Ice Age, and snow storms.
Also, that is not ancient atmosphere in the ice cores. If the earth went through a global flood, the atmosphere would have constantly gone through changes as a result. The conditions of the ice cores are to be expected.

7) Did the Flood Happen?

Now, what if the flood happened? What would we expect?
As I like the saying, "Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth".
These are called fossils, and yes, we do find them.
We would expect all people to be from the same family, if only Noah"s family survived.

"Thanks to the genetics revolution we now know that there is no such thing as race. The Human Genome Project (HGP) has determined unequivocally that there is the same amount of genetic variation among individuals within a so called racial group as there is between individuals in different racial groups. What that means is that there is no real genetic difference between blacks and whites or between whites and Asians or between any of the so called races."

We would expect that the world would be mostly made up of water.
Yep, 70% water.

Noah"s flood has been proven to have happened. There are countless things that show that it happened.

8) What about dating methods and such?

Dating methods are common in debates about the age of the earth, and timing when things happened in the past. I don"t disagree that those rocks exist, I disagree on the interpretation. People assume that rocks "show" certain ages. But sorry to tell you, a rock doesn"t speak or show anything, it"s just a rock.

Common dating methods have been used on volcano"s that just erupted. When scientists date the rocks right after the eruption, the cooled lava is said to be millions of years old.
"wait, what? People just saw the rock form, and it is supposed to be millions of years old?

That"s the problem. The methods aren"t accurate. Mt Saint Helens erupted about 50 years ago, and when people date the rocks, they get that the eruption happened millions of years ago.
All dating methods you can try to use to disprove me will be wrong and not work. That is because they are made on 3 assumptions.
1) You assume what the original conditions where
2) You assume there was never contamination
3) You assume rates and conditions have always been consistent and constant

You have to use assumptions when using dating methods. Therefore, traditional dating methods cannot disprove that the flood ever happened. Dating methods depend on wrong assumptions. If the flood happened, we would expect some conditions all over the world to change and not be the same. Dating methods are drastically flawed, and do not disprove the flood, weather its ice core dating or some other kind of method.

Many of the points I made are slightly simplified. I can go into more detail about anything, but I tried keeping it short so everything is understandable
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank Alpha3141 for presenting his arguments.

I. Too Many Animals?

We have no idea what the Bible refers to by "kind". Genesis was written some 3500 years before we had any system of taxonomic classification. Looking specifically at Genesis 6:19 that my opponent quoted, it says that "...two of all living creatures..." were on the ark. The best way to differentiate types of species would be by differentiation by species. Unless my opponent can provide some hard evidence that the Bible referred to "kind" as a modern Family, his point has no basis.

However, more importantly, animals can only belong to one species. Taking only 1000 different "kinds" of animals on the ark would imply that only 1000 different species of animals would be on the ark as well. The only process by which we could get to the 8.7 million species currently seen on Earth would be by evolution, but evolution takes way too long for this to happen in just 4000 years. "Even though evolution is taking place all around us, for many species the process operates so slowly that it is not observable except over thousands or hundreds of thousands of years."[1]

II. Supporting the Animals?

Even with a few thousand animals, I think my opponent is grossly underestimating the work that would have been required to maintain them in a very small space for over a year. The sheer mass of necessary food volume would take a significant area of the ark. And the sheer mass of waste the animals produced would be almost unmanagable for just eight people. Further, my opponent drops my points on food spoilage and variety, which are necessary to maintain organismal diversity.

Further, this point relies on the fact that there'd be a few thousand animals on the ark. However, my opponent has not proved this claim at all.

III. How Well Does the Ark Float?

There are two problems I have here. One, I've done a quick search on a "3 pronged system" and have come up with nothing. I'd like my opponent to elaborate on what he means by it. Also, he needs to tie it to the Bible (i.e. make it compatible with the Biblical story of the flood). And two, difficulty is not the problem here. No matter how knowledgeable the people he used to make the ark were, they would not have been able to make an ark according to the Bible's specifications for the reasons I outlined in the last round - the sheer size, lack of reinforcement, and building material (wood) would have made the ark unstable from the start, never mind have it be able to last one year.

IV. Where Did the Flood Come From?

My opponent provides no mechanism for either there being more water in the atmosphere or there being a significant amount of water below the surface.

The former idea is known as the vapor canopy model. Basically, it says that, before the flood, there was a significant amount of water in the air that came down as rain as the flood started. For one thing, by what mechanism would all this water be able to stay in the atmosphere? Right now, it is estimated that the atmosphere holds 12,900 cubic kilometers of water on average. That's 0.001% of the Earth's water. Looking back at the figure I quoted of 4.53 billion cubic kilometers, that's less than 0.000001% of the necessary water needed for the flood. Having the necessary amount of water in the atmosphere would have been completely unmanagable.[2]

For another, even assuming the necessary amount of water were in the atmosphere, there'd be a myriad of complications that would have made the story of the ark impossible. "
If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels. If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling. A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood. Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules."[3]

The latter idea is known (most famously; there are other less popular theories basically asserting the same idea with a few minute differences, but all feature the same fundamental flaws) as the hydroplate model. The most popular version of it is that there was a tremendous store of water about 10 miles below the Earth's surface the ruptured through the Earth's crust. It faces similar problems as the vapor canopy model did. The first is sheer possibility. As I explained in the last round, below the surface, the Earth is very hot. Any water would be turned into steam. Another is that rock doesn't float. There's no explanation for why the water, even if it was under there, stayed there, instead of going to the surface.

And there were also complications that would have made the story of the ark impossible. "Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached." Finally, there's the issue of why there's no signs of the rupture, which must have been enormous.[3]

All of the water currently present on the Earth would have been insufficient for a flood of the magnitude that is described in the Bible. Also, claiming that things like continental drift and mountains and valley were due to the flood is post hoc ergo propter hoc. There are other, better explanations for them.

Finally, again, the water currently present on the Earth is about a third of what was required to cover the Earth. The other two thirds of the water could not simply have just disappeared.

V. What About All the People's Groups?

As I explained in the first point, there's no way natural selection could have produced all of the ethnicities that we see today. The rate of adaptation then would not have been any different. The evolutionary process has basically been the same in the over two billion years that life has been present on Earth. An animal as complex as the human would takes tens of the thousands of years to evolve even modestly, never mind evolving into all the different ethnicities. And Noah's family could not have produced seven billion people from just eight in 4000 years. Finally, as for contiental distribution, remember that, 4000 years ago, the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska was closed, meaning that there's no explanation for why there were peoples there.[4]

As for inbreeding, my opponent is making a bunch of unreasonable assumptions. There's no reason why the animals on the ark would have had "perfect genetic information" (I don't think there could even be such a thing) and genes free from corruption or mutation. My opponent's whole point here seems to be predicated on this point, although he never spends time showing how it could be true.

VI. Ice Cores

While it's true that there could have been snow while the flood was on the Earth, it would have melted upon impact with the flood before it ever reached the ice sheets themselves. The ice cores could hardly have been affected by things above the flood. There'd obviously be something very different happen in the ice cores that are usually exposed to air being exposed to water for a full year. And that's even assuming that the polar ice caps that are the source of the ice cores would even have been possible. "Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions."[3]

VII. Did the Flood Happen?

Attributing fossils to the flood is incorrect for a number of reasons. Among other things, it fails to explain why the fossil record is sorted, why the fossil record is sorted by age (the older the fossil, the lower down in the ground it is), why some organisms are found more often than others in comparison to the size of their populations, why no human artifacts are found expect in the very highest levels of the geological record, or why ecologically dependent organisms are found near each other and in the same timeframe. If the flood deposited the fossils, we'd expect randomicity with regards to what was found where.[3]

The abolition of the concept of race is not a victory for the story of the flood either. It only shows that "race" simply represents the amount of melanin found in one's skin. All it shows is that all the "races" belong to the same species. And this still doesn't explain the extreme rate of evolution that needed to have happened among them.

Yet again, the amount of water found on the Earth is less than the amount of water necessary for the flood as told in the Bible. Plus, this reasoning is again post hoc ergo propter hoc.

VIII. What About Dating Methods and Such?

I'm not entirely sure why my opponent makes this argument. I have made no arguments regarding dates. The only length of time I use is the 4000 years between Noah's flood in the Bible and today, as this is what the Bible indicates. While I could defend radiometric dating, I don't see a need to because it just seems irrelevant. If, for some reason, I bring them up in the next round, I will try to prove the method's validity.




Just to say first, is a proses called "speciation" that results from natural selection. The animal "Family" kinds would have been able to become the animals we see today through this proses.

And you say that I need "proof" that it was referring to "Family" in the genesis records. But it is obvious that, it if hypothetically happened, it would refer to the "Family" kind. You cannot just assume that I am wrong. It is obvious that it would refer to "Family", because if it referred to "Species", the ark couldn't hold all the animals. You can disagree with me, but that is a matter of opinion, not fact. You cant simply assume the Bible is wrong in order to prove that the Bible is wrong. But for hypothetical cases, we are trying to see the possibility of the flood. Therefor we assume it to mean "Family" because that is what scientifically works in this case.

Natural selection does happen very quickly. Haven't you studied "Darwin's Finches", and heard of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics? These are all examples of natural selection. Natural selection is a proses in which organisms become better suited for their environment, and results in either a loss of genetic information, or no change at all in available information. Information is not gained through this proses. That explains why those animals on the ark would be able to have more genetic information, and be able to adapt more quickly, efficiently, and effectively.

I have proven that their are only a few thousand animals needed on the ark. The animals we see today came about through their own "Family" kind, and through natural selection and speciation, became the animals we see today. If you disagree with me, then research it through the references I previously provided. I am not a scientist. But there are scientists that you can learn from in these subjects.

About the ark, you know that people are making an ark these days? Its made out of only wood, and will be structurally prepared to survive in water for over a year. If you want information on caring for the animals, read more on this link.

Continental drift would have resulted after the flood. You are saying that a cataclysmic event the decimated the entire face of the world and reshaped the landscape forever isn't enough? You make a strange claim.

And about the flood, just because you dislike the explanation doesn't mean its wrong. The conditions before flood are different then today. Therefore, its silly to try to hypothetically think of the flood in terms of how the world is exactly like today.

The assumptions that I make are not unreasonable. The bible says that God made everything "Good" in the beginning. That would include the animals DNA. The DNA wouldn't have been corrupted then, because corruption came after the Fall. This validly follows if the Bible is true.

Again, the world would have changed as a result of the flood. The polar ice caps wouldn't have existed before the flood.
And ice would have been able to be created quickly. This is called the Ice Age. Your claims are based on Uniformitarian assumptions. The flood changed the world drastically, making your Uniformitarian assumptions invalid.

Fossils are proof of the flood. Why do they appear to be organized by environment that they lived in? They where buried in according and as expected if the flood happened. How come some fossils still have red blood cells in them? That seems odd, doesn't it? If you assume that it shows evolution, then how come some fossils that are supposedly millions of years old look like animals we see today? Kind of strange don't you think? And isn't it strange that the Bible predicted everyone is of the same race THOUSANDS of years before scientists figured it out?
I'm not the best at explaining things. So if you disagree with me, just watch these videos. They might help and clear up some confusion. Please, before you go and start disagreeing with my points, look into what I am saying. If I missed anything, just say so.


-Topics references and videos-

Natural Selection-

Ice Age-

Noah's ark-



Plate tectonics-
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank Alpha3141 for this debate.

Argument I

What my opponent is arguing here is plain ridiculous. He makes an assertion (namely that, in the Bible, "kind" refers to "family"), and then responds to my objection to his assertion by asserting that I cannot assume that he is wrong. He is the one making the assertion, so he is the one that has to provide proof. The Bible makes no references that indicate that "kind" refers to "family", so I'm not drawing my objection from the Bible. The only proof he provides is that the story would not work if "kind" referred to "species" instead of "family", but this is an ad hoc proof. He has provided no direct evidence that "kind" refers to "family".

Argument II

Indeed, natural selection can happen quickly. But rapid evolution is rare (typically seen most often in more simple organisms, like bacteria) and impermanent. "A new study, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, combined for the first time data from short periods such as 10-100 years with much longer evidence found in the fossil record over millions of years. It determined that rapid changes in local populations often don't continue, stand the test of time or spread through a species... Across a broad range of species, the research found that for a major change to persist and for changes to accumulate, it took about one million years. The researchers wrote that this occurred repeatedly in a 'remarkably consistent pattern.'" The graph below shows this. This tracks changes in body size of species over millions of years. Notice that all satistically significant changes only occur after one million years[1]:

The changes that would have been required to make over 8 million species out of 1000 would have required billions of years. Any sooner, and the changes would have been insignificant enough that they wouldn't have mattered too much.

Argument III

Species evolution takes a long time, and I've already demonstrated how basic evolution can take millions of years. Not only do all 1000 species that came off the ark need to have a trigger to evolve into 8.7 million species, they'd need to do it in just 4000 years. "Other times, species remain stable for long periods, showing little or no evolutionary change." I think my opponent is not giving enough consideration to how long evolution takes. Bacteria, for example, can evolve quickly, but that's because they can reproduce very quickly and have a much simpler genetic code.[2]

As for the ark currently being built, my opponent can draw no conclusions until it is completed, filled with animals and supplies, and put on a body of water for a year.

The asumptions the article my opponent provides makes are invalid. For example, animals with highly specialized diets could not simply have just been feed some generic diet. And it doesn't really matter where the food and water was stored - the important point I made was that it's volume would have been way too much for the ark.

Argument IV

My opponent doesn't seem to be recognizing the fallacy he's making. I agree that a worldwide flood would have caused massive changes on the Earth, including, but not limited to, continental drift. So, in argument form, if a global flood occurred, continental drift resulted. However, finding that continental drift occurred, and then inferring that a global flood occurred is affirming the consequent, a logical fallacy. The existence of continental drift does not guarantee that a global flood happened.

I didn't just "not like it". I provided a large amount of information that showed that your explanations were not valid. Also, assuming the Earth was even sizably different then is wrong as well. Even minute changes in the conditions of the Earth could wipe out life as we know it. All change on Earth happens slowly. Mountains rising, continental drift, and many other things happen very slowly. It is unlikely that the Earth 4000 years ago was different in any measurable way than today.

Argument V

Again, my opponent is inferring information from the Bible that isn't there. For one thing, the Fall happened before the great flood, so animals would have been corrupted (as well as people). For another, there's no reasoning for why God making everything "Good" includes giving the animals perfect DNA without mutations or abnormalities.

Argument VI

Yet again, my opponent is inferring information from the Bible that isn't there. Of course I'm basing my assumptions on uniformitarianism, by far the most respected geological belief among experts. If the polar ice caps did not exist before the flood, how can you explain why the ice caps were dated to over 30 million years? "The ice caps in Antarctica were formed some 33.6 million years ago during the Oligocene epoch, a new study has found." (see below for proof of radiometric dating)[3]

Argument VII

Of course fossils would be organized by the environment they lived in. Say species x lived on Madagascar. Finding a fossil of species x would be much more likely on Madagascar than anywhere else on Earth. Fossils having red blood cells in them is not odd, and is by no means proof that a global flood happened. Some fossils look similar to currently living species because the extinct species and the still living species are related through evolution. And finally, referring to humans as one group is not a new discovery.[4]

Radiometric Dating

It's now time for me to show why radiometric dating is reliable, so that my assertion in argument VI is valid. There have been many instances where radioactive dating has been matched up with the historical record.

II.A. Mount Vesuvius

Mount Vesuvius erupted on August 24th, 79 ACE. In 1997, a study was done to date the volcanic material. The time between 1997 and 79 was 1918 years. Incremental heating experiments on 12 samples of sanidine yielded 46 data points that resulted in an isochron age of 1925 years, only a 7 year deviation from the real event.[5]

II.B. Egyptian Tombs

Pharaoh Djoser was pharaoh around 2670 BCE until he died in around 2650 BCE. Radiocarbon dating of his tomb reveals an approximate age of 4,650 years old, which matches up with 2650 BCE, the time of his death. In another case, a tomb from around the time of Ptomley (i.e. 300-30 BCE) was dated. However, radioactive testing showed the age to be almost 0. It was later proved that the tomb was a fake, and brand new. In another case, samples taken from a pyramid in Dashur, Egypt were historically dated to be around 2050 years old. This date agrees with the age of the radioactive sample. Many other historical artificats have turned up, and when the radioactive dating's age is matched up with the historian's guess of its age, the two are almost always correct.[6]


My opponent has ignored several problems with the story of the flood, and the ones he has addressed have been riddled with fallacies, invalid assumptions, and unwillingness to see other sides of the story. Overall, the story of the flood in the Bible has way too many problems to even be considered to have actually happened.




I am going to try to keep my response simple.

You have not refuted any of my arguments, and hear is why.

It is not ridiculous. If the flood happened, then it would have to have been "Family" kinds on the ark. Therefore, you can’t just simply assume that "species" would have been on the ark, and use that as proof against the ark.

You forget that we are talking about THE PAST. You were not there. I was not there. You cannot say that it was impossible for the animals to adapt that quickly. If you knew the properties of the animals Genome thousands of years ago, then that would be a different story. But again, you weren’t there. Animals could have adapted quickly. Animals might not adapt that quickly today, but that is because of natural selection. Organisms loss genetic information as a result almost every time. All the animals on the ark would have had much more variability in their genome, and could have adapted easily.

Evolution is impossible because mutations result in a LOSS of genetic information, or no change at best. That’s why I don't believe in evolution. It is unscientific. Observations go against evolution.
Caring for the animals is easy if you have a gigantic ark, few animals, and experienced works. Noah had all 3 of those needs. Disliking an explanation doesn’t make it wrong.

I did not say that Continental Drift absolutely proves the flood without a doubt. I was simply relating what we see and what the Bible says, and demonstration how they go together. What we see matches the Biblical account.

There was no disease before the Fall. There was not pain or suffering and all animals were vegetarian. For those things to exist, the Genetic information would have to be "perfect" in a sense, or else animals would suffer from “bad” problems in a “good” world. Natural selection results in a loss of genetic information. Therefore the animals, the farther back we go, would have had more and better genetic information. The farthest back we go is to when the world was created, when the information in organism’s genome was at its best.

Exactly my point. You use unbiblical Uniformitarian assumptions, and use those assumptions in order to disprove the Bible. That is circular reasoning. And I already disproved dating ice. If the flood happened, the Ice Age would have resulted. Therefore making the ice caps. The dating methods are flawed because they ignore Noah's Flood. They assume the flood didn’t happen, then use those assumptions in order to get those dates. Then they use those dates to attempt to disprove the flood. That is again, circular reasoning.

Fossils show that the flood is recent. Why did scientists find T-rex fossils with intact red blood cells?

Radiometric dating is flawed, as I demonstrated earlier. You gave 2 examples of almost accurate results. Before I go into that, I will quote what you seemed to ignore in my earlier argument.

"All dating methods you can try to use to disprove me will be wrong and not work. That is because they are made on 3 assumptions.
1) You assume what the original conditions where
2) You assume there was never contamination
3) You assume rates and conditions have always been consistent and constant

You have to use assumptions when using dating methods. Therefore, traditional dating methods cannot disprove that the flood ever happened. Dating methods depend on wrong assumptions. If the flood happened, we would expect some conditions all over the world to change and not be the same. Dating methods are drastically flawed, and do not disprove the flood, weather its ice core dating or some other kind of method."

Also, hear are come counter assertions for my opponents claims.

Hear is an account when rocks from Mt. St Helens where dated.
"The laboratory was not told that the specimen came from the lava dome at Mount St Helens and was only 10 years old.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1. What do we see? First and foremost that they are wrong. A correct answer would have been ‘zero argon’ indicating that the sample was too young to date by this method. Instead, the results ranged from 340,000 to 2.8 million years! Why? Obviously, the assumptions were wrong, and this invalidates the ‘dating’ method."

"It is clear that radioisotope dating is not the ‘gold standard’ of dating methods, or ‘proof’ for millions of years of Earth history. When the method is tested on rocks of known age, it fails miserably. The lava dome at Mount St Helens is not a million years old! At the time of the test, it was only about 10 years old. In this case we were there—we know! How then can we accept radiometric-dating results on rocks of unknown age?"

"Radiocarbon (carbon-14) is a very unstable element that quickly changes into nitrogen. Half the original quantity of carbon-14 will decay back to the stable element nitrogen-14 after only 5,730 years. (This 5,730-year period is called the half-life of radiocarbon, Figure 1).1 2 At this decay rate, hardly any carbon-14 atoms will remain after only 57,300 years (or ten half-lives).

So if fossils are really millions of years old, as evolutionary scientists claim, no carbon-14 atoms would be left in them. Indeed, if all the atoms making up the entire earth were radiocarbon, then after only 1 million years absolutely no carbon-14 atoms should be left!"

"Imagine the surprise when every piece of “ancient” carbon tested has contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon!4 Fossils, coal, oil, natural gas, limestone, marble, and graphite from every Flood-related rock layer—and even some pre-Flood deposits—have all contained measurable quantities of radiocarbon (Figure 2). All these results have been reported in the conventional scientific literature."

Figure 5
Photo courtesy of Dr. Andrew Snelling

Figure 5 These fossils were in mudstone of the lower Cretaceous Budden Canyon Formation near Redding, California. A fossilized ammonite (a marine shellfish) was discovered with a piece of fossilized wood (from a land plant) embedded next to it. Located in Cretaceous layers that were supposedly millions of years old, the fossilized shell and wood yielded radiocarbon “ages” of 48,710 and 42,390 years respectively."


As you can see, my opponent has not given a single piece of evidence that disproves the flood. Remember, this is about the POSSIBILITY of the flood. Even if you disagree that it happened, there is no proof against the flood that I have not countered. All evidence is in line for if it actually happened. I see no proof against the flood, and only proof for it. If I miss anything, just say it in the comments. I’ll try to get to it when I can.
Debate Round No. 4
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
RFD 1/2

Pro presents several arguments against the flood. From the problems with the ark itself and the problems of a global flood. I believe Pro instantly has an advantage because Con completely drops the problems with the source and dispersal of the flood waters in R3. He focuses on some aspects of it however, like continental drift. Which he later admits that he doesn"t think it proves the flood.

Con relies on some possibility that evolution could"ve speed up in the past because we weren't there. Of course, if that invalidates Pro"s argument, then it also invalidates his. We weren't there to test the genome of Noah. The proposition about the super genome seems to be an ad hoc to get around the inbreeding problem.

His attack on ice cores were from the possibility that Uniformitarianism is wrong. Pro defends dating methods by showing the match up with historical records. Con says that the dating methods have assumptions. Although, Con misunderstands Pro"s argument. If dating is shown accurate by historical methods, then the assumptions are shown correct. Con"s other attack has to do with examples of failed dating methods. He only attacks K-Ar and C14 dating. Since this was the last round, so Pro couldn"t rebut, but K-Ar dating is only supposed to be used on older artifacts. As it takes quite a while for 40Ar to become detectable. C14 can be added to coal and fossils via background radiation and contamination. One experiment isn"t enough to demonstrate Con"s conclusion. Furthermore, this wouldn"t actually disprove carbon dating at all. This means the experiments Con have cited are invalid, they blamed the dating methods and not their methods. Con ignores there is a context in these cases that cannot be said to be present in all cases.
Posted by n7 2 years ago
RFD 2/2

Con"s argument for the flood seems to be affirming the consequent. If a flood happened we should see genetic similarity, fossils, and the Earth being made up of mostly water. He also has an argument attacking dating methods for some reason, even though it wasn"t relevant at that time. Pro rebuts by showing the flood can"t account for the sorting of fossils. Nor does the amount of melanin mean anything. He shows the Earth being made of water is post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning. Con said the ordering of fossils are buried as expected. He doesn"t explain why or how. He asks how can some fossils still have red blood cells in them and claims that it is amazing the bible predicted that humans should be so similar. He drops the water argument. Pro agrees that fossils are sorted by their environments, it doesn"t actually explain the sorting of fossils. Nor does the preservation of fossils prove a global flood. Con"s finial response to this is "Fossils show that the flood is recent. Why did scientists find T-rex fossils with intact red blood cells?" He never explains why fossils show this, nor does he show the relevance of blood cells in T-rex fossils. He drops the human race argument

Con drops several arguments. At the end, he hardly had one of his own. Arguments to Pro.
Posted by HeraldSarah 2 years ago
The very first thing I have a need to point out is that natural selection/ evolution does not require a loss in DNA. Mutations occur in the genetic code of an organism through deletions, substitutions, or insertions. Each of these changes at most one allele, or base, per one mutation. (I'll refer to those bases as A, C, G, and T for the sake of simplicity, and also will not go into RNA or any forms of replication).

For example, in a single, replicating line of alleles, a G could accidentally be replaced with a C, or the G could be skipped, or a T could be added. This is how most mutations occur, and what allows for natural selection to work. Bacteria and other simple organisms evolve faster because mutations have a greater chance of causeing much larger/ important changes in the organism, and they also reproduce very quickly. (Bacteria also have other adaptions that influence this process, I'm only listing basics). In more complex organisms- i.e. humans, a mutation might only change one allele that affects eye color, but eye color is very complex, so the mutation may not be expressed.

The only time any DNA is "lost" is during the replication of a strand inside an organism, or death in general. However, this in no way meaningly affects the offspring's genetic makeup.

If you have any questions let me know. All this information is from a generic interest in science and 2 high school courses. I tried to cover the basics, but there's a lot to this field, and these are only the basics of what I know.
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
When will you post your argument?
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
For the record, I've never started a serious debate with anything close to that time limit, and similarly with just about all active users of DDO. I'll challenge you now.
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
That's good. I just didn't want it to be 30 minuets or something.
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
The most DDO allows is three days (in other words, you have three days to post your argument from the time I post mine).
Posted by Alpha3141 2 years ago
Yes. Please allow for lots of time to post arguments though. I can get very busy sometimes and I don't want to miss the timed deadline for the argument.
Also, I am defending the version that the Bible records. Just to make sure there is no confusion.
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
@Alpha3141: Would you like to accept this debate, then?
Posted by Subutai 2 years ago
@mfigurski80: If you track the genealogical tree starting from Adam, you'll find that the amount of time connection Adam and Jesus is around 4000 years, making the Earth around 6000 years old. Of course, that's assuming that the Bible's use of the words "day" and "year" are equivalent to our own. The theory of Young Earth Creationism posits that those two words were defined in the same way then as they are now.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by n7 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by tejretics 2 years ago
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: