The Instigator
kohai
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points
The Contender
000ike
Pro (for)
Losing
2 Points

Noah's Flood Is An Actual, Historic Event

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 7 votes the winner is...
kohai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,666 times Debate No: 18007
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (65)
Votes (7)

 

kohai

Con

DEFINITION

Noah's Flood: An "event" in history that was a world wide flood.

Historical event: An event that actually happened.

BURDEN OF PROOF

It is my burden to show how a world wide flood like Noah would be impossible and historically unlikely. My opponent needs to prove it happened and it occurred.

8000 characters
1 month voting period
3 days to argue
NO semantics.
No video links.

Round 1 is just for acceptance.
000ike

Pro

I accept with regard to the condition that my opponent requests no semantics and thereby compels me to take his definition of "Noah's Flood" strictly and literally. He cannot therefore at any point alter or reword that definition through the progression of our discourse.

I thank Kohai for what I anticipate will be an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
kohai

Con

Thank you so much for taking this debate and I look forward to an excellent debate.


Contention 1: The Flood is Scientifically Impossible


C1.1) Tree ring dating

Since we are getting a literal reading of the texts, we know for a fact that the fllood would have occured 2500-2300 BCE [1]. However, this produces a major problem. It is a fact that there are tree ring datings that go well beyond 10,000 years and have produced 0 evidence of a catastrophie of that time [2].

C1.2) The flood did not leave traces on the sea floor.

According to Genesis, the flood lasted for about 1 year. This should be reconizable in the sea floor due to the following:
  1. An uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detrius;
  2. Different grain size distribution in the sediment;
  3. Shif in oxygen isotope ratios;
  4. Massifve extinction; and
  5. Many other characteristics.

The problem, of course, is that none of those things that are predicted in a global flood have shown up [2].

C1.3) The polar caps are impossible if a global flood really did occur.

Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to fload the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, Greenland would not regrow under modern climatic conditions [2].

Contention 2: A World-wide food is historically impossible.

Since we are taking a literal reading of Genesis, we are also taking a literal reading of the genealogies. Therefore, if we can prove that cultures existed before and after 2500-2300 BCE uninterrupted, we can prove that Noah's flood is a myth.

The Egyptian Pyramids were built about 2560 BCE [6], apparently, the Egyptians were not affected by this "global" flood. Neither was Assyria [4], China [5], or Sumer.

Just a sidebar note, here is an interesting quote from Answers In Genesis:

"The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years." [8]

Obviously all civilizations do not fit into the last 4,285 years; nor do scientific evidence.

| CONCLUSION |

My opponent has agreed that we are taking a literal reading. Therefore, the historical and scientific evidence is sufficent to prove that a "world-wide" flood never occurd. I could go into math details, but honestly do not feel like it.

I await my opponent's opening arguments as to why Noah's flood is a world-wide is a historical event.

___________
Sources
1. http://www.creationtips.com...
2. http://www.talkorigins.org...
3. http://ga.water.usgs.gov...;
4. http://tinyurl.com...;
5. http://tinyurl.com...;
6. http://www.authenticwonders.com...;(Egyptian Pyramid Source)
7. http://ancienthistory.about.com...;
8. http://tinyurl.com...;
000ike

Pro

I return the thanks.

Clarification

As we recall, my opponent defined "Noah's flood" as " An "event" in history that was a world wide flood." He does not define it as The event in history described in the Bible. Con's consequent denouncement of semantic argument compelled me to interpret his definitions strictly and literally. I made him aware of this, and he accepted it ("Since we are getting a literal reading of the text...").His references to the Bible and the Christian religion are therefore irrelevant to the resolution of the debate. I am arguing that a global flood has occurred before in History, my opponent is arguing that such has never occurred. Ergo, religious references can only be addressed under the logical fallacy of the Red Herring.


Refutation

1. "C1.1) Tree ring dating

Since we are getting a literal reading of the texts, we know for a fact that the flood would have occurred 2500-2300 BCE"

Red Herring Fallacy,....This time frame is a religious reference to the Bible, which states that the flood occurred 2348 BC (1), unless of course my opponent has scientific evidence that it is impossible for floods to occur outside said time frame.



2. "C1.2) The flood did not leave traces on the sea floor.

According to Genesis, the flood lasted for about 1 year. This should be recognizable in the sea floor due to the following:
"

Red Herring Fallacy.....Genesis is a reference to the Bible.



3. "C1.3) The polar caps are impossible if a global flood really did occur."

Global Warming having occurred before, melted the polar ice caps AND flooded the globe. However, ice caps are possible today because they reformed during the most recent Ice Age. Refer to the section of my argument labelled "Global Warming."



4. " Contention 2: A World-wide food is historically impossible.

Since we are taking a literal reading of Genesis, we are also taking a literal reading of the genealogies. Therefore, if we can prove that cultures existed before and after 2500-2300 BCE uninterrupted, we can prove that Noah's flood is a myth.

The Egyptian Pyramids were built about 2560 BCE [6], apparently, the Egyptians were not affected by this "global" flood. Neither was Assyria [4], China [5], or Sumer. "

Red Herring Fallacy.....religious and irrelevant reference to the Bible.


Global Warming (GW)

By neglecting to define the following words, my opponent has given me the liberty to do so myself.

Flood:
an expanse of water submerging land(2)
Global Flood: Simultaneous overflow of water due to global oceanic sealevel increases, submerging at least 1 area of land on the 6 habitable continents.

My argument will be centered around the following syllogism:

1. Global Warming causes global floods (our definition of the term "Noah's flood")

2. Global Warming has occurred before.

3. Global Floods have occurred before. (Hence negating the resolution)


Global warming causes global floods

As GW is the increase in the world's temperature(3), it will melt the polar ice caps and glaciers in the arctic and antarctic regions, causing a 60 - 100 meter rise in sealevel (4). "Melting glaciers and land-based ice sheets also contribute to rising sea levels, threatening low-lying areas around the globe with beach erosion, coastal flooding, and contamination of freshwater supplies"(5) This causes flooding in at least 1 area of several continents. "Regions especially at risk are low-lying areas of North America, Latin America, Africa, populous coastal cities of Europe, crowded delta regions of Asia that face flood risks from both large rivers and ocean storms, and many small islands whose very existence is threatened by rising seas."(6)

By my definition of global flooding, we are now seeing that global warming causes floods in the following continents.

1. North America
2. South America (Latin America)
3. Africa
4. Europe
5. Asia

"[Global warming in Australia will cause] damaged transportation infrastructure, and disasters, such as coastal flooding..."(7) Thus adding Australia to our list.

6. Australia.

As you can see, global warming causes global floods.


Global Warming has occurred before

Climate change is cyclic occurring in the form of global temperature increase (global warming) and global temperature decrease (Ice Age). "The idea that Global Warming is a natural cycle is well understood from paleo data covering the past 1 million years"(8). Global warming is the force that melts the ice from an ice age. "Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of thePleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice... For the past million years the natural climate has oscillated between warm periods and ice ages"(9)

As you can see, GW has occurred before.

Conclusion

Having proved the primary and secondary premises of my syllogism, we have successfully arrived at the conclusion. Global warming is directly equal to global floods. The Earth cannot increase in temperature without raising sealevels and flooding the coasts of continents. Therefore, since it is a fact that Global warming has occurred before it is also a fact that global floods, or as my opponent named it, "noah's flood" has occurred before.


Sources

1. http://www.epicidiot.com...
2. http://www.knowledgerush.com...
3. http://www.bing.com...
4. http://www.nexialinstitute.com...
5. http://www.nrdc.org...
6. http://www.ucsusa.org...
7. http://en.wikipedia.org...
8. http://ossfoundation.us...
9 http://www.geocraft.com...
Debate Round No. 2
kohai

Con

All arguments extended. My opponent has refuted my evidence as red haring from scripture. However, it should be quite obvious that we are referrimg to the scriptural account (NOAH's flood). Keep in mind my definition of Noah's flood as an event in hostory that was a World-wide flood. It seems obvious to me that it is referring to the Biblical acount.

Extend my arguments and VOTE CON! In also thank my opponent for ruining this debate.
000ike

Pro

Why this is not a Semantic Argument

Semantics - The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form. (1)

Semantic arguments are avoided by providing definitions. However, once that definition is provided, that is what we refer to without question (hence avoiding any misconception)

My opponent's definition was "An "event" in history that was a world wide flood". As semantics, or further intermretation of meaning, was not allowed, my opponent compelled me to take the meaning strictly and literally.

Did I exploit a poorly worded definition? Yes.

Did I interpret the meaning of the sentence deeper than what it said EXACTLY? No.


1. http://www.answers.com...

Debate Round No. 3
kohai

Con

My words were not poorly defined. Notice "world wide" flood in the sentence. Since I haven't defined world-wide flood yet, I suppose I will define it now as a flood that simultaneously convers the entire earth with water.
000ike

Pro

I already defined Worldwide flood as:Simultaneous overflow of water due to global oceanic sealevel increases, submerging at least 1 area of land on the 6 habitable continents.

You cannot introduce a new definition to a term that has already been defined and used based on that definition midway through the debate. Besides, on an honest note, I didn't expect you to mean that the whole world be submerged in water. Either way, your definition is moot at this point.

I extend my arguments from round two. As this is our agreed upon last round. If voters see that I have no case, then they are free as always to vote accordingly.
Debate Round No. 4
kohai

Con

Voters. I am very sorry that such an interesting debate turned out the way itndid.

Please extend my arguments. It should have been obvious as tonwhat in was referring to in the first round.

VOTE CON!
000ike

Pro

We agreed to cancel this round, but okay. Vote PRO.
Debate Round No. 5
65 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
No, you're right. I apologized to Kohai because I felt bad about it, he accepted the apology. I had a momentary lapse of judgement accepting this debate.
Posted by LeafRod 6 years ago
LeafRod
"That was a mistake..."

That's all I was looking for. I just don't get why you said it wasn't for so long. Anyway, it doesn't matter now.
Posted by LeafRod 6 years ago
LeafRod
Hey 000ike I totally agree about exploiting definitions and how it can be fun, but you have to pick your spots. I think you stretched it a bit here, especially when CON specifically said he didn't want a semantic debate. If the instigator in question isn't someone who deserves a little messing with, and the exploitation is rather weak, and the person has mentioned avoiding semantics, then it's a tad unfair.

Not trying to overly criticize you or anything – just providing an insight from someone with a somewhat similar mentality. Pick a better spot next time and you'll be good.
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Leafrod, I'll concede and say that I thought 00ike wrote a creationist argument...
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
It was poorly written and not specific enough. A flood that occurred in history is not, why am I arguing with you anyway. This is a waste of time.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
It wasn't poorly written - it was poorly read.
Posted by 000ike 6 years ago
000ike
Get over it. Its fun to exploit poorly written definitions, too bad members don't allow a technicality win.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
>> "JusCallMeTarzan, it was a technicality of definition, I don't know what you're "wow"-ing about.."

Suppose I define as such:

Jesus' Crucifixion: An 'event' in history that was a crucifixion.

Are you really going to tell me that the 'event' we are discussing is not the same 'event' that is in the Bible? Really?
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
Are you here just to argue or to vote or contribute something?
Posted by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
"If you had any real point, you wouldn't make such a stupid and childish statement."
Alright, so what are you going to do here on this debate, instead of arguing with me?
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by BennyW 6 years ago
BennyW
kohai000ikeTied
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 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: Kohai did specifically mention Noah's flood, so Biblical references are not red herrings.
Vote Placed by Cerebral_Narcissist 6 years ago
Cerebral_Narcissist
kohai000ikeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: I am very dissapointed in PRO who upon realising their position was untenable attempted a loophole in order to ignore the resolution. The term used was Noah's Flood and yet somehow CON may not reference the Biblical account? No. PROs loses conduct. CON loses spelling and grammar for silly mistakes. PRO loses arguments as most of CON's arguments were ignored. Sources tied. PRO's treatment of this debate was utterly incorrect on every level, don't take debates then ignore the resolution!
Vote Placed by JustCallMeTarzan 6 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
kohai000ikeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G was relatively tied. But Pro lost conduct for the ludicrous assertion that somehow "Noah's Flood" could reference a historical framework other than the one in the Bible.
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 6 years ago
Man-is-good
kohai000ikeTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:41 
Reasons for voting decision: It should have been obvious that 'Noah's flood' was referring to the incidence of the Flood that occurred in Genesis. Therefore, I give one point of conduct to kohai...In addition, he made a few spelling mistakes that give 00ike a point in spelling, though kohai's arguments were pertinent to the case.
Vote Placed by izbo10 6 years ago
izbo10
kohai000ikeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: easily better arguments, the idea that anyone believes the flood occurred in this day and age,shows a complete lack of effort on their part to find the truth. Now Ike tried the old ddo thing of semsantics which cost him big time here.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 6 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
kohai000ikeTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as below, except I'm not friends (yet) with Kohai.
Vote Placed by thett3 6 years ago
thett3
kohai000ikeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Perhaps I'm biased because I'm friends with kohai, but I found ike's antics in this debate to be extremely dishonorable. It was very obvious what kohai wanted to debate.