The Instigator
creationtruth
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ThinkBig
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Noah's flood, as described in Genesis, was a real historical event.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
ThinkBig
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/25/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 990 times Debate No: 93074
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (3)

 

creationtruth

Pro

Greetings!

Was the global flood described in Genesis a truly historical event? Is there scientific evidence which lends credibility to this terrifying deluge? As a biblical creationist and student of science, I assert that such evidence indeed exists and even goes beyond lending credibility; evidence exists which demonstrates the veracity of the global flood as a real event in history and turns out to be not only the best way to explain geologic formations, fossils, etc., but the only way!



Big claims require big evidence, so I shall take up this challenge and proceed to make my case using relevant scientific data. I will be supporting the CPT Model of the Flood developed by Dr. John Baumgardner which is consistent with scripture (https://answersingenesis.org...)

To the prospective audience, thanks in advanced for your time and consideration of this debate!



Rules for The Debate

Round 1 - Acceptance

Round 2 - Opening Arguments (No Rebuttals)

Round 3 - Rebuttals (No Defense of Arguments)

Round 4 - Defense of Arguments (No Rebuttals, No New Arguments)


*No Logical Fallacies (http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)

*No Red Herrings (http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)

*No Ad Hominems (http://www.logicalfallacies.info...)


*Only Science Arguments (http://undsci.berkeley.edu...)

*No Anecdotal Evidence (http://rationalwiki.org...)

Con agrees to these terms upon accepting this debate. Failure to adhere to the debate rules should result in the loss of conduct points at minimum per the judgment of the prospective voter.
ThinkBig

Con

I would like to thank creationtruth for challenging me to this debate. I accept the terms of this debate and the definitions that are provided.
Debate Round No. 1
creationtruth

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting the debate and I look forward to an interesing exchange. I will present my opening arguments in no particular order and will defend them in the fourth round.


Introduction

The nature of such a historical debate requires a hypothetical approach in which evidence is gathered to demonstrate the validity of a particular model of Earth history. If the model truly describes past events and is able to withstand the integration of any and all scientific observations, then such a model is deemed scientifically valid.
At best, a model can become a well supported theory, but never can it be verified as rigorously and demonstrably as present day events since integral parts of the scientific method, namely experimentation and repition, are unable to be performed on past events. For example, a claim for the speed of light traveling through a particular medium can be tested via experimentation, and scrutinizingly repeated for certainty. Such a caim could be validated or invalidated through real time observation of experiments. However, a claim for the change of the speed of light in the past through a particular medium cannot be ultimately verified since we cannot experiment and repeat historical events. Likewise, we cannot test such past events as the formation of the Grand Canyon or the deposition of the Tapeats Sandstone since we cannot observe and repeat an expirement involving an historical event for the simple reason that we were not there to observe the conditions and record details of the event itself.

Every historical model in science gathers data post hoc and seeks to make sense of it in light of a framework of history. While the limits of historical science are readily understood, most importantly it should be noted that any scientific model of Earth history must be able to be scrutinized using real-time, observable data, that is, every model should make predictions which can be tested. Such predictions can certainly be made using current data combined with the cohesive hypotheses of the model, however, once a prediction has been outlined by the model, it cannot be changed after the fact to fit the data in such a way that it changes the original deliniation put forth by the model. If observabe data demonstrably falsifies a prediction, the model must be rejected in favor of the next best model. If no such model exists to replace another, one must hit the drawing board and concede to not quite understanding the real picture of Earth history. With all that said, let us consider a few of the predictions the Catastrophic Plate Tectonic (CPT) model makes which are derived from the framework of scripture.


Massive Subteranean Water Basins

Since the Bible tells us that "the fountains of the great deep" broke open and flooded the planet at least to the highest mountains which then existed, the existance of such a vast resevoir of water is predicted to not only be geologically feasible but a certain kind of evidence should exist to demonstrate its validity, namely, massive subteranean water basins. Research in the past ten years has demonstrated not only the possibility of such huge resevoirs of water but indeed has provided mounting evidence of these water basins still with us today.

Secular scientists have long mused about the possibility of icy comets forming today's oceans, however scientists are now rethinking their model of oceanic history and are looking toward an originally subterranean propagation. The problem with such a hypothesis given their over-arching acretion model of Earth history is that the temperatures of the early Earth are thought to have been to high for any significant amount of water to have existed. The CPT model is, on the other hand, contingent upon the existance of such large underground bodies of water. In the CPT model, giant fissures extending across the planet as the result of super-quakes allowed massive basins of subterranean water to be released providing the water for the Flood.

Ringwoodite

Ringwoodite found in Earth's transition zone (between the upper and lower mantle) within a diamondhas demonstrated the existance of water since the mineral can retain H20 in the form of hydroxide ions. Given expirements demonstrating the saturation potential for these minerals and that which was found in the actual sample, direct evidence demonstrates the potential for the transition zone to be hydrous to about 1%, which in-turn means that the transition zone may contain a resevoir of water three-times greater than that of today's oceanic volume (1). This is consistent with experiments which have shown that abrupt decreases in seismic velocity detected in the transition zone due to mantle downwelling are consistent with what we should find given the intergranular melt which should take place in the polymorphic transition of hyrdous ringwoodite to perovskite, Fe and Mg (2). These experiments also demonstrates a mechanism of dehydration melting in the mantle which serves to trap the H20. So we basically have both direct evidence and a consistent mechanism whereby these resevoirs are able to remain in existance.

According to geologist Dr. Andrew Snelling, ". . .this study also concluded that the diamond hosting this ringwoodite inclusion must also have come from the 410–660 km zone. This in turn means that the explosive volcanism responsible for blasting diamonds in volcanic rocks into the earth’s upper crust and even to the surface within a matter of hours, must have in at least some instances started from this 410–660 km zone. Similar explosive volcanism could therefore have potentially been responsible for releasing and catapulting water from this deep mantle storage reservoir up to the earth’s surface during the Flood. So this study seems to confirm a major component of the catastrophic plate tectonics model. The break-up of the earth’s crust into plates and the resultant continental sprint was initiated by the cataclysmic release of the waters for the Flood through these fountains of the great deep (3)."


Karst Geomorphology

The CPT model predicts vast amounts of acidic hydrothermal solutions upwelling from deep within the Earth due to seismic activity during the Flood. These hyperactive solutions combined with the voracious turbidity which helped eat away at the rock created the amazing karst geomorhology we see exhibited in caves around the world today. Since karst are madeup of limestone, great amounts of acidic solutions are required to reach through these vast cavern formations. The longest recorded cave which resides in the US is the the Flint Ridge-Mammoth Cave System in Kentucky which extends over 350 miles!



Quite simply, given experiments which study the erosion rate of limestone by acidic solutions at different pH levels, the vast amount of erosion required for the formation of the world's karst formations demonstrates the need for magnificent amounts of acidic solution to be flowing at high, pressurized rates worldwide. Studies looking at the effect of acid rain on limestone show that under chemical equilibrium, ". . .the incremental effect of hydrogen ion is expected to be small (i.e., 6% for a rain of pH 4.0);" basically the rate of dissolution is small given low rates of flow, however, "Under nonequilibrium (i.e., high flow rate) conditions, kinetic considerations suggest that the incremental effect of hydrogen ion deposition could be quite significant" (4). This means that karst geomorphology requires historic conditions predicted by the CPT model, namely high flow rates of acidic hydrothermal solutions resulting from the tectonic activity during the Flood.

According to karstologist Dr. Emil Silvestru, "After the Flood the HTS from deep underground died away and the solutions linked to water seeping from the surface took over the caves and started to reshape everything. The slow processes we can see and measure today are not the ones that created the caves. They only added the ‘final touch’ to what HTS created quickly at the time of the Flood. . .In addition to being immensely beautiful, caves are a spectacular reminder of the massive physical and chemical processes that accompanied God’s watery judgment upon the world of Noah’s time" (5).


Fossil Formation

The conditions required to create a fossil are exemplified by those which were present during the Flood. The CPT model predicts that global fossil graveyards were formed and deposited by the terrifyingly powerful hydrologic turbidity of massive amounts of dense, sedimentary solutions. These specific conditions involve rapid mud deposition via mineral-laden solutions to quickly trap and permineralize organisms to be stuningly preserved as intricate fossils.



"The fossilization process begins when the whole organism or hard body part is trapped in sediments. Because most of these body parts are typically composed of substances which are soluble in carbonated water, this entrapment usually occurs in coarse and porous rock such as sandstones. The porous nature of the rock enables the carbonated ground water to permeate and dissolve the original tissue leaving a detailed mold of the organism" (6). Since fossil are found worldwide from the highest to lowest of places, and the conditions to form such fossils require the trapping and permineralization which only a hyrdologic event of mineral-rich solution can provide, the CPT model, which flows out of the biblical model of Earth history, is resoundingly vindicated by the presence of fossils within sedimentary layers (7)!

References

1 - http://www.nature.com...
2 - http://science.sciencemag.org...
3 - https://answersingenesis.org...
4- http://wwwbrr.cr.usgs.gov...
5 - http://creation.com...
6 - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...
7 - http://www.icr.org...
ThinkBig

Con

Thank you for your impressive opening arguments. I look forward to an excellent exchange. As this round is for opening arguments only, I will not respond to his opening arguments until the next round.

There are numerous ways in which I can show that the Global Flood, as described in Genesis did not and could not have happened. However, since this debate focuses solely on scientific evidence, and that is the approach that I will be using.

1. Genetics

Had a Global Flood occurred, we should expect to see evidence of this in our genome A population bottleneck is defined as “an event that drastically reduces the size of a population. The bottleneck may be caused by various events, such as an environmental disaster, the hunting of a species to the point of extinction, or habitat destruction that results in the deaths of organisms.” (1)

One famous example of a genetic bottleneck is within the Ashkenazi Jewish population (of which I am part of). Genetic analysis of Ashkenazi Jews shows that we are descendants of about 350 people that lived roughly 600 years ago (2).

There is also strong evidence that two other genetic bottleneck events shaped modern human genetics. According to genetic studies, modern humans originated in Africa and moved out to colonize the rest of the world approximately 50,000 years ago. During the expansion, variability was lost that created a linear gradient of decreasing diversity with increasing distance from Africa. Genetic research have found evidence of two primary events, one ‘out of Africa’ and one placed around the Bering Strait, where an ancient land bridge allowed passage into the Americas (3).

An event such as a Global Flood that killed all but 8 humans and two pairs of every living species would have certainly left a trace within our genome. We simply do not find it.

Here is an image that diagrams such an event (4):


University of California Museum of Paleontology's Understanding Evolution


To further the issue of genetics, harmful recessive alleles occurs in significant numbers in humans and most species. When close relatives breed, the offspring are far more likely to have genetic deformities. Going back to the Ashkenazi Jewish population, we see that because they are so closely related, they are far more susceptible to harmful diseases.

Outside of humans, we see this occurring in cheetahs today. Stephen O’Brien found that they have 1/6th of the number of motile spermatozoa as domestic cats, and of those, almost 80% show morphological abnormalities (5).

Finally, because of the loss of genetic diversity, extinction often becomes inevitable long before the last surviving member of the species dies. Isolated populations with fewer than twenty individuals are usually doomed, even when extraordinary precautions are taken (6).

To conclude, there is simply no way a global flood could have occurred without leaving a trace in the genome. Because we do not find such evidence, we can conclude that the Global Flood is most likely unhistorical.

2. Species Survival

The Bible states that “every living substance was destroyed which was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and the creeping things, and the fowl of the heaven; and they were destroyed from the earth: and Noah only remained alive, and they that were with him in the ark.” (Genesis 7:23 KJV) If the Flood actually occurred, this was certainly an understatement!

Diseases

There are many diseases that cannot survive outside of humans. Diseases like typhus, measles, smallpox, polio, and syphilis cannot survive without a human host. For example, Matt Kneeling has found that measles cannot survive in a community less than 250,000 to 400,000 for more than three weeks (7). This is because it needs non-immune hosts to infect. Since there were only 8 humans on the ark, many diseases should have gone extinct.

Animals

Since only two of every unclean animal were on the ark, how did predators and the prey survive? The traditional interpretation of the Flood narrative is that before the Flood, all humans and animals were essentially vegans, and upon leaving the Ark, meat became permissible (8).

This leaves us with a problem. Upon leaving the Ark, should a predator kill one of the pairs of animals that were on the Ark, the species would effectively become extinct. How did the animals survive being preyed on and how did the predators survive by not over killing the animals?

Conclusion

In light of genetics, and the impossibility of species survival, it is far more likely than not that the Flood never occurred.

Over to pro!



[2] Carmi, S. (2014, 09 09). Sequencing an Ashkenazi reference panel supports population-targeted personal genomics and illuminates Jewish and European origins. Nature Communications. http://tinyurl.com...

[3] Amos, W., & Hoffman, J. I. (2009, 10 07). Evidence that two main bottleneck events shaped modern human genetic diversity. Biological Science. http://tinyurl.com...

[4] Image credit: University of California Museum of Paleontology. Understanding Evolution. http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

[5] O'Brien, S. (1987). East African cheetahs: Evidence for two population bottlenecks? Genetics, 84, 508-511. http://www.pnas.org...

[6] Simberloff, Daniel, 1988. The contribution of population and community biology to conservation science. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 19: 473-511.

[7] Keeling, M.J. & B.T. Grenfell, 1997. Disease extinction and community size: modeling the persistence of measles. Science 275: 65-67. http://science.sciencemag.org...

Debate Round No. 2
creationtruth

Pro

I thank my opponent for his reasonable response and for remaining within the debate parameters. Often those opposed to biblical creation revert to using logical fallacies, but I feel my opponent has expressed his disagreement in a respectful and rational way. The following is my rebuttal of Con's opening arguments. I will use the same titles as him to make my rebuttal easier to follow.


1. Genetics

Con says, "Had a Global Flood occurred, we should expect to see evidence of this in our genome," which I agree with; indeed much evidence exists which is consistent with a genetic "bottle-necking." For example, the ENCODE project, which compared the coding portion of human genomes, determined that humans share a remarkable genetic continuity of 99.5% (1). This is consistent with such earlier evidences of invariance as described in studies showing virtually no sequence variation in male introns which could have resulted from, ". . .male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes" (2).

Also consistent with this biblically historical event is the extensive linkage disequilibrium (a state of unmixed genes which lend to common inheritance) observed in the human genome which demonstrates a relatively recent, sharp reduction in the human population. This inheritance of unmixed genes demonstrates that mankind, ". . .experienced an extreme founder effect or bottleneck: a period when the population was so small that a few ancestral haplotypes gave rise to most of the haplotypes that exist today" (3).



These triangles or the blocks of dark red represent SNPs (mutations) that are all in high linkage disequilibrium with each other and thus are all inherited together.

As for your appeal to the "out of Africa" hypothesis, direct genetic data demonstrates this cannot be the case for many reasons including the examples I gave. This evolutionary conjecture is not consistent with the evidence (4). Much, much more data can be cited, but clearly there exists extensive evidence of genetic bottle-necking among humans consistent with a recent Flood event. I would point out however, that this seems to be an argument about Noah's ark and the family which survived in it, not an argument against the global Flood.


2. Species Survival

Con says, "Since there were only 8 humans on the ark, many diseases should have gone extinct." This, however, assumes that all diseases which exist today were present at that time. Creationist Dr. Carl Wieland has addressed this issue by suggesting the following possibilities: specialization of pathogens, horizontal gene transfer, carriage by a symptomless host, and survival outside living organisms (5).



Con asks,
"How did the animals survive being preyed on and how did the predators survive by not over killing the animals?" While it is true that predation likely began after the Flood due to the destruction of most vegetation, it does not necessarily follow that all predatory animals began hunting immediately after leaving the ark. Then extant vegetation which may have survived the Flood, or seeds which quickly repopulated the Earth may have fed these creatures as well (6).We must be careful not to hold conjecture over hard scientific data. I have provided clear evidence for a global, catastrophic deluge, while it seems Con has hypothetically argued mostly against the ark. The CPT model says nothing about Noah's ark, the survivability of pathogens, or the biological interaction among organisms. I believe I have answered Con's objections to the biblical Flood, albeit his arguments were not directly concerned with the actual hyrdologic event.

I thank Con for his time and look forward to defending my claims.



References

1 - http://journals.plos.org...
2 - https://www.researchgate.net...
3 - http://creation.com...
4 - http://creation.com... | http://creation.com...
5 - http://creation.com...
6 - http://creation.com...

ThinkBig

Con

I would like to thank pro for a speedy reply. This round is for rebuttals to the opening arguments only. As such, I will not defend my opening statements until the next round.

Introduction

It is certainly true that science relies on predictions. However, I take issue with the idea that if a theory fails to make a prediction, the entire theory must be thrown out. I also take issue with the idea that just because a theory makes valid predictions, the theory is valid.

Understanding science notes that there have been many theories in the history of science that have been superseded because of new evidence. They write:

“All the theories described above worked — that is, they generated accurate expectations, were supported by evidence, opened up new avenues of research, and offered satisfying explanations. Nevertheless, the theories described above did change…A well-supported theory may be accepted by scientists, even if the theory has some problems. In fact, few theories fit our observations of the world perfectly. There is usually some anomalous observation that doesn't seem to fit with our current understanding. Scientists assume that by working at such anomalies, they'll either disentangle them to see how they fit with the current theory or contribute to a new theory. And eventually that does happen: a new or modified theory is proposed that explains everything that the old theory explained plus other observations that didn't quite fit with the old theory. When that new or modified theory is proposed to the scientific community, over a period of time (it might take years), scientists come to understand the new theory, see why it is a superior explanation to the old theory, and eventually, accept the new theory.”

“This process of theory change often involves true scientific controversy, which is healthy, sparks additional research, and helps science move forward. True scientific controversy involves disagreements over how data should be interpreted, over which ideas are best supported by the available evidence, and over which ideas are worth investigating further." (1)

As such, my rebuttals will attempt to show that catastrophic plate tectonics (CTP hereafter) is scientifically implausible. I will further show how our conventional understanding of science and plate tectonics does a far better job of explaining what we see than CTP.

Subterranean Water Basins

I will concede that there is strong evidence for water underneath the mantle transit zone; however, I believe that conventional understanding of plate tectonics does a far better job of explaining this phenomenon than catastrophic plate tectonics.

Pro cites two articles. One in Nature by Pearson et al. and the other in Science by Schmandt et al.

D. G. Pearson, in an interview with Scientific American writes:

Plate tectonics recycles Earth's crust by pushing and pulling slabs of oceanic crust into subduction zones, where it sinks into the mantle. This crust, soaked by the ocean, ferries water into the mantle. Many of these slabs end up stuck in the mantle transition zone. "We think that a significant portion of the water in the mantle transition zone is from the emplacement of these slabs," Pearson said. "The transition zone seems to be a graveyard of subducted slabs."

Let’s now look further into the study by Schmandt et al. Schmand et al. Questioning Answers in Genesis notes (2):

“It has long been known that hydrous minerals like amphibole, along with marine sediments, cause dehydration melting in the upper mantle, which is a major cause of volcanism associated with subduction zones (e.g. Japan, New Zealand, the Pacific Northwest). This process occurs primarily at much shallower depths than the mantle transition zone, however, which means that relatively little surface water is subducted to depths >525 km, where these 'underground oceans' currently exist. In addition, these reservoirs and mass transfers are all part of the global water cycle. The more water that is subducted below the surface, the more volcanism returns it to the surface. Therefore, the deep reservoirs of water hypothesized by Schmandt et al. (2014) could not possibly be remnants of a surficial flood from any point in Earth history.”

“[I]f it were [sic] not for the constant conversion of water and olivine to ringwoodite within the transition zone, this water would have been added slowly back into surficial reservoirs through volcanism. Instead, it is locked up in minerals as solid as your own jewelry, so that Earth's water content is split between liquid reservoirs in the surface and mineral reservoirs deep underground.”

So I fail to see how ringwoodite can be used to support CPT or the historicity of a global deluge.

Karst Geomorphology

Karsts are among the most beautiful natural feature on Earth today. I fail to see pro's argument that the Flood caused all of hte Karsts that we see today.

If the Flood did cause the Karsts, then we should see that all of the Karsts are roughly the same age. We do not see this.

Development of Karst depends on 5 basic elements as noted by the American Institute of Professional Geologist (3):

  1. Suitable body of rock
  2. Existence of a suitable solvent for dissolution
  3. A continuous fracture network within the rock body
  4. Hydrogeologic conditions resulting in a suffi cient hydraulicgradient
  5. Geologic time - "There was an exact moment some millions ofyears ago when rainwater fi rst touched the uppermost layers of Girkin Limestone, and there will occur a time in the futurewhen that formation will be entirely removed from the regionby dissolution."

Further, dating shows that mammoth cave, which pro gave as an example, is at least 30 million years old (4)

Fossils Record

Contrary to pro’s contentions, the fossil record, more than any other scientific or geological evidence, directly contradicts the idea of a Global Flood or CPT.

Dr. Gregg Davidson and Ken Wolgemuth of BioLogos, a Christian science advocacy organization, writes (5):

“If a massive flood were responsible for the fossil record, what would we expect to see? If the Flood was violent enough to rip chunks of rock up from the earth and move entire continents (standard Young Earth claims), then it should be obvious that life forms from every imaginable niche would be tumbled and mixed together. We should find numerous examples of mammoths mixed with triceratops, and pterodactyls mixed with sparrows. Ferns and meadow flowers should be found in the same deposits, along with trilobites and whales. Further, we should find all major life forms still living today, for Genesis 7:8-9 is clear in stating that all terrestrial animals were preserved on the ark.”

“What we actually observe is far different. There is an orderly sequence where trilobites only occur in very old rocks, dinosaurs in later beds, and mammoths in still later layers. Organisms like flowers and ferns are present together in more recent deposits, but only ferns with no flowers are found in older deposits.”

In his book The Greatest Show on Earth, Richard Dawkins writes that “if there was just a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found." (6)

If CPT was true, and by extension a Global Flood really did occur, why didn’t a dinosaur make it to higher ground? Extremely good sorting of the fossil record is observed. This is not what we would expect if something like a Global Flood occurred.

Here is an excellent diagram of what we actually observe (7):



Failures of CPT

Finally, there are many scientific issues with CPT. In his blog, Dr. Gary S. Hurt notes (8):



“If some single land mass were to break up and then the bits (Africa, Eurasia, North and South America, Australia, and Antarctica) go slamming across the globe like billiard balls, there are consequences. One of them being the heat necessarily generated by friction between the crustal rock, and the upper mantle. This is given in the "Coefficient of Friction" seen above. Were did this heat go? Because it would have been enough to have melted the crust, and boiled the oceans into steam. And, we can calculate an estimate of the energy needed to push up mountains all over the world as continents crash together. If this were to have occurred rapidly, again the heat generated would have melted the mountains, and not forced them into the air. (For public lectures have the audience rub their hands together for friction heating, and clap them together for impact heating).”

Finally, Donald Wise notes that the thermal problems of such a model would be catastrophic for life on Earth. Wise writes (9):

“The thermal problems of this model are mind-boggling. At the start, gravitational energy released by core formation would raise the entire globe's average temperature by 2,500 degrees Celsius (Birch 1965). To this, the model requires adding frictional heating from the proposed runaway subduction as well as the massive heat of condensation of the collapsing vapor canopy. Even more surface heat was added as brand new basaltic ocean floors, with minimum melting temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, were spewed out over two-thirds of the earth's surface beneath miraculously non-boiling flood waters. Finally, this cumulative massive thermal pulse had to dissipate in a few thousand years by unstated processes to leave most of the earth's surface devoid of hot springs or any evidence of abnormally high heat flow.”

Conclusion

Conventional understanding of science does a far better job of explaining what we see than CPT. CPT does not stand up to basic scientific scrutiny. Further, CPT violates everything we know about the Laws of Physics.

The resolution is soundly rejected. Noah’s Flood was most certainly not a historical event and the evidence against CPT is overwhelming.


I am out of characters.

Debate Round No. 3
creationtruth

Pro

creationtruth forfeited this round.
ThinkBig

Con

I would like to thank pro for a wonderful debate. It is sad to see a great debate that ended with a forfeit.

Dropped Points

Before I proceed to defend my opening arguments, I want to note that pro has dropped two important points:

  1. (1) Issue of loss of genetic diversity that results in a species becoming de facto extinct long before the last surviving member dies
  2. (2) Issue of harmful recessive alleles when close relatives breed (such as what we see in Cheetahs and Ashkenazi Jewish populations today).

Genetics

The main issue with pro's rebuttal is that it does not address non-human species. Should a Global Flood occured, we should expect to find evidence of bottlenecking in all species, not just humans. We simply don't find this.

Furthermore, pro argues that humans share 99.5 percent similar DNA. While this is true, this is quite a remarkable difference. The human genome consists of about 3 billion base pairs. A difference of 0.5 per cent works out to about a difference of 15 million bases. (1)

In fact, researchers were actually quite surprised at the genetic variation within humans. As Samuel Levy et al. writes:

"Inclusion of insertion and deletion genetic variation into our estimates of interchromosomal difference reveals that only 99.5% similarity exists between the two chromosomal copies of an individual and that genetic variation between two individuals is as much as five times higher than previously estimated." (2)

This debate is not about the Out of Africa theory and so I won't respond to pro's issues with the theory. I cited Amos and Hoffman's article as their article detailed strong evidence of bottlenecking in early human history. Pro did not respond to that evidence.

Species Survival

Diseases

Pro argues that diseases could have survived. Pro argues that diseases could have survived as different pathogens evolved post Flood, horizontal gene transfer, carriage by a symptomless host, and survival outside living organisms.

The main issue with this hypothesis is that pro does not provide any supporting information to defend these theories. Furthermore, smallpox, which I mentioned is a host-specific pathogen, is certainly much older than the Flood. There is strong evidence to suggest that smallpox originated more than 10,000 years ago (3). Furthermore, Dr. Stefan Riedel notes:

"The earliest evidence of skin lesions resembling those of smallpox is found on faces of mummies from the time of the 18th and 20th Egyptian Dynasties (1570–1085 bc). The mummified head of the Egyptian pharaoh Ramses V (died 1156 bc) bears evidence of the disease. At the same time, smallpox has been reported in ancient Asian cultures: smallpox was described as early as 1122 bc in China and is mentioned in ancient Sanskrit texts of India." (4)

Animals

Pro argues that carnivorous animals did not occur sometime until after the Flood, allowing time for the populations to rebound. However, this does not seem to agree with the plain meaning of the text. Furthermore, Creation Ministry International argues that meat eating for animals began after the Fall, and it was meat eating that became permitted to man after the Flood. (5)

Conclusion

I believe that I have conclusively shown that a Global Flood, as described in the Book of Genesis, simply could not have happened. The resolution is soundly rejected!

Vote con!

_______


Sources

1. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium (2004). "Finishing the euchromatic sequence of the human genome". Nature 431 (7011): 931–45. http://tinyurl.com...;
2. Levy, S.The Diploid Genome Sequence of an Individual Human. PLOSONE Biology. http://tinyurl.com...;
3. Hopkins DR. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1983. Princes and Peasants: Smallpox in History
4. Riedel S. Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. Proceedings (Baylor University Medical Center). 2005;18(1):21-25.
5. http://creation.com...;

Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Thanks 42! As always your RFDS are very insightful.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
Great debate guys!

42
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
RFD Continued:

""The earliest evidence of skin lesions resembling those of smallpox is found on faces of mummies from the time of the 18th and 20th Egyptian Dynasties" Con this is after the flood, not before it. Thus it doesn"t help your case. Con ends with a response to Pro"s rebuttal on Animals. "Creation Ministry International argues that meat eating for animals began after the Fall" Once again Creation Ministry International is not that credible. Find another source. Also the Fall occurred before the flood. So this contradiction means I give the argument to Pro, but since Pro forfeits a response, it rests as it was before, with Con.
Pro forfeits losing conduct and meaning all of Con"s rebuttals stand and all Pro"s rebuttals fall except for Pro"s rebuttal on Genetics because it was very logical. Thus the final argument tally is 3-1-4. Con wins arguments. But barely.

This vote has been brought to you by 42lifeuniverseverything
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
RFD Continued:

Con now responds to Pro. First Con takes contention with Pro"s initial conclusion on Scientific theories. Con wins this in my mind because Con is pointing out that majorities of authority can hold a theory with flaws, and that means that theory is probably close to accurate. 100% accuracy in this debate is impossible. Con wins this argument from here on out. Con then responds to subterranean water. Con uses Pro"s sources to prove that normal plate tectonics did this. Also the second piece actually proves CPT exists due to the last paragraph. So I believe Con loses this argument from here on out. Con then responds to Karst. Con responds that not all Karsts are the same age scientifically. Specifically "If the Flood did cause the Karsts, then we should see that all of the Karsts are roughly the same age." This does not logically make sense because some Karsts could have been caused then, then some later. Since Pro assumed this idea when bringing up the argument, Pro wins this argument. Con then responds to fossils. What sticks to me is "Extremely good sorting of the fossil record is observed. This is not what we would expect if something like a Global Flood occurred." Since Pro never responds to this, Con wins the argument. Con finally addresses CPT failures which doesn"t really obey the structures of the round because these are not rebuttals of Pro"s opening arguments so I will ignore them. Con finally argues that in Genetics, Pro fails to address a bottleneck in all species, which is true. But a large bottleneck did occur so I still give the argument to Pro. Con then addresses Pro"s response to Diseases. "The main issue with this hypothesis is that pro does not provide any supporting information to defend these theories." This is incorrect because Pro"s 5th source in the round did in fact support this. So the argument still ties.

To be continued.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
RFD Continued:

Pro responds first with Genetics. Pro discusses how actually a bottleneck has occurred. So right now the argument rests on Pro because Con only said no bottleneck existed, but that universal negative only needed one example to negate it. Pro"s example does that. Then Pro responds to species survival. Pro responds that this assumes these diseases Con listed existed then. Pro also gives scientific ways for these diseases to survive without humans, yet fails to mention how long the survival period is. So I say the argument is tied because Pro called Con on a logical mistake, yet Pro did not add much new. Then Animals are addressed. Pro states that assuming all animals started hunting right after makes little sense. No evidence but fine. But Pro then says "may have survived" referring to vegan foods. So I am inclined to believe Con might be right here. Pro finally closes that "The CPT model says nothing about Noah's ark, the survivability of pathogens, or the biological interaction among organisms." Which may be true. However, I do not believe that Con presents a Red Herring because the CPT does not speak of Noah"s Ark. As such a Fallacist"s Fallacy is at work here by Pro.

To be continued.
Posted by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
RFD. This is a multi-part RFD:

I give conduct to Con because Pro forfeited.

I also will examine arguments.
Pro begins by informing us on scientific theories and how theories on the past are non-testable, only hypothetical based on seeable evidence now. Pro then talks about the Subterranean water basins that the Bible mentions. Pro has evidence to support this. Then Pro discusses Karst Geomorphology, the idea that acid during the flood made big caves. Pro mentions Mammoth cave and since I have been there I understand what Pro is talking about. So far Pro makes solid arguments. Then Pro discusses fossil formation, and the idea that the flood was a perfect moment for thousands/millions of fossils to form. All these arguments have sources.

Con"s opening arguments start with Genetics. Con argues a population bottleneck ought to be seen if there was a flood. No evidence of this exists according to Con, therefore the flood did not occur. Con also argues that species survival is important to understand. Con quotes the Bible on saying every living substance was destroyed. However Con argues that in the 40 day flood period, many human-dependent diseases should not have survived but they did. Con fails to mention when these diseases were first discovered, but I understand Con"s argument. Con also argues animals should have not survived easily. Con misquotes the Bible "The traditional interpretation of the Flood narrative is that before the Flood, all humans and animals were essentially vegans, and upon leaving the Ark, meat became permissible" Because after Adam and Eve is when meat eating was permissible. Everyone was sinful then. So no Biblical evidence here, just answersingenesis which is not that credible. Con finishes that "Upon leaving the Ark, should a predator kill one of the pairs of animals that were on the Ark, the species would effectively become extinct." The argument makes sense logically.

To be continued.
Posted by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
My biggest advice for future would be to be bite off a smaller burden. Due to the subject matter I agree with spelling out the no Ad Homs rule, but the "No Logical Fallacies" rule seems strange, identifying logical fallacies made by the other side, is much of how you win any argument, and it's certainly not bad conduct that they bring in a flawed argument (most of the time people do not realize they've used a logical fallacy). This of course bridges to another problem, that valid arguments are often in the same form as fallacies... An Appeal To Authority for example, sometimes said authority is quite good on the subject.
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Do you still want me to defend my opening statements or should I just send the debate into the voting period?
Posted by ThinkBig 1 year ago
ThinkBig
Not a problem. I hope all is well with you.
Posted by creationtruth 1 year ago
creationtruth
Unfortunately I was unable to respond in time. Thanks for your time and participation.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by David_Debates 1 year ago
David_Debates
creationtruthThinkBigTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: See here for RFD: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DSRfvYjkwlQlPYPJioHv3qAV0hw4y6LyIzroePR5V6M/edit
Vote Placed by 42lifeuniverseverything 1 year ago
42lifeuniverseverything
creationtruthThinkBigTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in Comments.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
creationtruthThinkBigTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct for forfeit. Arguments... Pro instead of arguing possible, or even likely, chose to take on an absolute burden; worse when his hypotheses were questioned, he chose to drop his entire case (the source of Subterranean Water Basins, Karst Geomorphology and different ages, the absurdity of clean Fossil Formation's if the flood made them). A key problem came up when pro tried to dismiss con's genetics argument of humanity having survived the flood (we and every other species should be way more inbred, but no such signs) as it "seems to be an argument about Noah's ark and the family which survived in it, not an argument against the global Flood." If the event happened, and humanity did not survive it, how are we reading this? He did better on the disease point (evolution after the flood), even if con's final defense proved this impossible due to the age of smallpox.