The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Noah's flood is scientifically impossible.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/16/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 489 times Debate No: 99994
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




Noah's Flood is scientifically impossible.Here is why.
Noah's flood was said to cover the mountains.I'll be generous and give it a 6 kilometre depth rather than Everest's 8.8 kilometres.
Earth has an average radius of 6371 Km.
Let the math begin.
To find the volume of water needed for such a flood,we can simply use the volume of earth pre and post flood.
Volume of sphere (roughly) is 4/3 pi R^3
With some math and a calculator
1.3333 * pi * 6371^3 =
1083206916845 km^3
1.3333 * pi * (6371 + 6 km)^3 =
1086270186754 km^3
3063269909 Km^3 of water
Water on earth(roughly)= 1386000000
huh,seems one of the numbers is bigger,strange...
To find a percentage:
(3063269909 /1386000000) * 100%
just about 220%
For Noah's Flood to happen,we need more that twice the amount of water available on Earth to do so.

Note: I mean in no way any disrespect to Theists,this is merely a thought exercise I had in mind and I wanted to see the other perspective of it.


I want to ask some clarifying questions so I can understand the stance and argument better:

1. What do you mean by "Noah's Flood"? Do you mean the story found in the Bible or something else?

2. What does it mean to be "Scientifically Impossible"? Does that mean that there isn't enough physical water in the world? That there are no prior records of such an event?

One question so I understand where you stand:

What would make it scientifically possible for you? What evidence would be important for you to have to revise or reconsider that stance?

My argument is as Follows:

"Noah's Flood" I assume refers to the Bible story from Genesis. I assume also that the math is correct and shows that "Noah's Flood" couldn't have happened over the whole earth.

However, that claim would depend on the assumption that the scope or size of the area referred to in the bible is the whole world as we know the world is today.

I argue that the author of Genesis wouldn't have known how big the world is. He may have thought that a small section of the earth was the "whole world.” Are you interpreting the Bible literally word for word, or do you have an interpretation you are using?

Some Christians view the Bible as a collection of books that are meant to be interpreted, but not all are to be taken literally. If you go with the interpretation that it was a small area, then it would be scientifically possible for that area to flood. So, it would be scientifically impossible if we say that it references the whole world, but it seems to be plausible if the story refers to a smaller area that none the less was considered the whole "World."

Would you accept the argument that the “world” that passage refers to isn’t the World that we know today?

Debate Round No. 1
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rejuvinatedghost 1 year ago
And whetr did all the extra water go to? Mars? The moon? Area 51? And incase you bring in water vapor, water vapor is not even close to making up 1% of the water on earth.The amount of water in ait is rather pitiful.Please remember that we need facts, not verses.Thank you for the arguement, it was rather good, if not lackinh in the long run.
Posted by Mharman 1 year ago
Impossible with the amount of water we currently have on Earth, but who says there was always that same amount of water on Earth?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JimShady 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Who I agree with (Con) remains the same before and after the debate, but anyways on to the points... Conduct, spelling, and sources all get a tie because they're evenly matched. For convincing arguments though, I have to go with DeskDriver201. It's really hard to argue with math (by the way excellent calculations for Rejuvinatedghost), but Con somehow pulls it off. He asserts that the Bible is up for interpretation, inferring it is not a history book, and uses that point to argue that the flood is still technically possible.