The Instigator
theta_pinch
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points
The Contender
octo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Noah's ark (from the biblical story) was real

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 3 votes the winner is...
theta_pinch
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,022 times Debate No: 43831
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (3)

 

theta_pinch

Con

round1 acceptance
round2 opening arguments
Round3 rebuttals to round 2
round4 conclusion/rebuttal to round 3 if desired


octo

Pro

So First off scientists have discovered fossilised sea creatures in places that you would normally not find them such as high mountains. Anyway Robert Ballard the man who found the Titanic used robotic technology and carbon dating and discovered about 12000 years ago when much of the earth was covered by ice a massive melting happened that would have cause a worldwide flood.
Debate Round No. 1
theta_pinch

Con

round1 acceptance
round2 opening arguments
Round3 rebuttals to round 2
round4 conclusion/rebuttal to round 3 if desired

Point 1
Number of animals set on ark: about 6.5 million different species (not including extinct animals)-http://www.sciencedaily.com......
Volume of the ark: 39,366 cubic meters-http://www.metrum.org......
Can the ark hold 6.5 million animals? Answer: No

Point 2
Say the ark can hold that many animals; where's the food? The ark was afloat for 10 months so there is no way Noah could have both gotten the animals in AND the food.-http://www.ask.com......

Point 3
There is no way terrestrial animals could get to the ark from different continents and islands.


REBUTTALS

So First off scientists have discovered fossilised sea creatures in places that you would normally not find them such as high mountains.

Heres a quote from Evowiki:
  1. Seashell fossils in a mountainous region may be explained by tectonic activity: the land previously was beneath the sea, but the shifting and grinding of the plates could have raised the seabed above the water. Mountains could have formed afterwards due to further plate activity. This is why seashells are found mostly inside the mountain, not simply on it as if they were deposited there. They were laid down in layers under water before the mountains were mountains in the first place.
  2. Even if all the ice on Earth melted, there is not enough water on the planet to submerge the highest mountains.

Which debunks your second claim that there was a massive ice melt that caused a worldwide flood

  1. If fossil seashells were deposited on mountains due to a global flood, then they would be badly damaged due to severe water turbulence, and, if the shells comprised of more than one component (i.e., brachiopods, or clams), the component pieces would be disarticulated and scattered far and wide. And as such, a global flood fails to explain why there are beds of fossil clams and brachiopods throughout the world, filled with intact, articulated individuals.


CONCLUSION
Too many impossibilities to be true.
octo

Pro

Oka first things firs theta-pinch can you look at my most recent comment please.

So like my comment said the Bible says that it rained 40 days and 40 nights I we all have seen recently when it rains and rain floods appear even sweeping away whole towns and leaving entire country in ruins. So It is entirely possible that deluge of rainfall the likes of which we have never seen since over 40 days could have flooded the entire earth plus the Bible says this

Genesis7:11G when Noah was six hundred years old on the seventhteeth day of the second month all the outlets of the vast body of water underneath the earth burst open all the floodgates off the sky were opened. If that happened today all of that it wouldn't be good let just say.

My opponent said that some of the animals couldn't have made it to the ark because of the continents well he must not of heard of Pangaea source Wikipedia.
Pangaea is the theory that all of the continentsat at one time was one big subcontinent. That could easily explain how all the animals made it to the ark and back to there homes. then sometime after the world split apart.

Now I don't agree with time period that some scientists say Pangaea supposedly broke apart but I do believe that this could be a Biblical concept. Genesis 10:25 NIV Two sons were born to Eber: one was named Pegleg because in his time earth was divided his brother was named Joktan now this could mean lots of things but but it does sound a lot like Pangaea.

And the ark not being big enough God could have easily supernaturally made the ark bigger on the inside then on the outside.

Now I truly believe that God told Noah to build an ark that was big enough for all the animals but just something to think about.

The Bible says that God was the one who brought the animals to the ark so Noah did not have to go and collect the animals himself.

And I can prove that this could be an Biblical concept too
Debate Round No. 2
theta_pinch

Con

So like my comment said the Bible says that it rained 40 days and 40 nights I we all have seen recently when it rains and rain floods appear even sweeping away whole towns and leaving entire country in ruins. So It is entirely possible that deluge of rainfall the likes of which we have never seen since over 40 days could have flooded the entire earth plus the Bible says this.

According to the bible the ENTIRE world was flooded to over 29000 feet (above the highest mountains) that includes the oceans. So the oceans had to be "flooded" too meaning that the sea level rose at least 29000 feet. That means that the water had to be coming from a source other than the ocean and the only source could be ice at the poles. The problem for the biblical story is that even if all the ice at the poles were poured down as rain it still wouldn't be enough.

My opponent said that some of the animals couldn't have made it to the ark because of the continents well he must not of heard of Pangaea source Wikipedia.
Pangaea is the theory that all of the continentsat at one time was one big subcontinent. That could easily explain how all the animals made it to the ark and back to there homes. then sometime after the world split apart. Now I don't agree with time period that some scientists say Pangaea supposedly broke apart but I do believe that this could be a Biblical concept. Genesis 10:25 NIV Two sons were born to Eber: one was named Pegleg because in his time earth was divided his brother was named Joktan now this could mean lots of things but but it does sound a lot like Pangaea.

The problem with my opponents pangea animal theory is not only the timing which is around 200 million years too early, but the continents would have to have broken apart less than 4000 years ago and there is NO WAY that the tectonic plates could move fast enough. It would have to be moving at a speed of AT LEAST 1 kilometer per year. However according to the time frame you provide the lifetime of Peleg which; seeing as his father lived to 400; was likely at most 300. In that case the plates would've had to move even faster at the least: 10 kilometers per year. It's more likely that the verse you mentioned was refering to the nations rather than the continents. The thing is that there is no way that pangea was around at the time you suggest.

And the ark not being big enough God could have easily supernaturally made the ark bigger on the inside then on the outside.

Now I truly believe that God told Noah to build an ark that was big enough for all the animals but just something to think about.

The Bible says that God was the one who brought the animals to the ark so Noah did not have to go and collect the animals himself.

Now con simply says "God can do it." That does not constitute a sound argument.


CONCLUSION

Con has not been able to prove that Noah's ark was possible nor disprove my arguments.
octo

Pro

First Read Genesis 16: 19-20 and Genesis7:2-3 In the original Hebrew the word beast and cattle is the same behemah witch means land vertebrate animals in general. The word creeping things is REMES in Hebrew which has a number of different meanings but here it probably meanings but here it means REPTILE. Noah did not need sea creatures because they could servive so they were not on the ark most likely. Now horses Zebras and donkeys are most likely (non evolutionary) descendants of from a equine(horse like) kind since they can interbreed although their ofspring are sterile. Same with Dogs wolves and coyotes are probably from a canine kind. Domestic cattle (clean animals for sacrifice) are descendants of Aurochs so there were probably at most seven( or 14) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs are may be descended from cattle kind itself. Tiger and lions can produce hybrids tygons and ligers. So it is likely that Aurochs are descendants from the same original kind. Woodmorappa totals about 8000 genera including extincted thus about 16000 animals had To aboard. How could you fit a. Huge dinosaur on the ark? Well of the supposedly 668 dinosaur genera only 106 weighed more then ten tons when fully grown
And the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated.

The Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown the largest animals were probably represented teenage or even younger specimens. The medium size of all the animals on the ark would actually been that of a small rat according to
Woopmorappes s up to date tabulations. While only 11% would have been much larger than a sheep.

The ark measured 300"50"30cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140"22"3.5 meters so its volume was 43500 m3 (cubic meters)

Or 1.54 cubic million cubic feet. This is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American stock cars each which can hold 240 sheep. If the animals were kept in cages with the average size of 50"50"30 centimeters (20"20"12 inches)

That is 7500Cm3 or 4800 cubic inches the 16000 world only occupy 1200 CM3(42000 cubic feet) or 14.4 stock cars.

Even if a million insect species were on board it would not be a problem because they require little space. If each pair was kept in of 10 M (four inches) per side or 1000 CM3 all the insect species would occupy a total volume of only 1000 M3 or another 12 cars. This would leave room for 99 trains and 99 cars each for food Noah's Family and range for the animals. However insects are not included in the meaning Behemah and Remes in Genesis 16:19-20 so Noah would not have taken them aboard as passengers anyway.

Sources Creation ministries. Com
Debate Round No. 3
theta_pinch

Con

First Read Genesis 16: 19-20 and Genesis7:2-3 In the original Hebrew the word beast and cattle is the same behemah witch means land vertebrate animals in general. The word creeping things is REMES in Hebrew which has a number of different meanings but here it probably meanings but here it means REPTILE. Noah did not need sea creatures because they could servive so they were not on the ark most likely. Now horses Zebras and donkeys are most likely (non evolutionary) descendants of from a equine(horse like) kind since they can interbreed although their ofspring are sterile.

You have a major problem here. Zebras, horses, and donkeys, as you said can't produce fertile offspring but can reproduce. You claim that probably means that they are descendants of horses but not evolutionary descendants. If they were descendants in the same way as you are a descendent of your great grandparents then they should be able to produce fertile offspring but they can't which means that they are different species. Since they can't produce fertile offspring that means that they must have a different number of chromosomes, but if they are not evolutionary descendents then they should have the same number of chromosomes, but they do have different numbers of chromosomes. That means that they MUST be evolutionary descendents. It would also be impossible to get all the diverse traits in one animal that is carried on the ark because that much genetic information can not be stored in a cell.


Same with Dogs wolves and coyotes are probably from a canine kind. Domestic cattle (clean animals for sacrifice) are descendants of Aurochs so there were probably at most seven( or 14) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs are may be descended from cattle kind itself. Tiger and lions can produce hybrids tygons and ligers. So it is likely that Aurochs are descendants from the same original kind.

Again they are distinctly different genetically they have different chromosome numbers when they should according to the non-evolutionary descendant suggestion.


Woodmorappa totals about 8000 genera including extincted thus about 16000 animals had To aboard. How could you fit a. Huge dinosaur on the ark? Well of the supposedly 668 dinosaur genera only 106 weighed more then ten tons when fully grown
And the number of dinosaur genera is probably greatly exaggerated.

Again your problem is that the genus is such a large classification that there is no way they could've evolved into the millions of different types of land animals we see today. Also evolution is the only explanation for how diverse life is. No matter what you say there is no chance that all the different animals within those genera aren't evolutionary descendents. Second there are 8.7 MILLION different species alive today. Noah wouldn't have had enough room on the ark. Third you have no evidence that the number of dinosaur genera is exaggerated and whenever a new genus is discovered it goes through boat loads of peer review. If there was any exaggeration it would've been caught a long time ago.

The Bible does not say that the animals had to be fully grown the largest animals were probably represented teenage or even younger specimens. The medium size of all the animals on the ark would actually been that of a small rat according to
Woopmorappes s up to date tabulations. While only 11% would have been much larger than a sheep.

The ark measured 300"50"30cubits (Genesis 6:15) which is about 140"22"3.5 meters so its volume was 43500 m3 (cubic meters)

Or 1.54 cubic million cubic feet. This is the equivalent volume of 522 standard American stock cars each which can hold 240 sheep. If the animals were kept in cages with the average size of 50"50"30 centimeters (20"20"12 inches)

You not only have the problem of fitting so many animals on the ark but even if you somehow could get 8 pairs of every terrestrial animal on the ark many of those animals need a large amount of space to stay healthy. Heres a quote:

a sable antelope or red hartebeest needs a crate of 57 cubic feet for the brief journey from capture to quarantine; a zebra, 77 cubic feet; medium-sized giraffe, 99; eland, 110; hippopotamus or small elephant, 214 (adapted from Hirst, p. 121). These seven species alone, male and female, require more than 5,600 times the allotment per specimen for a trip that rarely exceeds three days. For the 371 days of the flood, the area would need to be greatly enlarged—for crowding and lack of exercise would be extremely detrimental, if not fatal, to most (cf. Young, p. 137; Voss, p. 157). Many birds must have high roofs with room to fly, and even a pond snail needs a gallon of water for adequate living (Orlans, p. 85).

So we've established that there are both major problems in the number of animals and the space required. Basically even if you could miraculously get every animal you need in there, there won't be enough room for every animal to stay healthy.

This would leave room for 99 trains and 99 cars each for food Noah's Family and range for the animals.

You still have a problem: carnivores. Most carnivores will only eat fresh meat; as in an animal they just killed. Now you not only have to get those 8 required pairs of animals but you also have to get enough live animals to feed the carnivores for a year. You also have to stop those carnivores from eating the other animals. Then you also need to get enough food for all the herbivores and some like an elephant eat hundreds of pounds of food every day.

Now I'll do some math of my own. Noah had a family of 5 himself, his wife, and his three sons. So how much food would they need? Well the average human eats about 1 ton of food every year so if you extend that to five; Noah's family needs 5 tons of food for themselves. So obviously feeding everyone is infeasible.


CONCLUSION
I have shown that the sheer number of animals alone on the ark is impossible. I have also shown that there is no way each animal could've gotten enough space and food. I have disproved cons argument about just taking an animal from each genus and his arguments about space and food. Noah's Ark contains an incredible amount of impossibilities. So there is no way the ark and the flood could ever have happened.


Sources:
http://ncse.com...
http://ncse.com...
wikipedia


Note to pro: try using a non-creationist source they are INCREDIBLY unreliable. When I checked your source I immediately found tons of errors, misrepresentations, and simple denial of science.

Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by octo 3 years ago
octo
No I'm just don't have time but I would love to rebuff cons statement but I cant I don't have time please vote though.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
Was "I'm done" a concession, or just dropping every point con made in the final round?
Posted by octo 3 years ago
octo
Thak you
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
It was Creation ministries.com specifically the faqs
Posted by octo 3 years ago
octo
Dear theta-pinch could give me the name of my exact website source you supposedly looked at pleas.
Posted by octo 3 years ago
octo
The Bible says that it rained 40 days and 40 nights and that springs spurted out of the ground. Now we all can see that now a days lots of rainwater =floods and sometimes entire towns are swept away and countries are left in ruins. So I think its entirely possible that a worldwide flood could and did happen.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
yes we are going to finish the debate.
Posted by octo 3 years ago
octo
Are we going to finish the debate
Posted by dtaylor971 3 years ago
dtaylor971
"Failed to accept in first round
"No evidence whatsoever
"Easily refutable arguments
"Says world is older than 11,999 years... which means Bible is false in a way... Therefore, it strengthens your side
"His scenario about "ice age" goes against the whole damn story...

Yeah, con gets my vote.
Posted by theta_pinch 3 years ago
theta_pinch
whats wrong with a pro position?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 3 years ago
kbub
theta_pinchoctoTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Theta wins the argument that Noah's ark is impossible, which isn't really necessary because s/he would only need to argue that Pro does not demonstrate that the ark is "real." Octo used only one source, which was from an evangelical website and not very trustworthy to be unbiased. Con used numerous sources. Con also ended the debate rather abruptly, which I found to be somewhat rude, so be careful in the future Pro.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
theta_pinchoctoTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a clear win for Con as the arguments were backed by fact, while Pro had to rely on an inherently unscientific document (the Bible) to support their case. The Noahs Ark debate usually gets decided on the space concept and Con did well to point out the problems with this. The only thing that makes Pros case credible is the god hypothesis and that requires god proof first. Con gets points for sources, as at least some were not wiki and ask.com. Spelling and grammar goes to Con as Pro had grammatical and spelling errors. Conduct was tied.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
theta_pinchoctoTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Tough debate. I think I will just have to leave it as a tie. Both used good sources, except that Con shouldn't have really used Wikipedia.