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

It is Unlikely Noah's Ark Happened.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 854 times Debate No: 45688
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




First round for acceptance means only. (Heh, I sound like a scholar.) However, some ground rules:

My BOP will be that Noah's Ark likely did not happen.

My opposition's BOP will be that Noah's Ark likely did happen.

"Unlikely" will be defined as possible, but not likely to have happened.


Round 1: Acceptance
Round 4: POLISHING UP ONLY (no new arguments and/or rebuttals allowed.)


Plagiarism not allowed
Forfeiture not allowed
Breaking structure of debate is not allowed.
Personal attacks are not allowed.

Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points.

By accepting, these points will go unargued, and you agree to everything above. Under NO cicumstances will ANYTHING in this round be changed. Good luck to the opposition.


I accept! Let's get started!
Debate Round No. 1


You seem like a reasonable counterpart for this debate. You can obviously challenge me, as I looked through some of your other debates. I am glad someone as qualified as you took the liberty to accept this debate. To clarify, we are debating a worldwide flood, "covering every mountaintop," as it says in the Bible. No smart moves or wordplay.

We will be using the story of Noah's Ark from the Holy Bible which includes:

-No Evolution
-Young Earth

I will now proceed on to my arguments.

--Argument I: Unrealistic circumstances--

This argument will be divided up into multiple sub-points showing the unrealistic circumstances of Noah's Ark.

--Sub-point I: Age--

My first sub-point will be the age of Noah. Noah was about 5x older than any living human today, being about 600 years old when the flood hit [1]. It is highly unlikely that Noah, or any human, could live to that age. Here, in modern day, the oldest person ever was about 125 years old [2]. Noah was 475 years older than the oldest human who has lived with medicine, care, and knowledge of how to properly survive.

To survive to such a high age so long ago is unheard of. We have records of Egyptians and ancient people living from between 25-40 years old. That is over 560 years younger than Noah. How is this possible? Even if it is possible, how is it likely?

--Sub-point II: What Noah had to do--

Noah, at the age of about 500 (as the Bible states, he started building when he was 500, came out of ark at 600) had to build an ark the size of about one and half football fields [3]. Furthermore, he had to build it out of gopher wood:

"Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark…"

Which means he had to gather various pieces of .gopher wood, stock them up, and build a whole ship out of them. Where could he find all of this gopher wood? More so, how could he walk to find the gopher wood, carry it back, and then build a ship at the age of 500? Even if it is possible, how is it likely?

--Sub-point III: Altitude--

Another problem of this story would be that Noah had to breathe- at 29,000 feet (Mt. Everest.) Noah, and most of the animals, would not be able to breathe and would suffer from ALS, freezing, or just a simple lack of oxygen that kills them off [4.] Plus, Noah is 600 years old at the time when the ark is up and floating, which means his lungs would be tired and worked out. How could he survive for 40 days and 40 (freezing) nights?!

No normal 80 year old could breathe at such a high altitude, so what makes you think that Noah could? Even if he could, how likely would it be? It would still be very unlikely if the tallest mountain was 20,000 feet, too.

--Sub-point IV: Time duration--

The time duration that Noah had to put together the ark- 120 years- poses as an underlying problem for Noah's Ark. First off, a man the age of 480 would've died in the next 120 years, common sense portrays. Second off, the wood would rot [5]. Noah had absolutely no way of keeping the wood from rotting away over time. Some shipbuilders have this problem while building a ship in a time period of 4-5 years… roughly 25x less than what Noah had to deal with.

With all of the earlier pieces rotting away, Noah would have to re-do them, which meant getting MORE beaver wood, which meant MORE walking and carrying, and which meant MORE wood rotting. All of them diminishes the chances of Noah's Ark happening. I don't see how Noah could have left all of the wood pieces intact and made them not rot.

--Sub-point V: Animal's health and death--

This will be my last sub-point for this argument. Noah was supposed to take two of every species from the Earth, and store them in the ark for 364 days [6]- which poses many problems. First, ALL of the animals would have to stay healthy and not die off. This meant there could not be any diseases aboard the ark that could kill any of the animals. It is VERY unlikely that every single animal could stay completely healthy for a year, isn't it?

Second, many animals' lifespans are less than 365 days. Some may include chameleons, opossums, dragonflies, houseflies, BEES (pretty much one of the single most important organism for food), gastotrichs (look it up), and mayflies [7]. How could all of those animals, a few with lifespans well under a month, survive? Isn't it HIGHLY unlikely to get a mayfly, which lifespan is about 1-24 hours, to live for a year, isn't it?

--Argument II: Earth and Geography--

My last argument will be about how the Earth would be affected by Noah's ark. This will be rather short, as I am both lazy, tired, and running out of characters. I would also like to note that the ideas of these arguments were supplied by [8]. Don't worry, I put it into my own words. You can check if you want.

--Sub-point I: Waterfall--

My first sub-point of the section will be the waterfall that the ark must have endured. There is only about 1% of water needed to reach the flood. That meant 99% would have to fall from above, or rain. To reach the claim that the water rose so quickly, it would need to rain about 6 inches per hour [8]. In contrast, a category 5 hurricane drops about 6 inches per hour [8][9]. It is very unlikely that the ark's wood could have endured that much rain. Plus, it was made out of beaver wood… so that doesn't help too much either.

Furthermore, the water from below would emit many poisonous gases while supplying the water needed for the flood, thus making the Earth inhabitable. At least for a 600 year-old man. It is very unlikely that the ark -and Noah- could have survived such a rainfall.

--Sub-point II: Geology--

Finally, my last argument. I'm as tired as heck, so let's get this over with! First off, the coral reefs. In an event as big as a global flood, there would obviously be some coral reef damage. However, the rate of deposit shows us that the coral has survived for 100,000 uninterrupted years. If the Earth was created young, it still shows us that it has survived pretty close to the beginning of a young Earth (11500 B.C.E through 4000 B.C.E), and was uninterrupted. It isn't very likely that the coral reefs could survive such an event. In fact, I would say it is pretty much impossible.

Lastly, the ice layers would've melted in Antarctica and Greenland due to the above-freezing temperature of the water. However, the rate of deposit (again) shows us that both ice caps have survived for 40,000 years. If the Earth was created young, refer to the above argument. It is very unlikely that the polar ice caps and the Greenland ice would not have melted.

I wrap up my arguments and I thank you for reading. I wish the con luck. Good night!





Thank you for the compliments! After reading your case I can tell that you are an experienced debater. I have a lot to touch on so I will give a response to each of you points and sub points.

Sub Point 1- Age

In the early Bible times, people generally lived to nearly 1000 years old. Why? Because the earliest humans were almost perfect. When God made the first humans, he made them perfect and without flaws. The first generations of humans lived longer because they were close to the man that God had originally created. ( When sin entered the world, bodies deteriorated faster. For example, Noah lived for nearly 1000 years, Abraham lived for about 170 years and Moses lived for around 115 years. Like you said, Egyptians only lived for about 25-40 years old. After this, medicine advances were made and humans started living longer. So in reality, Noah was middle aged when he built the ark.

Sub Point 2 - What Noah had to do

Above is the answer to how Noah found gopher wood. It is most likely extinct by now or it possibly was cypress wood.

Now, I agree with you that Noah had to do tedious work. But he had 100 years to complete his task. In today"s age that is a lifetime. I have to believe that he could have finished building a boat in that amount of time. Remember that humans bodies were much stronger than today (see above point) and could most likely do the work needed to build an ark.

Sub point 3 - Altitude

Here is my response:

The main reason I"m giving you webpages is to 1) not accidentally plagiarize and 2) To stay under the character count limit. I hope you understand. Plus, these web pages give you a clear and concise response.

Sub Point 4 - Time Duration

The Bible says that the ark was to be covered with pitch to prevent decay -
Genesis 6:14: "Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch."
The exact type of pitch is unknown but it was undoubtedly put on the ark to prevent the wood from decaying.
It is also possible that the decay rate of wood was different pre - flood.

Sub Point 5 - Animal Life and Death
This is a great question. There was at least one pair of every animal on the ark. That means that these animals could reproduce with each other to make more animals when the parents died off. Using that logic, the parents could have gotten the virus and the offspring was healthy.
Another view is that early animals, much like early humans, were much stronger and less prone to viruses. (First point).
Now, I assume that you don"t believe in God but you cannot disprove the unproven. It is possible that God simply took all the viruses away from the ark. After all, he flooded the earth"

Sub Point 6 - Waterfall
Again, great question. The Bible says that the fountains of the deep and windows of heaven gave the earth the water necessary to create the worldwide flood. The fountains of the deep were water storages under the earth. Because this water was closer to the earth"s core, it was most likely warmer than the ocean. When this water burst into the ocean, it dramatically increased the ocean temperature and made the water evaporate quickly, thus creating rain clouds. These clouds produced rain that lasted for forty days and forty nights.
I read the article referring to the 1% and 99%" I am not sure about how you got those numbers. Can you explain them to me?
This will answer the question in regard to poisonous gases -
Sub Point 7 - Geology
First off, who says that coral reefs existed before the flood? Calcium deposits after the flood would enable coral reefs to form much faster than now making my argument much more likely. I have a response to the age of coral below.
Here is a long and complicated article on the ice cap point: fossils found on mount Everest.
The rate of deposit point will be mentioned shortly.

So that does it for my rebuttals. Now it is time for my case. (I know, more reading":)
Point 1: Dating methods are unreliable.
Here is some support:
I have even read stories that science labs have dated newly formed rocks from Mt. St. Helen's at 10,000 years old.
My Chemistry teacher was taught by Willard Libby, the man who invented the carbon dating system. My teacher is a Christian. She said that Libby knew carbon dating was still a new and relatively unreliable method. By the above sources and my personal experiences, I would say that carbon dating and other dating methods are unreliable and therefore do not offer any solid proof for anything.

Point 2: Fossils
The above is some research about fossils being found on Mt. Everest and other mountains. The flood presents the most likely account of those fossils getting there.

Point 3: My creation model
That is the basic model that I believe in. The most compelling argument is that of fossil preservation. When animals die, they are either eaten by another animal or they rot beyond recognition. Evolution doesn"t seem to have a reliable answer for the above link or fossils.
I"m also curious to hear your response to the above model of the flood.


Now we need to bring this back to the resolution, "It is unlikely that Noah"s ark happened"
The truth is that no one was there. As of right now, there is no right answer to the resolution. You and I have different beliefs on it and we each have supplied some support for our beliefs.
I still believe that it was likely that the Flood and the story of Noah"s ark happened.
Thanks and I look forward to your response!
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately, my opposition posted rebuttals in the second round, which is a violation of the rules, which he loses all seven points. I will forfeit round four, however, as I am leaving DDO.


Forgive me posting rebuttals at the wrong time. I am used to Lincoln Douglas debate and did it by habit... My bad.

Because my opponent left this website, I will not make any new arguments.

My opponent failed to respond to a single argument of mine so I believe that I have won this debate.

Again, sorry for mistake I made...
Debate Round No. 3


This is a momentary return. I refuse to lose this debate. My opponent posted rebuttals in the second round, which is a violation of rules agreed upon. Refer below:

In the first round, (you can check) these were my exact words:


Round 1: Acceptance


Plagiarism not allowed
Forfeiture not allowed
Breaking structure of debate is not allowed.
Personal attacks are not allowed.

Violating ANY one of these rules results in a full loss of ALL seven points.

Under NO cicumstances will ANYTHING in this round be changed.

I refuse to go out on a loss.

However, I would like to tell you that my opposition is an amazing debater and may very well be the next great debater on this site.



All good things must come to an end...

I take full blame for slightly breaking the rules in this debate. I'm new to this webs tie and I hope you understand.

That being said, my opponent has failed to respond to any of the arguments that I have made. I have upheld my side of the resolution because my opponent has not made any rebuttals against my arguments.

Thanks everyone!
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by the_streetsurfer 3 years ago
Although I broke the rules, no counter arguments were made.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by birdlandmemories 3 years ago
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: Con went against the rules, thus losing all 7 points.