The Instigator
Cooldudebro
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
CentristX
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points

Noah's Ark

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 2 votes the winner is...
CentristX
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/22/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,403 times Debate No: 59399
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (15)
Votes (2)

 

Cooldudebro

Con

First round is for acceptance. Good luck.
CentristX

Pro

This should be interesting?
By reading the comments, I'm sure I have a pretty clear idea of what the Con is arguing, and I am willing to argue the proof of both points he introduces.
I will be using the Bible, and also secular references.
Peace be with you. :)
Debate Round No. 1
Cooldudebro

Con

Case 1: The Lie Called Noah's Ark

The first and biggest thing that proves Noah's ark never happened is all the animals Noah would have to get! All the animals, from all the countries, from all the continents. Even if Noah could, how could he feed all of those animals for let alone the 40 days and 40 nights of rain?!?! Not to mention all he time it took all the water to evaporate. The next biggest thing is Noah was 500 years old when he started building the ark, and 600 when he finished. This is bull! In the time, a Egyptian was considered ancient at age 60. Think, that is 440 year younger than when Noah started building the ark, and 540 years when Noah was done with the ark! Also, how could the boat float with all the pounds of all the species of elephants and all the other animals. There work back then wasn't really good. Also, how could they keep all the animals from eating each other? They also say that the only humans on the ark were Noah and his family which means we are all descendants of Noah.
CentristX

Pro

The Con does not believe in the first book of the Bible, Genesis, and that therefor shatters everything else he would possibly want to argue.

I will allow him to post his second case before I post my rebuttals.
Debate Round No. 2
Cooldudebro

Con

Nah I'm good
CentristX

Pro

Very well.



"The first and biggest thing that proves Noah's ark never happened is all the animals Noah would have to get! All the animals, from all the countries, from all the continents. Even if Noah could, how could he feed all of those animals for let alone the 40 days and 40 nights of rain?!?"

Genesis 6:19-21,

"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. 21 You are to take every kind of food that is to be eaten and store it away as food for you and for them.”

The Bible says that the ark only needed to take fourteen (or seven pairs) of every kind of bird and two of every unclean animal (one pair). The clean animals came in seven pairs of two, or fourteen.

Also note, the bible does not state to bring two of every species, but pairs of every kind.

I believe in evolution, just not the kind that Richard Dawkins and perhaps you do.
I believe in Microevolution, which explains the existence of similar species by cross-breeding and mutational effects over a long time.

So how did every kind of animal send a representative from each continent? How did the animals cross the ocean from country to country to a central point on the Earth?

Actually, they didn't cross any oceans, my friend.

Ever heard of Pangea?



This is only a simple approximation of what we believe the Earth looked like years ago.

There is full scientific proof that Pangea existed, and the Earth once had a full continential landmass.

How do we know this for sure?
  • Mountain ranges that end on the coast of South America seemingly continue on the west coasts of Africa and eastern parts of Australia
  • If you haven't noticed, the continents fit like puzzle pieces!
  • Also, fossil records show that animals of the same species and likeness exist in several parts of the world.




"Not to mention all the time it took all the water to evaporate"

Okay,

Genesis 7:11,

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.

and,

24 The waters flooded the earth for a hundred and fifty days.

Notice in verse eleven, it says, "on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

Water flooded the Earth in two ways.

With rain from the sky,
and water from the depths of the Earth.

So in the same way, who is to say that the water did not recede not only by evaporation, (which is possible in a hundred and fifty day period) but by the absorbsion of the water into this planet?




"The next biggest thing is Noah was 500 years old when he started building the ark, and 600 when he finished. This is bull! In the time, a Egyptian was considered ancient at age 60. Think, that is 440 year younger than when Noah started building the ark, and 540 years when Noah was done with the ark!"


The closer you get in the ancestral line to the first man and woman, you begin the see that the first people on the Earth were more perfect that we are, in health size and stature (and obviously better off than the Egyptians).

When God tells someone to do something, if they are willing to do what He says, God will protect them and sustain them until their work is complete.




"Also, how could the boat float with all the pounds of all the species of elephants and all the other animals. There work back then wasn't really good."

From the Smithsonian, "They subtracted the mass of an empty ark and found that the ark could hold 50,540,000 kg. For some perspective: the average sheep is about 23.47 kilograms, so the biblical boat could have held about 2.15 million sheep." (read the whole thing for yourself at http://www.smithsonianmag.com...;)

It's possible, my friend.




"Also, how could they keep all the animals from eating each other?"

F-O-O-D




"They also say that the only humans on the ark were Noah and his family which means we are all descendants of Noah."

That is correct, because it was indeed possible for Noah's three sons to have children with their own wives.

Incest was not needed nor did it ever occur.



Sources:

http://creation.com...

http://gracethrufaith.com...

https://www.biblegateway.com...

http://www.smithsonianmag.com...

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com...




Debate Round No. 3
Cooldudebro

Con

Now for the rabbit in a hole strategy!


Case 1: The Cross-breeding Fallacy!


Many people think you can cross-breed two breeds of dogs and get every single breed through cross breeding. However, I would like to show this isn't true. Lets just say I cross bred a husky with a collie. I wouldn't get all the types of dogs through cross-breeding. I would only get the mix of the collie and husky. Evolution takes millions of years to happen. (1) If dogs did cross breed to get every breed we know today, then how did they do it so fast? In the link used commonly by creationist, it states that the flood happened 4,359 years ago.

"
Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359
"




My challenge for you is to find me a link that states what two breeds cross bred into all the breeds of dogs and if it would take less than or just exactly 4,359 years. Good luck!




Case 2: Morality


God is supposed to be all good according to the bible. However, I will suggest that he is not all good. If you are still confused about this point, let me explain. If I prove God isn't 100% good, then the bible, and all of the quotes you are using is an invalid source.

First, God supposedly caused the flood, so that means he murdered thousands upon thousands of humans.

Second, murder is a sin,

Third, god committed murder, thus committed a sin.

Last, this would make god in-perfect, which wouldn't make him all good.

My challenge for you, is to refute this.


Case 3: Logical refutation for the bible story

1. Pro says people that follow god will be sustained. However, why doesn't he sustain priests and nuns? What links shows that the first humans were in better health than we are right now with modern medicine.

2. Here is a quote from Pro's article.

"Could Noah's ark really have handled 8.7 million species? It seems unlikely, but biblical scholars and creationists have a workaround, arguing that the number of animals needed on the ark could be reduced to "kinds" instead of species"

End quote.

So, one kind of elephant grew to evolved to every kind of elephant in a little more than four thousand years? Nope.

3. Supposedly, almost all the water sunk into the ground. However, this never happens in normal Earth! I wish that would happen when I want to play basketball with my friends.

Rebuttals:

First, let me start with your links.

Link 1: creation.com Do I need to say more? BIAS!

Link 2: gracethrufaith.com Come on man! BIAS!

Link 3: You are just quoting an unreliable source with a bias source.

Link 4: Good job! Not bias!

Link 5: whatchristianswanttoknow.com. -_- BIAS!

The arguments based on your links are nearly all from biased sources. Please don't do this again.

"So how did every kind of animal send a representative from each continent? How did the animals cross the ocean from country to country to a central point on the Earth?

Actually, they didn't cross any oceans, my friend.

Ever heard of Pangaea?"

You say Panagea happened recently, however, this link from a source says otherwise. It says it began breaking apart two hundred million years ago. (3) Please, check your facts


"The closer you get in the ancestral line to the first man and woman, you begin the see that the first people on the Earth were more perfect that we are, in health size and stature (and obviously better off than the Egyptians)."


No links at all. Please.

"That is correct, because it was indeed possible for Noah's three sons to have children with their own wives"

You prove my point there. That would mean races would not exist, because with the short time frame it would take Noah and his ancestors to evolve, they couldn't make every single race in the world.


Ladies And Gentleman, I have proved:

1. Noah's Ark and The Story have many logical contradictions.

2. The Bible has many logical and moral contradictions.

3. My opponent used biased links and arguments with no links to support them.


This forces you to vote Con!

Good luck!





1. http://theadvancedapes.com...

2. https://answersingenesis.org...

3. http://www.bbc.co.uk...
CentristX

Pro

The Con has brought up arguments in Round 4 that have nothing to do with the subject at hand, so for those I will not argue my point because I have no need to.

"
Case 1: The Cross-breeding Fallacy!
Many people think you can cross-breed two breeds of dogs and get every single breed through cross breeding. However, I would like to show this isn't true. Lets just say I cross bred a husky with a collie. I wouldn't get all the types of dogs through cross-breeding. I would only get the mix of the collie and husky. Evolution takes millions of years to happen. (1) If dogs did cross breed to get every breed we know today, then how did they do it so fast? In the link used commonly by creationist, it states that the flood happened 4,359 years ago.
"
Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359
"
My challenge for you is to find me a link that states what two breeds cross bred into all the breeds of dogs and if it would take less than or just exactly 4,359 years. Good luck!

The Con goes on to argue here that two breeds of dog could not breed in order to bring about the thousands of breeds of dogs we have today, in such a short amount of time.

For one, I did not say all dogs came from just two breeds of dogs.

You could get the breeds of dogs we have today just from the 1600's, for the Spaniards and English and German cross-breeded the dogs so many times and so well-- hundreds of the breeds we have today just come from the past 500 years.

Another thing, that I should add, just because I believe in Noah's ark, gives the Con no reason to just assume that I am a Young Earth Creationist.

"Case 2: Morality"

He wants me to argue this, then the Con better challenge me to a different debate, because I believe that he has settled with arguing things off topic because he already knows he has lost.


"1. Pro says people that follow god will be sustained. However, why doesn't he sustain priests and nuns? What links shows that the first humans were in better health than we are right now with modern medicine.

I did not say that all who simply folllow God will be sustained for a long healthy life. The rain falls upon the just and the unjust. So I want you to give me some kind of link that priests and nuns are really as close to God as you think they are.

"So, one kind of elephant grew to evolved to every kind of elephant in a little more than four thousand years? Nope."

Did I say one kind of elephant?
Find in my arguments where I literally said, ONE kind of each animal.



"3. Supposedly, almost all the water sunk into the ground. However, this never happens in normal Earth! I wish that would happen when I want to play basketball with my friends."

Once again, I wish the Con would read my arguments fully and more than once so he gets a full understanding of what I'm saying.

I did not say that almost all the water sunk into the ground.



The Con complains that my links were mostly "biased", which however I think the audience can agree that any links are better than the ones that he has provided before round 4 (zero).


The rest of his supposed rebuttals go off of the assumptions that I believe in Young Earth Creationism.

The arguments you make are based nearly all from assumptions. Please don't do this again. :-)

I have not used links in this round because the whole debate. all I have done is made rebuttals against the Con's arguments. That is fine with me.


As he stated,

"This forces you to vote Con!

Good luck!"

Was he talking to himself?



Debate Round No. 4
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
First, you said that if you cross bred two of every kind, you'd get all the species. You apply no links to back up your first argument. You neglect to fulfill my challenge.

Second,you say you aren't a young earth creationist, so when did Noah's ark happen?

In my second case, you refuse to try to dis prove my cases, which would make the bible an unreliable source! (that gives me reliable sources.)

Then you say one kind of every animal, having no links to back up if and how that could work to make every species of that animal.

Then you try to retract your guess of saying a lot of water receded into the earth.

Then you argue bias links are better than none. Bias makes them an unreliable source which is just as good as no links.

The last thing you do is say you don't believe in young earth creationism. Yet, what do you believe then? You use the bible for the majority of your arguments, and it said it happened a little more than 4,000 years ago. That is a conflict of interest.
Posted by Sfaulkner 2 years ago
Sfaulkner
There are so many things wrong with the Noah's Ark story.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
Whoops. I meant years and years past that time Egyptians were considered ancient.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
That is the only thing ill argue.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
Resolved: Both the biblical flood and the construction of the ark never happened.
Posted by mudkip624 2 years ago
mudkip624
Post a comment with your rewording, and I'll accept it.
Posted by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
You need a better resolution. I could win this debate on semantics very quickly.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
Cooldudebro
Sure.
Posted by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
the Biblical*
Posted by GOP 2 years ago
GOP
It would be difficult to argue both, since it would end up in a two-way debate. We need to stick to one topic.

Could you reword the resolution and say that Biblical flood occurred?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 2 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
CooldudebroCentristXTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't actually spend much time attacking the resolution. He accused Pro of using biased sources without any reason for us to think they were not credible. ALL sources are biased in some way or another. Con's arguments were mostly incredulity e.g. "I can't believe all elephants descended from a pair 4,500 years ago so it can't be true" lol Pro get's spelling and grammar for Con's 3rd round.
Vote Placed by Mister_Man 2 years ago
Mister_Man
CooldudebroCentristXTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro could have argued the points Con brought up, but chose not to because he "felt" it was irrelevant. When you're referring to stories in the Bible, you have to take into consideration how reliable the rest of the Bible is, because if you consider other parts of the Bible to be "open to interpretation," or "contradicting," what gives this story any more validity? For Pro's argument to make more sense, he would have to prove the Flood happened only about 4,400 years ago, and then he would have to prove it is possible for 7.1billion people to come from a family of eight (?) within that time period, as well as spreading out throughout the world, and evolving into the different races we have today. I did enjoy reading Pro's arguments, however. They were informational regarding the Bible and actually had some valid points.