The Instigator
dtaylor971
Pro (for)
Losing
11 Points
The Contender
gordonjames
Con (against)
Winning
17 Points

Noah's Ark Could Not Have Happened

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 6 votes the winner is...
gordonjames
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,373 times Debate No: 42203
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (6)

 

dtaylor971

Pro

I, pro, will be arguing on the fact that the worldwide flood as said in the Bible is actually false. First, ground rules. Due to terrible debates lately, the rules will be strict.

Format:
Round 1: Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals, and one argument (or none)
Round 3: Rebuttals and polishing.
By accepting this debate, you agree that if you break this format, you get a loss of a conduct point.

Rules:

No swearing
No personal attacks
No forfeiting
No using arguments that are not proven, like: "God found a way because he is all-knowing."

By accepting this debate, you agree that if any of these rules are broken, it will count as a full vote for the side that did not break the rules.

Now for my arguments.

First off, we look at the main problem. The animals. How could they all travel to the point of the ark? It would've been impossible due to the fact that the animals may have had to travel hundreds, even thousands, of miles to get to the ark. Even if they somehow were magically able to come within a few miles of the ark spontaneously, how would they not hunt each other to extinction? For example, if two tigers and two snakes are accompanied by two zebras and two mice, what do you think is going to happen? It would be the animals' natural instinct to hunt. What makes this even worse is that they were all stuck on the ship together. Surely they would've eaten eachother, right? That brings us to our next problem.

That would be their diet. Each animal follows a specific diet and some would die if they don't follow it. Lions have to eat meat, birds have to eat seeds, sharks have to eat shrimp, etc. How would've they all been fed without a major problem? Aside from food, they would need water, also. Most animals would need many gallons of water to survive. If there were even only 1,000 animals (well less than what Noah had to do) they would still require about 10,000 gallons of water. How to you fit that all onto one ship? And no, don't say that they could just drink the flood water. Aside from being riddled with diseases that would kill off some of the animals (and every single one survived), if Noah was to gather the water, the animals would try to get out. Plus, since all of the animals were all squeezed together, it would just make it tougher to resist the urge to get out of the ark. Which brings us to our next problem.

How did Noah fit the animals aboard, and how did none of them get sick? First, let's look at how he could've possibly gotten the animals aboard. The ark was about 450 feet long, and likely not very sturdy. Modern wooden ships only go up to about 300 feet and aren't sturdy at all. Since an elephant, the largest land animal, is about 13-16 feet (and he needed two of them), it would've taken up roughly 8% of the ark lengthwise, it would've been impossible for Noah to fit all of the animals on board.

Even if Noah did magically fit every single animal aboard, how would he stop diseases from spreading to the animals? Since he only had two of every kind, and no room for mistakes, he couldn't let any diseases on board. But how is that possible? Also, isn't bacteria an animal? Doesn't the Bible itself say he had to save any ANIMAL? He would've had to bring very dangerous bacteria aboard (and how would he gather it?) and not let it spread to the animals. And since there are millions and millions of bacteria species, at least one would infect an animal. There is no way that Noah could've preformed such a feat.

So you, con, will have to argue against these points and prove each one wrong. Good luck to anyone who accepts.


Thanks to these sources for my information:
http://animals.about.com...
http://www.talkorigins.org...
gordonjames

Con

First off, Thank you for the chance to debate a fun topic.
I see 4 main arguments for me to refute after I make my initial statement.
1. Animal migration
2. Animal health and dietary requirements
3. Dimensions of the ark
4. Improbability of Noah doing all this (as a 600 year old man)

Pro says “Noah's Ark Could Not Have Happened”. This makes my side of the debate the very easy position that the human events of Noah’s are possible. Since the premise is that this event is a work of God, we will leave out the aspects for which God is the prime mover.


Here is a time-line of flood events.

After Noah is 500 years old he fathers Shem, Ham, and Japheth.- (Gen 5:32)
There is a population explosion (Gen 6:1)
God says that he will “blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land” (Gen 6:7)
God gives dimensions of the ark (3 decks, 450 ft long, 75 feet wide, 45 feet tall) Gen 6:15-16
God tells Noah to “take for yourself some of all food which is edible, . . . for you and for them”(Gen 6:21)
God tells Noah to enter the ark (Gen 7:1) with his household, 7 pairs of each clean animal (Gen 7:2), one pair of each unclean and 7 pair of birds.
Noah did as instructed in before the 7 days were finished (Gen 7:4)
Then the rains begin to fall.
Noah and family enter the ark because the flood water have begun to rise (Gen 7:7)
Pairs of animals went into the ark to Noah.
“On the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the floodgates of the sky were opened.” (Gen 7:11)
Then God closes the door of the ark behind them. (Gen 7:16)
The water rose to a height of 22 feet above the mountain peaks. (Gen 7:20)
Noah stayed in the ark for 370 days [1]


Some details that make the story more plausible.
1. God gave Noah 120 years of warning in which to prepare.
2. We have some of the details of the size of the ark (1518750 cubic feet in 3 decks of 33750 square feet.
3. The flooding brought animals to the high lands where the ark was (so Noah did not have to herd them)
4. God brought the animals onto the ark in pairs. Since this is a supernatural one time event it is not part of this debate.
5. We have details about the time for the flood to subside that don’t fit the “once upon a time” style of story.

There are some questions where we don’t have enough detail.
1. Was this a global flood, or a flood of the “known world”?
If it was global then the migration issues are far more serious. If it was a regional flood that wiped out humans and their locale the migration issues are less extreme. Since PRO did not specify I am assuming a “known world” flood rather than the distributed continents we have on our maps today. [2]

2. How many animal were on the ark?
Assuming a regional flood before humans had migrated far from the Tigris / Euphrates river valleys & flood plains we have a much smaller number of animals needing rescue than the entire planet. Morris and Whitcomb estimate 35,000 individual animals needed to go on the ark.[3] John Woodmorappe suggest that less than 3000 is closer to the correct number, and that the ark could easily accommodate 16,000 animals.[4] More recent estimates suggest the ark could hold up to 50000 animals. [5]

3. Are fossil beds evidence of a catastrophic flood?
We would expect a flood to leave some traces even after all this time. Many believe the large beds of fossils and other geographic features to be evidence of the flood. [6] “National Geographic Society explorer Robert Ballard, inspired by Ryan and Pitman's hypothesis, has discovered supporting physical evidence, including an underwater river valley and ancient shoreline as well as Stone Age structures and tools beneath the Black Sea. His team has also unearthed fossils of now-extinct freshwater species dating back some 7,460 to 15,500 years.” [7]

4. What might God have used to cause the flood?
Bruce Masse, an environmental archaeologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, suggests that a 3-mile (4.8-kilometer) wide comet crashed into the ocean off the coast of what is now Madagascar.[7]


Let me take a moment to respond to PROs questions:

“Even if they somehow were magically able to come within a few miles of the ark spontaneously, how would they not hunt each other to extinction?”
- Since the animals were fleeing a flood they were more interested in not drowning than in food. Even though many would feed well (in preparation for the ark) only one pair (or 7 for some species) were needed. Extinction was not really an issue as all but a few were going to die.

“Surely they would've eaten eachother, right? ”
- wrong actually if we can keep animals long term in zoos, I’m sure Noah could have arranged cages to stop feeding.

“Aside from food, they would need water, also. ”
- I don’t think a lack of water would be a problem. Catching rain water would not have been difficult to engineer into the ark. Food is a big deal. I am assuming that Noah would want to under feed animals (as zoos do before transport) to minimize poop, nausea and motion sickness. Noah had 120 years to prepare, so the gathering of food is less of a problem than the storage space. Food would need to be stored as ballast, and then be replaced by poop as the days went by.

“how did none of them get sick?”
- Very good question. Since sickness generally transmits within a species there is less trouble than within a population of the same species. I would say this required God’s special choosing of animals healthy to begin with.

“How did Noah fit the animals aboard”
- The 1518750 cubic feet is about 600 railway “livestock” cars. Although you might get only a few pairs of large animals, you need to remember that there is no need for full sized adult specimens. The pairs needed to be able to breed eventually, not immediately. The standard double-deck livestock car can accommodate 240 sheep [5] so 600 cars worth of space could hold a lot of animals and food.

“Also, isn't bacteria an animal?”
- NO!

“and how would he gather it?”
- Noah didn’t gather them, they came to the ark after Noah and his family were aboard. This was an act of God like the shutting of the door and sending the flood and is outside the scope of this debate.


Thanks for the great questions.
It was fun to research.

You state that “Noah’s ark could not have happened.” and then limit the debate to the ark, animals and what Noah could have accomplished.

I conclude it is possible.
Noah had 120 years in which to prepare.
He could have hired help to build the ark and collect food for the year in the ark.
The rising waters brought species near the ark.
God brought the pairs into the ark.
Too much water was the problem, and rainwater collection was a well known process.
Food (as ballast) would be replaced by poop (as ballast) to keep the ark stable.
The dimensions of the ark would allow it to handle rough conditions.
The dimensions of the ark give it room for 120000 pairs of animals.

I would say that the story of Noah is unlikely, but that is exactly the point! God did this one in the known history of humanity. It is a unique event. Nothing done by Noah is outside the realm of possibility, and he shows just how human he is in Genesis 9:20 ff when he passes out drunk and bad things start to happen all over again.



[1] http://www.godspointofview.com...
[2] http://ncse.com...
[3] http://www.amazon.com...
[4] http://www.amazon.com...
[5] http://christiananswers.net...
[6] http://christiananswers.net...
[7] http://science.howstuffworks.com...


Debate Round No. 1
dtaylor971

Pro

Finally, a good argument. Thank you!

By worldwide, I mean the complete Earth, all 150,000 KM2 of it. Each one 20 feet atop the tallest mountain.

For your first argument, which is a timeline, you have actually gave me some new points. Some of the points do not help your argument, but rather set the stage for me. So I will combine my argument with my rebuttals in this section.

Long rebuttals section:


"God gives dimensions of the ark (3 decks, 450 ft long, 75 feet wide, 45 feet tall) Gen 6:15-16"
Which is taller and bigger than a modern-day wood ship. How could that even be built without advanced technology, which did not appear until the late 1800 (phones, cars, etc.)? Noah would've just had to find any piece of wood he could get. Even if a ton of stable wood was gathered, it still would not hold the animals weight. With an elephant weighing in at well over five tons, it would likely crash through the floor. And that is only one animal. A rhino can weigh well over a ton, and so can many other animals. Plus the extinct ones (the ones that are extinct today, like the woolly mammoth) would also have to be saved, just adding to an already unsustainable weight.

Another thing here is the three decks. The first deck has the highest chance of holding due to the fact that there is something under it. The second deck would have significantly less ability to sustain extreme weight. There is no way that it could hold. Thus, my point is proven.

"The flooding brought animals to the high lands where the ark was (so Noah did not have to herd them)"
For this, I believe you are saying that Noah did not have to do much to get the animals aboard the ship. While it is true he would have to do less, he would still have to get the animals to board the ship. If the animals made it. Some animals just downright cant swim, like insects. Why would the insects and countless other animals not have drowned, as the humans supposedly did?
Even if they all made it, how would Noah get them to board the ark? Animals can't talk to humans, nor would many be able to follow basic instructions. Studies have shown that even humans don't cooperate in that situation, so how do you expect a wild bear to behave? Also, how would he be able to board all of the animals on time before the flood rose to a lethal level?


"God tells Noah to “take for yourself some of all food which is edible, . . . for you and for them”(Gen 6:21)"
I will state this: Noah would not have been able to fit all of the different diets for all of the different animals. This is berries, meat, seeds, hay, grain, and vegetation. Oh, right, vegetation. How would the vegetation grow at 29,000 feet in the air? How would it not freeze, wither, and die at 29,000 feet? Now could the meat stay fresh? It just seems utterly impossible for one to perform such a feat.

"The water rose to a height of 22 feet above the mountain peaks. (Gen 7:20)"
Ok, let's see here:
How could Noah breathe?
How could the food not freeze?
Hoe could the animals not freeze?
How could the water that was supposed to be drank not freeze?
Why wasn't it snowing instead of raining?
How could a 600 year old survive such conditions?
I believe that is the saying that disproves this all.

To answer some of your questions:

There were about 16,000 animals on the ark (creationists) and 5 million animals on the ark (evolutionists.) I'm going to settle at about 1 million here, as I do agree some types of animals today are offspring of animals back then.

I do not believe that we have enough evidence to prove that fossil beds are a solid piece of evidence that you can use in this debate.

I believe your last question is irrelevant to this debate, please explain it more in context.

Now time fore some more rebuttals.

Short rebuttals section:

"Wrong actually if we can keep animals long term in zoos, I’m sure Noah could have arranged cages to stop feeding."
Can I put this into better context? A 600-year old could design 2 million cages that no animal whatsoever could break through to stop the feeding? Today, about 200 cages per zoo are made by professionals. And each cage takes about a year to build and develop. Noah did have 120 years, but I do not believe that would be enough time to make 2 million sturdy cages and build an ark out of beaver wood.

"Catching rain water would not have been difficult to engineer into the ark."
But bacteria was in rain water. Dangerous ones. As I stated earlier, bacteria would've killed off at least one of the animals. According to the Bible, it killed none at all. This also goes for the question below.

"NO!"
Geez, don't need to scold me. I forgot it was its own kingdom. My bad.


"Nothing done by Noah is outside the realm of possibility"
Let me sum this up:
A 600 year old has been gathering beaver wood for over 120 years, and now has to board all of the paired animals into the ark AND into their cages. He then has to load the food. To top it all of, he has to get in before he drowns. Then, he must spend over a year at 25,000 feet in freezing cold (and not even breathable) weather while taking care of 1 million animals and himself. He must collect rainwater AND make sure that none of the animals get sick. He also must make sure that the ark doesn't tip over. When the flood waters fall down, he has to unload a likely stampede of animals without getting trampled.
Oh, did I mention he is 600, almost 5x older than the oldest human in modern day?

Thank you for reading.


http://hypertextbook.com...
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com...
http://www.biblicalnonsense.com...
http://godisimaginary.com...
http://www.skepdic.com...
http://www.noahs-ark.tv...








gordonjames

Con

Round 2: Rebuttals, and one argument (or none)

I reject your position
“By worldwide, I mean the complete Earth, all 150,000 KM2 of it.
Each one 20 feet atop the tallest mountain.”


Let me repeat my position from round 1 -
Since PRO did not specify I am assuming a “known world” flood rather
than the distributed continents we have on our maps today.”



On to rebuttals

In your round one you made 4 main points
1. Animal migration
2. Animal health and dietary requirements
3. Dimensions of the ark
4. Improbability of Noah doing all this (as a 600 year old man)

In round 2 you raise the following new points (not really rebuttals)
1. “How could that even be built without advanced technology.”
2. “He would still have to get the animals to board the ship.”
3. “not have been able to fit all of the different diets for all of the different animals.”
4. A host of questions related to 29,000 feet elevation (Mount Everest)
5. Some comments about “beaver wood” - please explain [1]

Review (rebuttal of PRO’s round 1 points)
- Animal migration was to the high ground (of Tigris / Euphrates flood plain)
- Noah had 120 years to gather grain for these animals
- Since diseases cross species far less often, disease was not a problem
- The ark was big enough for 50,000 animals
- Noah entered the ark and God brought the animals to Noah (Gen 7:9)

Rebuttal of PRO’s round 2

In round 1 we established we were talking about a regional flood that was
over the heights of hills and mountains in the Tigris / Euphrates flood plain region.



“How could that even be built without advanced technology.”
The wooden shop Thalamegos (377×46 ft)was completed in 200 BC [2]
Even longer, the Tessarakonteres (420×58 ft) [3] was the largest wooden ship
since the ark.
Noah has 120 years to do or hire out the work on the ark. Even
today the issues are time and money more than technology. Johan Huibers
recently made a full scale replica. [4]


You are making bold claims that ship builders did not know how to build ships
with no evidence or references to back up your claim. The Roman circus,
and gladiatorial games included massive and exotic animals brought by
wooden ship. Your claims that wooden ships can not carry heavy cargo
is false. [5] Read this - “While officials at the inauguration of Pompey
offered 500 lions, 410 leopards and 17 elephants, when the Colosseum
was dedicated, 9,000 wild animals were sacrificed in a spectacle lasting
a hundred days.” [6]


Did you really think Noah had wooly mammoths on the ark?
“The woolly mammoth coexisted with early humans . . . It disappeared . . .
at the end of the Pleistocene 10,000 years ago” [7]
I have not read of anyone thinking Noah was in the Pleistocene era.



“He would still have to get the animals to board the ship.”
You need to actually read the story. [8]
God (not Noah) brought the animals onto the ark.

Noah was in the ark. God brought the animals in.

not have been able to fit all of the different diets for all of the different animals.

You make many false assumptions here.
I have already refuted your claim to a global flood.
The story does not require it. Why should you take a fringe position.
Then you state that Noah would have to take millions of animals.

Since Noah (or the writer) was speaking to the people of his time
in the language of his time about concepts of his time you need to take
that into consideration.

Look at the chart below [9]
Of the 30 million species (upper estimate),
97% are invertebrate and would likely not be counted as animals.
Of the remaining 3%, close to half are fish, leaving 1.5% of this GLOBAL number.


Remember that we are working from the position of a regional flood so the number
of animals is far smaller. Similarly, the amount and variety of food would also be
smaller. These numbers would easy fit on an ark as described.


Animals: estimated 3-30 million species
|
|--Invertebrates: 97% of all known species
| `--+--Sponges: 10,000 species
| |--Cnidarians: 8,000-9,000 species
| |--Molluscs: 100,000 species
| |--Platyhelminths: 13,000 species
| |--Nematodes: 20,000+ species
| |--Echinoderms: 6,000 species
| |--Annelida: 12,000 species
| `--Arthropods
| `--+--Crustaceans: 40,000 species
| |--Insects: 1-30 million+ species
| `--Arachnids: 75,500 species
|
`--Vertebrates: 3% of all known species
`--+--Reptiles: 7,984 species
|--Amphibians: 5,400 species
|--Birds: 9,000-10,000 species
|--Mammals: 4,475-5,000 species
`--Ray-Finned Fishes: 23,500 species


How would the vegetation grow at 29,000 feet
You makes more bad assumptions.
We are working from the point of a regional flood.
Everest is not in the Tigris / Euphrates flood plain.
Noah gathered food (hay & grain I presume, but not stated in scripture)
in the region where he lived. The current geography has peaks near
Ararat between 12,000 and 16,000 feet. If this is the site of the resting of the
ark please note that the dove cam back with an olive branch which suggests a
much different climate or elevation in the time of Noah.



I don’t want to be picky about every logic mistake you make
but there are some I can’t let slide.


Today, about 200 cages per zoo are made by professionals.”
- actually these are enclosures designed to portray animals in their natural
environment. Noah was not putting animals on display for the public,
but warehousing them for transport. Noah’s job was more like making farm stalls.


But bacteria was in rain water. Dangerous ones.
Rainwater is actually better than city water. [10] “Comparing the cistern water to the
well water, it is clear that cistern water is better or equal to the well water” and
fresh captured rain water would not have time for bacteria to form like it would in a
cistern.


“He also must make sure that the ark doesn't tip over.”
Really? This is your argument?
How does a boat 450 ft long and 75 feet wide “tip over”?

Just how would one human keep this tipping from happening?

When the flood waters fall down, he has to unload a likely
stampede of animals without getting trampled
.”

Assuming the animals are in stalls or cages, any farmer has the skills
to get them out to pasture.

Your arguments are getting weaker.

did I mention he is 600, almost 5x older than the oldest human in modern day?
Since the debate is about the ark this is really outside the boundary of our debate.


“Let me sum this up”
You started the debate about animal migration, diet, space and bacteria.
You said “ con will have to argue against these points and prove each one wrong”
Now that I have refuted these points successfully you switch your argument
to a global flood with Noah bobbing along above Mt. Everest. I am sure the
readers will see that I successfully refuted all your points from round 1,
and that you can not change the debate to be about Noah’s age or
Noah at 29,000 ft with an oxygen mask.


I am hoping you get back on track in round 3


[1] https://www.google.ca...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] http://www.cbc.ca...
[5] http://www.alexandriaarchive.org...
[6] http://www.iridescent-publishing.com...
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[8] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[9] http://animals.about.com...
[10] http://www.harvesth2o.com...

Debate Round No. 2
dtaylor971

Pro


"I reject your position"
Let me explain my position. Noah's Ark is considered a worldwide flood by the Bible. In case you did not know, this is the definition of worldwide:

Worldwide: Applying or extending throughout the world; universal [1]. Apparently, I have to define world for you, also.
World: the Earth or globe, considered as a planet [2].
Both are official definitions and the definitions that we will be following in the debate.


"Noah has 120 years to do or hire out the work on the ark."
Yes, but he had to make it out of gopher/beaver wood [3]. He had to train beavers to get the wood for him, which further specifies my argument that Noah was incapable of doing what the Bible said that he did. A man that was able to control many animals over a period of 370 days at an altitude that is barely breathable should have the ability and strength to gather at least part of his own wood.

"You are making bold claims that ship builders did not know how to build ships"
I would like to know where I said that. If did, I am sorry, I did not mean it literally. The next section of your argument is about how much pressure wood can withstand. I have looked further into this and found some facts. No one knows exactly what type of wood Noah and the gophers used. The Christians think that it was Cypress wood [4], so I will use that example. Cypress wood can withstand about 6360 PSI, and can withstand about 510 pounds of force [5]. A women in high heels makes 1600 PSI per step. Think about it.

"Did you really think Noah had woolly mammoths on the ark
?"

No, I do not. I was just providing an example for an extinct animal. Please read my text more carefully before posting a response.

"97% are invertebrate and would likely not be counted as animals.
Of the remaining 3%, close to half are fish, leaving 1.5% of this GLOBAL number. "
Yet the Bible says that anyone, or anything, not in the ark perished. How would you explain the animals still here today? You cross out your own argument. If 97% are invertebrate today, wouldn't that mean that there would be a ton of invertebrate animals on the ark? Look at this passage:
Genesis 6:19 reads: “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female [6]” This passage actually doesn't state that it has to he considered an animal, but must be living. Fish are also living, so they mastiff been brought aboard the ark. If they didn't many would've perished due to salt/freshwater combination. So that statement is actually false.

"Remember that we are working from the position of a regional flood so the number
of animals is far smaller."
As I stated earlier, we are going worldwide here, not regional. The Bible says worldwide, and that is what we use. So the food wouldn't be smaller.

"You makes more bad assumptions."
I'm sorry... You makes?!?! Dude, don't be a hypocrite.

"If this is the site of the resting of the ark please note that the dove cam back with an olive branch which suggests a
much different climate or elevation in the time of Noah."
You said if. It is also said that God erased all evidence of the flood [7]. So the ark would not be found anywhere. I can't read the rest of that argument. Also, you used suggests. We are going by today's climate, as you have no proof that the climate and air pressure was any different back then than it is today.

"Rainwater is actually better than city water. [10]"
Yes, but even so, it doesn't completely cross out my point. If one single animal dies, the whole thing is disproved in this debate. Also, I beg to differ. Look at this [8]. Those are all bacteria and organisms that can affect any animals state of being, and kill them. You only have one survey there. I can name tons and tons of organisms found in freshwater alone. Plus, I would ask you how the in the heck did Noah separate the freshwater from the saltwater? If it contained any salt, both him and the animals would become dehydrated.

"How does a boat 450 ft long and 75 feet wide “tip over”?
Just how would one human keep this tipping from happening?"
For the second point you listed, that proves my point. Noah could not stop the ark from tipping over. Plus, it was raining for 370 days straight, 12,000 feet up and in terrible weather. It actually could've tipped over. It is a long shot, I admit, but it is possible. I will give you credit of making a good point here, but it does not completely disprove it.

" Assuming the animals are in stalls or cages, any farmer has the skills
to get them out to pasture."
Noah was 600 years old. I doubt he could handle an elephant in a cage. Plus, a farmer would likely not know how to handle animals that were not seen on a farm, as a farmer spends most of his time ranching and farming. And any farmer? Please. A ten-year old farmer would not be able to handle a giant elephant after a year flood. Please re-select your word choice.

"Since the debate is about the ark this is really outside the boundary of our debate."
The title says NOAH'S ark, which includes chapters 6-8 in Genesis. So no, it is not outside the boundary of this debate. Noah being 600 is a legitimate fact to disprove this story. Any "fact" in 6-8 I can use and so can you. You are not the one to decide the rules of the debate.

"I am hoping you get back on track in round 3"
Well that is sort of mean, I must say. I hope YOU use some actual spelling and grammar in round three. Oh, you forgot a period.

You did not disprove how Noah did not freeze, how the animals did not freeze, how a 600 year old man could breathe for 370 days straight at limited oxygen (let alone some of the animals,) and many more. Also, you contradicted yourself. You said:
*High flooding waters brought the animals to the ark (Round 1).
*God brought the animals to the ark. (Round 2).

You also said that the dimensions of the ark made it carry 120,000 pairs of animals.
But I stated that there were actually one million aboard.

You also stated that the story was unlikely to begin with. Please consider that.

I applaud CON for his great debating skills and for a wonderful debate. Take care!

Best Regards,
D.J


[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3] http://www.ldolphin.org...
[4] christiananswers.net/q-eden/gopherwood.html
[5] http://workshopcompanion.com...
[6] http://www.apologeticspress.org...
[7] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[8] www.funsci.com/fun3_en/guide/guide1/micro1_en.htm

For site 4, you have to copy and paste because my computer is acting up. Sorry.
gordonjames

Con

Before getting on to the real content of the debate, 
I have to say “thanks for the laugh”
You said “He had to train beavers to get the wood for him”
I’m assuming this is trolling for laughs.
What you may not know is that the Hebrew word transliterated
as “gopher” in the KJV Bible simply ported the Hebrew pronunciation
over to English because we do not know what the word means. [1]
Some translations guess at “cypress” but there is another word for
that so they left it untranslated. It may even refer to some treatment
used to make the wood more suitable for boat building. (My guess no
references)

Before AI recap my position I want to respond to some of PRO’s claims.

I believe one of our irreconcilable differences is the scope of the flood.
The Hebrew word for land used in Genesis 7 is er-ets [2] has been
translated in many ways in the 2503 times it is used. Here are a few
translations from the NASB (followed by the number of times they were
translated that way. common (1), countries (15), countries and their
lands (1), country (44), countryside (1), distance* (3), dust (1),
earth (655), earth the ground (1), earth's (1), fail* (1), floor (1),
ground (119), land (1581), lands (57), lands have their land (2),
open (1), other* (2), piece (1), plateau* (1), region (1), territories (1),
wild (1), world (3). From this you can see that the vast majority of the
times this word is translated in the sense of a region, not the entire
globe (since the concept of a spherical planet circling the sun was not
a part of the cosmology of the day.

I agree that your definition of the word worldwide is accurate.
Your use of the word worldwide and the concept of a planet circling
the sun are not a good representation of the Genesis 7 account. [3] [4]

Many of your misunderstandings stem from your failure at this point.

You say in your first sentence “ the worldwide flood as said in the Bible.”
I tried to find where you got this idea. I searched 20 versions of the
Bible for the word “worldwide” and came up empty. Even when I
searched for the two words “world” and “wide” there were only a few
versions of the Bible that had those 2 words close to each other, none
about the flood story? [5]


Sorry - I can’t let it go - You said:
He had to train beavers to get the wood for him,
which further specifies my argument that Noah was
incapable of doing what the Bible said that he did.
A man that was able to control many animals over
a period of 370 days at an altitude that is barely breathable
should have the ability and strength to gather at least part
of his own wood.

- The Bible does not say where Noah got his wood.
This is the first time I have read the absurd notion that he
trained beavers to do it for him.


Then you say “No one knows exactly what type of wood Noah and
the gophers used.” Is it really your belief that gophers or beavers
helped Noah with this building project?


In round 2 you asked
“How could that even be built without advanced technology?”
I apologize if I misrepresented you in saying
“You are making bold claims that ship builders
did not know how to build ships”
Let me explain.
You say “ Noah would've just had to find any piece of wood he could get.”
This is wrong. Lumber harvest is mentioned in antiquity.

You suggest an ancient ship would not support an elephant or hippo.
I gave evidence that ancient Roman shipping has had ships nearly as
big as the ark, and that elephants and hippos were brought by ship to
ancient Rome. The knew how to build wooden ships to carry heavy
cargo. They also made some really big wooden ships.

In round 3 you say that “A women in high heels makes 1600 PSI
per step. Think about it.” - Are you saying a woman in high heels
would break a wooden boat? That is not the correct.

Seafaring cultures knew how to make boats.
The knew how to make them seaworthy.
They knew how to transport (heavy) cargo. [6]


In round 2 I asked “Did you really think Noah had woolly mammoths
on the ark?" - You said “No, I do not. I was just providing an example
for an extinct animal. Please read my text more carefully before posting
a response.”
- I went back and re read your text where you said “A rhino can weigh
well over a ton, and so can many other animals. Plus the extinct ones
(the ones that are extinct today, like the woolly mammoth) would also
have to be saved, just adding to an already unsustainable weight.

- Your words clearly say that animals “like the woolly mammoth)
would also have to be saved
I’m sure you can see how I got the idea you were confused on the
time (and scope) of the flood.


We continue to have disagreement on the scope of the flood.
The best evidence from the Biblical text, from other histories and
from science suggest a regional flood that wiped out the region
where Noah lived.

This disagreement on the scope of the flood seems to be a problem
we are not getting past.
- I argue that the regional flood described in the Bible is possible.
- You argue that a global flood is impossible.
- The Bible text does not require a global flood.
Please accept that we disagree on the scope of the flood.


You say “ A ten-year old farmer would not be able to handle a giant
elephant after a year flood. Please re-select your word choice” -
Please check out this and other pictures. [7] [8]

You say “ Noah being 600 is a legitimate fact to disprove this story.
Any "fact" in 6-8 I can use and so can you. You are not the one to
decide the rules of the debate.”
- Actually you stated the rules and scope of the debate in round 1.
You laid out your argument in round 1 and then concluded with
“So you, con, will have to argue against these points and prove
each one wrong.”


I have argued against these points (and more, even trained beavers)
but I believe the debate about the extreme age of people in Genesis
deserves a debate of its own.
[9] [10]

You quote me saying - "You makes more bad assumptions."
I'm sorry... You makes?!?! Dude, don't be a hypocrite.
Guilty as charged if you are referring to grammar.
The bad assumptions I was referring to were things like:
- global flood
- No oxygen at 29,000 feet
- freezing at 29,000 feet
- millions of animals

You claim “It is also said that God erased all evidence of the flood” and
reference Genesis 5. I have never heard that position before.

In your comments about rainwater are not correct. [11]
You are mistalking Freshwater like lakes and ponds with rein water.



Regarding tipping the ark you say “. It actually could've tipped
over. It is a long shot, I admit, but it is possible. I will give you credit
of making a good point here, but it does not completely disprove it.”
Actually, you are trying to prove that the Biblical story of the ark is
impossible.

As con, my position is that it is possible.
You have the BOP to prove it is impossible.


I seem to be having a hard time communication without offense.
In saying "I am hoping you get back on track in round 3", I meant
to the original points that framed in the round 1


My intent was not be unkind.

I conclude that there is no reason to doubt a regional flood of
Noah’s known world.

This fits the Bible text and is not impossible as PRO calims.

Vote CON




[1] http://biblehub.com...
[2] http://biblehub.com...
[3] http://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com...
[4] http://biologos.org...
[5] http://www.biblegateway.com...
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] http://www.chiangmai-mail.com...
[8] http://thumbs.dreamstime.com...
[9] https://www.apologeticspress.org...
[10] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[11] http://en.wikipedia.org...


Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by medic0506 2 years ago
medic0506
This must be what a local flood looked like...

http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org...
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
I have to agree. :\ No offense, Pro, but you argued your case very poorly.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
Oh thanks a lot.
Posted by RoyLatham 2 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro did a poor job of arguing the case. Using "could not have happened" is poor phrasing to start with. I would have argued that space aliens staged all the events using advanced technology. It's really unlikely, but it could have happened. Or, "magic was operative at that time and place" so it was done with magic. It's less likely than the space aliens, but possible. Anyway, we'll suppose "did not happen" means could not have happened with available technology of the times and current laws of nature.

Noah was supposedly 600 years old. That "could not happen" as loosely defined. Pro is allowing a magical Noah, so that seems to grant operative magic as a possibility.

There isn't enough water to sustain a local flood for a year. A tidal wave is plausible, but the water would only stay high for a matter of hours. Melting all the ice caps only yields a 400 foot ocean rise. Hence the flood "could not happen."

Animals drink polluted water all the time. I've seen a raccoon "wash" his food in an overflowing cesspool. Raccoons soak food to soften it. Wild animals have to be able to drink foul water.

There are documentaries of animals being rescued from rising waters when a dam is filled. They go on to islands that then disappear. The animals are never even slightly cooperative with captors.

Many civilizations have stories of local floods, and no doubt many have occurred. They leave no lasting effects because they are just local, and they don't last long.

6000 years would not leave "fossils." If there were bones they could be accurately dated. There is no dated evidence of that sort.

The debate depends upon how much magic is allowed and how minor and local the flood is allowed to be. Likely the story derived from *some* local flood.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Posted by gordonjames 2 years ago
gordonjames
: InVinoVeritas

Do I detect sarcasm?
"my favorite peer-reviewed academic journal"

I was't aware that a dictionary of Hebrew words needed to be peer reviewed

See http://biblehub.com...
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
BibleHub.com is my favorite peer-reviewed academic journal! I'm glad Con was able to incorporate some sources from there.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
Pro, you REALLY think that gophers built the ark?! That's just ridiculous. Any reasonable person would know that it would take gophers WAY more than 120 years to build the ark... Especially since the gophers would work extra slow, considering they'd be really depressed about the fact that only two members of their species would end up surviving the flood.

*sigh* ...Oh, atheists.
Posted by dtaylor971 2 years ago
dtaylor971
IKR?! Lol
Posted by InVinoVeritas 2 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"Some details that make the story more plausible.
1. God gave Noah 120 years of warning in which to prepare."

...I almost fell out of my seat laughing.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
dtaylor971gordonjamesTied
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:16 
Reasons for voting decision: I am sorry friend. This was just not your debate.
Vote Placed by imsmarterthanyou98 2 years ago
imsmarterthanyou98
dtaylor971gordonjamesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had overall much better arguments and showed that Noahs Ark could not have happend,Con's Font was rather hard to read and he played semantics instead of addressing Pros points head-on Con also had many spelling mistakes throughout.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
dtaylor971gordonjamesTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Ok I was trying to take this seriously, but pro kept shifting numbers around haphazardly; including insisting the ark was "29,000 feet in the air," but only "25,000 feet in freezing cold." There were "1 million" animals, to which needed "2 million cages." Con caught many of the mistakes and effectively refuted them, but I am going to be generous with arguments due to the Shifting Goalpost Fallacy pro initiated (intentionally or not) making them argue over two completely different issues. ARGUMENT: Both tried, I feel con did better, but their unrelated arguments are hard to measure against each other. CONDUCT: pro effectively surrendered this with attempting to change the terms of the debate in R2. SOURCES: I was scary impressed in this, however pro did not begin to connect his sources to his arguments until the final round, giving con a huge head start.... Both sets of sources were of course biased etc, but they each supported their own cases, which is their main job.
Vote Placed by medic0506 2 years ago
medic0506
dtaylor971gordonjamesTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: First off, with due respect to Con, Pro made it clear in his very first sentence that the debate was about a "worldwide" flood. If there was a disagreement as to the scope of the flood, it would have been best to iron that out prior to acceptance. Ultimately though, due to the kinds of arguments put forward, I don't think the scope of the flood was an influential factor in scoring the debate. I think Pro gave himself a tough row to hoe right off the bat with the wording of the resolution. In saying that it couldn't have happened, Pro placed a heavy burden of proof on himself. Con was able to refute the bulk of arguments from Pro. Pro said that if one animal died that would refute Con's argument, and he is correct on that, but he wasn't able to show that any animals died. The rest of his case followed that pattern of raising questions, but not providing any positive evidence for his own claim that it "couldn't happen", thus the BoP placed on him by the resolution wasn't met.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 2 years ago
janetsanders733
dtaylor971gordonjamesTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good job to both debaters. However, I think Con overall had better arguments. Pro kept trying to put in his own assumptions on how he thinks, for example how big the Ark should have been. Pro also thinks the number of animals should have been "millions". However, the Bible doesn't mention every single species and kind. Con had sources to back up his claims and arguments. Pro made more assumptions about the dimensions of the ship, number of animals, people, and region, without backing up his claim.
Vote Placed by TorqueDork 2 years ago
TorqueDork
dtaylor971gordonjamesTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I thought dtaylor was had better arguments and much of gordons sources were from biased websites