The Instigator
GOP
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Envisage
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

The Biblical Flood occurred

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 4 votes the winner is...
Envisage
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: Select Winner
Started: 7/24/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,475 times Debate No: 59464
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (75)
Votes (4)

 

GOP

Pro

Greetings, everyone. I hope and pray that we will have a good debate. My job here is to prove that the Biblical flood occurred. Con's job is to prove that it did NOT occur at ALL. He is supposed to do this by successfully refuting the proofs that I offer for the flood. He cannot offer contentions of his own. Just refutations.


Rules:

1. No resolution-snipers. I don't want somebody to come here and resolution-snipe this debate by saying, "In order to prove that the Biblical flood occurred, you must first prove that the Biblical God exists beyond a doubt, because the flood couldn't have occurred if God doesn't exist." I don't want my opponent to find any other loopholes either. So, in this case, we will presuppose that the God of the Bible exists.

2. To debate this resolution, you must get my permission personally. I have made this debate topic impossible to accept, and you will forfeit all seven points if you find a way to accept it. Are you interested? Let me know in the comments section.

3. No trolling or profanity.

4. First round is for acceptance. All you're allowed to say is, "I accept." Nothing else.

5. I will provide the proofs for the Biblical flood, so Con has to argue against every one of them.

6. You're not allowed to vote on this debate if your ELO is not 2500 or above.

Definitions:

1. Biblical - "Of, relating to, or contained in the Bible" (1).

2. Flood - " the covering of the earth with water that occurred during the time of Noah" in the Bible (2).

3. Occur - " To take place; come about" (3).

Have fun and God bless!

Sources:

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

3. http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Envisage

Con

Go ahead.
Debate Round No. 1
GOP

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, Envisage.

As I mentioned earlier, my job is to provide proofs for the Biblical flood. Remember, Con is only allowed to provide refutations. He cannot provide any contentions.

Now, I will proceed to provide the said proofs.

A. Mathematical proof

As per Genesis 9:18-19, the entire world was repopulated by Noah's children Shem, Ham, and Japheth (1). One may usually think that we could not have so many people if the entire world was repopulated by a few people, but the mathematical works below prove that misconception wrong.



Here, we have the formula for the population growth (2).

Now, we don't know the growth rate in order for Noah's children to reach the current population. So, we must solve for r. (I used the "solve" command on my TI-nspire CAS.)

7,000,000,000 = 6e^r4500

*We have "4500" for time since it's been approximately 4500 years since the flood occurred (3). We have 7,000,000,000 as the final population since that's how about how many people there are today (4). We have "6" since Shem, Ham, and Japheth repopulated the world with their respective wives.

After solving for r, we get:

r = 0.004639425893

Since the growth rate is supposed to be a percentage, we multiply r by 100. We get:

r = 0.4639425893

Now, we can use the rate to put it into a compound formula:

6(1+0.4639425893/100)^n

*n = amount of time, which is 4500 years in this case

6(1+0.4639425893/100)^4500 = 6,670,066,345.47 people.

This is VERY close to the current population. If the biblical flood did not occur, then there would have been more people. If there were more people back then, then we should be having more people in THIS day and age.

B. Sea creatures in high altitudes

In the Bible, Genesis 7:24 says that the waters covered the earth (5), and Genesis 7:20 includes that the mountains were covered too (6). Several scientific findings prove the Biblical flood true. For example, we see that marine fossils are found in places way above the sea levels, such as the Grand Canyon (7) and the Himalayan mountains (8). In order for sea level creatures to be found in such high places, the flood waters must have brought them all the way up to the mountains (as a result of the rising sea floors). Genesis 8:3 says that the waters receded after the flood period was over (9), so this would mean that the marine fossils stayed there dry and high until they become fossilized. See the illustration below to understand what I am talking about (10):



The surge of molten rocks there can be described by Genesis 7:11 (11), which says that the "fountains of the deep were broke up". The break-up of the earth's crust not only releases a lot of water, but also molten rocks (12). Without this surge, the marine creatures would not have ended up there.

Con must answer how marine creatures can end up in mountains even though they are supposed to be in the sea.

C. Historical proofs

This is one of my favorite proofs. Normally, many critics use the existence of other flood stories (such as the Epic of Gilgamesh) to disprove the Biblical flood, thinking that the Bible copied off of them. However, the truth is that they don't really disprove the Bible, but in fact supports the Biblical conclusion that there was a global deluge. They act as many different accounts of the flood event contributing to the historical validity of it. These flood stories are found in every continent. Even the most geographically isolated places, such as Australia, the Americas, China (isolated due to many natural barriers (13)) have their respective flood stories (14). This goes to show that the descendants who moved to the isolated places (as they go on to refill the earth) remember the reality that their righteous ancestors faced against the flood waters. Even though each flood story may have some distorted details here and there, many of them still have main reasons why the flood occurred (such as divine retribution). When different cultures have the same story in their folklore, that logically means that they had a common ancestor that faced the event.

Con must answer how so many different cultures can have their own flood stories and not consider them as historical proofs.

Conclusion


Once again, I thank Envisage for accepting this debate. I believe I have provided sufficient evidence why Biblical deluge story was a real event. Envisage must refute each point that I made.

Sources

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

2. http://www.coolmath.com...

3. http://creation.com...

4. http://blogs.census.gov...

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

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

7. R. L. Hopkins, and K. L. Thompson, “Kaibab Formation,” in Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd ed., eds. S. S. Beus and M. Morales (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 196–211.

8. S. S. Beus, “Redwall Limestone and Surprise Canyon Formation,” in Grand Canyon Geology, 2nd ed., eds. S. S. Beus and M. Morales (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 115–135.

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

10. https://answersingenesis.org...

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

12. J. P. Davidson, W. E. Reed, and P. M. Davis, “Isostasy,” in Exploring Earth: An Introduction to Physical Geology (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997), pp. 124–129.

13. http://china.mrdonn.org...

14. http://en.wikipedia.org...








Envisage

Con

Thank Pro.

I. Burden of Proof

Note that Pro perceives an unusually high burden on my behalf, which is simply not true. As instigator and the affirmative position Pro clearly has the burden of proof to provide good/convincing reasons to accept the resolution as it stands. In this case we need good reasons to accept that the biblical flood occurred, otherwise we must reject the resolution out of hand.

Keep this in mind when assessing the contents of the debate, especially as Pro has forbidden me from making additional contentions.

II. Affirming the Consequent

This applies to all three of Pro's arguments so far and I suspect it will apply to more in future rounds. Virtually all of Pro's arguments follow this line of reasoning:

P1) If P then Q
P2) Q
C) P

This is a logical fallacy known as 'affirming the consequent'.[1] To put this into linguistic perspective! here is an example:

P1) If I go to Walmart I will obtain some beans
P2) I have obtained some beans
C) I have gone to Walmart

The problem clearly is that it neglects every other possible explanation for P2, just because I have beans doesn't necessarily mean it came from Walmart, it could have also come from the corner shop etc.

When applied to Pro's arguments, it quickly becomes obvious that not a single one of them is a 'proof' as Pro seems to think it is, instead they are just points of evidence. In this debate I will demonstrate that these are pretty much all examples of this, and that Pro's case as a result is highly unsound, and therefore should be rejected.

III. Mathematical Proof

I don't think I have ever seen an example of 'circular mathematical reasoning' before, but this is as clear as one gets.

First see Pro's calculation

1. 7,000,000,000 = 6e^r4500
2. r = 0.004639425893
3. r* = 0.4639425893
4. 6(1+0.4639425893/100)^n = 6,670,066,345.47

It will be somewhat complicated to show exactly how it is circular, but simply put equation 1 is the integral of equation 4. To demonstrate this though I will use Pro's same formulas to prove a starting population of 7,000, which will yield the same answer if the equation is circular.

1. 7,000,000,000 = 7,000e^r4500
2. r = 0.003070113457
3. r* = 0.3070113457
4. 7,000(1+ 0.3070113457/100)^4500 = 6,853,406,732

6,853,406,732 people is pretty much the same as we started with, in fact the discrepancy both myself and Pro see are due to decimal places cut off on our calculators. It's clearly circular mathematics, but even ignoring that, it just as easily proves a 7,000 starting population. Or virtually any other number you can imagine.

IV. Sea creatures in high altitudes

This is a strong case of affirming the consequent as I have already argued, and it neglects to take into consideration other possible causes of the evidence found. The most established and well substantiated alternative explanation that is widely accepted in paleontology and geology is that many of these mountains used to be ancient seabeds, and that these fossils were fossilized long before being 'thrusted up' in the mountain forming process.[2]

The Himalayas is my favourite example, which is strongly regarded as a result of the collision of the India & Asian continental plates which has resulted in a mountain range which is still growing to this day.[3]Any oceanic crust caught in between (which would have been the case at the 'pinching point' where the Himalayas formed' would have been raised.

Moreover I see no reason to accept Pro's evidence of Genesis as accurate and true, much less than his assertion that the fountains of the deep referred to what appears to be volcanoes in Pro's argument, as it can be interpreted to mean virtually anything with that much leniency. But even if this were true then we would expect to see evidence of this occurring on a global scale on the sea bed, yet sea beds consist of largely sedimentary rock (oceanic limestone), not igneous/metamorphic rock which would be a result of Pro's scenario.[3-5]

Also, if the flood occurred and really did deposit fossils in the tops of these mountains, then we would expect to see large, enormous quantities of erosion and sediment deposition in the valleys of these mountains. Yet this is not what is observed.

Furthermore, if marine fossils were transported to the top of mountains in the flood, then we would expect to see them to have been laid in various orientations on the mountain (upside down, sideways, left, right etc) but instead we find they are in essentially the same position they would grow in life, which is perfectly consistent with the mountain thrust hypothesis.[6]

V. Historical proofs

I honestly don't see how Pro can view this as a 'proof' for anything. He asserts 3 things:

1. All these historical accounts describe the same flood
2. These historical accounts are reliable because there are so many.
3. The flood described is the Noahian flood

Pro however had given exactly zero reasons to believe #1 over multiple different local floods. There are excellent reasons to believe the other hypothesis that these are just local floods:

1. We have abundant evidence that local floods do occur, in virtually every continent and in virtually every country
2. If the flood was the Noahcian flood, then everyone except the family of Noah would have been killed and the stories from those regions would not have survived, either in oral traditions or in written form, since the waters would have destroyed most/all writing materials around at the time.

Furthermore Pro makes an every larger concession:

"Even though each flood story may have some distorted details here and there, many of them still have main reasons why the flood occurred (such as divine retribution). When different cultures have the same story in their folklore, that logically means that they had a common ancestor that faced the event. "

There are two massive problems with this, first Pro concedes that there are discrepancies (often massive ones) in the stories. Which weakens itself as corroborating evidence.

Second, Pro asserts the common ancestor explanation, which essentially means that all these stories are derivative from the original Noachian story. This is a BAD thing historically, as now we no longer have independent 'witness accounts' of the event, but instead we have lots of people talking about the SAME 'witness account' of the event.[7]

To give an analogy, millions of people today will attest to Spider-man's feats and abilities, however we only have a handful of actual 'witness' accounts to Spider-Man, who reside in Marvell comics. The sheer number of people who talk about it, and their demographic locations etc obviously have no bearing on the truth of these claims, only determining the legitimacy of the original story can do that, and given we only have one source... It becomes very poor historical evidence.

VI. Conclusion

Pro hasn't come anywhere near fulfilling his BoP for this debate.

VII. References

1. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
2. http://pdfebooks.rourkepublishing.com...
3. http://www.extremescience.com...
4. http://journals.cambridge.org...
5. http://www.earth.ox.ac.uk...
6. Gould, S. J., 1998. The upwardly mobile fossils of Leonardo's living earth. In: Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, Harmony Books, New York.
7. http://en.m.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
GOP

Pro

Thanks again, Envisage.

I disagree that his BOP is high. I acknowledge that MY BOP is high, and his BOP is light. Remember, I said that Con is NOT allowed to make any contentions. Since contentions are synonymous with the word "assertion" (15), he does not have such a huge burden, considering that one who makes the assertion (which is me) is the one with the BOP. Since I told him that he is only allowed to make refutations, Con's job is easier.

Affirming the Consequent

What Con is trying to do is that my proofs don't really have to be results of Noah's flood. Con says that my second proof is a strong case of it. However, if I prove that there CANNOT be ANY other explanations for the historical proofs and fossils in the mountains besides the biblical flood, then Con's arguments shall be negated.

A. Mathematical Proof

To prove that my mathematical reasoning was circular, he tried to use another example with the number "7,000". If I could show that equation 1 is not the same as equation 4, then Con's claim of circular reasoning will be dismissed. All it takes is common sense to display that.

My equation #1 was 1. 7,000,000,000 = 6e^r4500, alright? As obviously conveyed by the equal sign, my equation is saying that 7,000,000,000 IS 6e^r4500.

For equation #4, my answer ended up with 6,670,066,345.47. This is obviously not the same as equation one.

All Con did was just use 7,000 as a starting population and use the formulas I used, for which he got 6,853,406,732 as an answer. 6,853,406,732 is not the same as his equation #1, although he contradicts himself by saying "6,853,406,732 people is pretty much the same as we started with".

In order for Con to show that equation #4 is the same as equation #1, he must show that the number "6,670,066,345.47" is part of equation #1. ONLY THEN will it be CIRCULAR mathematical reasoning, for you would then end up where you began. Then again, that's obviously not true.

I have no idea what Con is trying to convey. I understand that Con is struggling to prove how it is circular (as indicated by his very own words "It will be somewhat complicated to show exactly how it is circular"), but I would still appreciate it if he could elaborate on this a bit more.

B. Sea creatures in high altitudes

Once again, if I show ONLY the biblical flood can the be explanation behind these fossils, then con's replies can be dismissed. Con tried to use an alternative explanation, which said that the fossilization occurred long before (and therefore GRADUAL). If I can show that these creatures were RAPIDLY buried (the result of the Biblical flood), then I can win this part of the debate.

Thousands of fossilized jellyfish (16) show that they are soft and fleshy (17-18), implying that they didn't undergo much decomposition. In other words, the burial was so rapid that they had no time go through decay (19-20).

Moreover, many fossils of sea creatures show that they died in contorted and twisted positions, showing results of rapid and violent burial.

If we go under Con's presupposition that these things were fossilized long ago, then that pretty much goes against the very conditions required for fossilization. Fossilized remnants of organisms imply that they were preserved well enough to not be consumed and deteriorated by scavengers , bacteria, oxygen, etc (21). If those had SUCH A LONG TIME to be there (as opposed to rapid burial), then they would have deteriorated into nothingness eventually.

Simply put, fossils require rapid burial, lest they decay.

Look at these pics (22):





Here is a picture of a fish swallowing another fish. Thousands of them have been discovered (22). This goes to show that the burial and the fossilization process must have been quick enough to capture this moment.



Here is a picture of a fish digesting its food. Digestion is fast, so think about how much faster the fossilization could have been!



Here is a fossilized dragonfly wing. The wing is delicate, meaning that it would have decayed fast if it took a long time.

Also, Envisage, I am not using Genesis ITSELF to say that the flood occurred. I am just using the Genesis account to match it with the scientific evidence today. Plus, the fountains of the deep (the NIV Bible says SPRINGS of the great deep BURST forth) can only refer to the what made the water rise because there is no other way that the marines could be on mountain tops. Also, seabeds themselves contain largely oceanic limestone, but the way the fountains were broken up exposes the DEEPER layers of the earth to release the molten rock.

Moving, Genesis says that the waters receded (meaning that the waters went back to the oceans), so the impacts are more concentrated on the mountain tops (where fossils are present) as opposed to the valleys.

Con: ". . . we would expect to see them to have been laid in various orientations on the mountain"

REMEMBER: They were fossilized ALIVE (it was RAPID burial). They didn't just die normally, lay there for a while in all those orientations, and then get fossilized (cause then that's not RAPID).

Also, it seems that Con got these arguments (they sound really similar) from Yahoo Answers (unreliable site), and then just cited Stephen J. Gould (23). So, voters, consider this while reading the debate.

C. Historical Proofs

Con: "1. We have abundant evidence that local floods do occur, in virtually every continent and in virtually every country"

Irrelevant. Again, the point is that regardless of differences (whether they describe global or local floods), they hold the kernel of what's common. I will explain why these common (the main ideas) things are what ultimately matter below (as opposed to local or global floods).

And #2, obviously everyone but Noah and family would have survived. The point is that the VERY NEXT generations after Noah's family noticed the devastation of the flood (which would have still remained at their time since it would be recent at that time) and learned of their encounter with the deluge. That makes it GOOD historical data.

Now, that "concession" I made is not a concession at all, because the discrepancies are MINOR, not MAJOR as Con said with no supporting evidence (24). The thing is that although lots of people talk about the same WITNESS ACCOUNT of it, the thing is that the ancestors must have SURELY EXPERIENCED THE EVENT if MANY SEPARATE cultures share the common things of their respective flood stories despite geographical isolation. This is still a good thing historically.

The question is: If the flood didn't happen, then why do so many isolated cultures have their own versions of it? How would they manage to invent the same types of stories on their own despite the isolation?

Con's Spider-man analogy is nothing more than a straw-man because the number of people talking about it doesn't mean that it all came from a common ancestor like the flood story.

Conclusion:

I have shown..

- That Con has not corroborated how my math is circular

- That fossilization is rapid, and that requirements of fossilization implies that the flood occured.

- That many flood stories could not have been composed by so many different civilizations if they don't have a common ancestor that experienced such a violent event. It is good historical proof to for the newer generations to hear the flood story from their very own ancestors.

Sources:

15. http://tinyurl.com...
16. James W. Hagadorn et al., “Stranded on a Late Cambrian Shoreline: Medusae from Central Wisconsin,” Geology, Vol. 30, February 2002, pp. 147–150.
17. Donald G. Mikulic et al., “A Silurian Soft-Bodied Biota,” Science, Vol. 228, 10 May 1985, pp. 715–717
18. Stephen Jay Gould, Wonderful Life (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1989), pp. 61–62
19. David Starr Jordan, “A Miocene Catastrophe,” Natural History, Vol. 20, January–February 1920, pp. 18–22
20. Hugh Miller, The Old Red Sandstone, or New Walks in an Old Field (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1858), pp. 221–225
21. http://tinyurl.com...
22. http://tinyurl.com...
23. http://tinyurl.com...
24. http://tinyurl.com...

Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Affirming the Consequent

"However, if I prove that there CANNOT be ANY other explanations for the historical proofs and fossils in the mountains besides the biblical flood, then Con's arguments shall be negated."

Excellent. Now let"s see if Pro actually does that.

II. Mathematical Proof

*Facepalm*

I guess bad arguments die hard...

The argument is circular because the final population and the required initial population is used to calculate the rate (r).... Which is plugged in to calculate the final population from the same initial population. It"s using the same data used to compute the rate.. to find the population from the same numbers used to compute it. If this was done on excel with a large number of decimal places, then both calculations would come out at exactly 7,000,000,000.

To give a simpler example.

If I travel 200m in 10 seconds

Speed = distance/time
S = d/t

1. S = 200/10
2. S = 20
3. 20 = d/10
4. 20*10 = d = 200 meters

Here I just demonstrated the distance travelled in 10 seconds must be true for 10 seconds... I have proven absolutely nothing here since no new information is being plugged in.

In Pro's calculations.. No information is put in except the initial and final populations and time. He cannot possibly prove anything with it.

To demonstrate the uselessness of Pro's reasoning further, let's prove a starting population of 7 million and 1 billion.

1. 7,000,000,000 = 7,000,000e^r4500
2. r = 0.001535056728
3. r* = 0.1535056728
4. 7,000,000(1+0.1535056728/100)^4500 = 6,963,022,640

1. 7,000,000,000 = 1,000,000,000e^r4500
2. r = 0.000432424477
3. r* = 0.0432424477
4. 1,000,000,000(1+0.0432424477/100)^4500 = 6,997,056,342

As you can clearly see, using this same math we can "prove" literally any starting population, whether it be 6, a million or a billion.

Pro would do well to just drop this argument altogether, for my sanity"s sake.

III. Sea creatures in high altitudes

Pro strawman's my position by making it out that I claim that these fossils formed gradually, I clearly have not. There are two distinctive uses of the term 'gradually'.

1. Gradually accumulated over time
2. Gradually fossilized

Note that I refer to the former terminology, that these fossils collected in layers over long timespans. At no point did I allude to the manner in which each fossil was buried in individually.

Gradual accumulation =/= not buried rapidly

I actually concede that rapid burial is one of the principle methods by which fossilisation occurs, since no fossilisation whatsoever can take place without preservation, since organisms would completely decay before mineralising. The conditions for fossilization and known to be quite specific.[1,2] Which is why only a tiny fraction of all animals are fossilized, to put this into perspective, all hominid fossils could fit into the back of a pickup truck

"Now how on earth does any of this demonstrate a worldwide flood that occurred 4,500 years ago? Remember my point about affirming the consequent:

P1) If P then Q
P2) Q
C) P

Which yields the following:

P1) If the Noachian flood occurred, then the fossils were rapidly buried
P2) The fossils were rapidly buried
C) The Noachian flood occurred

Pro actually needs to demonstrate why the Noachian flood is the only explanation of rapid burial of fossils, especially given that we do have abundant evidence of localised rapid sedimentation virtually everywhere in the globe. Given that rapid sedimentation produces fossils anyway, then we would expect fossils to appear anyway regardless of whether they are of Noachian origin or not.

A good way to determine if they likely are of Noachian origin is to independantly date them to see if they were in existence 4,500 years ago. However Pro has not presented any dating evidence, which would be absolutely compelling if it did exist.

I wonder why?

Note that my point on fossils being in various positions was under the assumption that he was arguing for the redistribution of existing fossils rather than the burial & fossilisation in situ, I will drop my point on orientations of fossils then if he is not arguing this point. I also don't appreciate Pro's accusations of my sources, which seems laughable given he has only speculated where I got my original information from (talkorigins, and then the book itself if you were interested) especially given he has copiously cited answersingenesis.com and creation.com as well as a plethora of creationist websites(!).

I again hold Pro's interpretation of Genesis to just be ad hoc reasoning, attempting to make it fit the data as he sees fit, when it can mean virtually anything the way Pro interprets it. He has also so far dropped my falsifying point that the ocean floor is made of different materials (sedimentary rock, instead of igneous/metamorphic) to what we would expect if there were such a geological movement.

"Moving, Genesis says that the waters receded (meaning that the waters went back to the oceans), so the impacts are more concentrated on the mountain tops (where fossils are present) as opposed to the valleys."

I am somewhat confused by this reasoning. If you shake a bottle of sand, the sand pools towards the bottom of the heterogeneous mixture. Sediments are never evenly distributed, and denser-than-water stuff such as most minerals, sediments, rocks, sand will concentrate at the bottom, and hence will fill up the valleys on the mountains with sediment.

IV. Historical Proofs

My point about there being abundant local floods is that we would expect there to be flood stories in existence anyway, regardless, as a result of them. Especially given there are stories about virtually every other phenomenon such as lightning - Thor, eclipses - dragon ate the sun, etc.[3,4] Ergo I find it astonishing that Pro would think that these evidence a singular worldwide flood.

"Irrelevant. Again, the point is that regardless of differences (whether they describe global or local floods), they hold the kernel of what's common."

Such as what? Water? Pro needs to actually provide the stories and evidence so I can assess them, also Pro actually needs to give reasons to believe that these stories talk about the same flood. He has given zero so far other than the fact they are indeed flood stories. I might as well give various "sunrise" stories and make the claim they all talk about the same sunrise! It"s clearly absurd.

"The question is: If the flood didn't happen, then why do so many isolated cultures have their own versions of it?"

I have yet to see reasons why these 'versions' are of the flood that Pro describes. Pro has presented none of them to this debate yet. I bring forth my other argument that we would expect to see stories ANYWAY given the times and the fact that so many communities did experience floods of some sort or another, and would have documented/make mythology of it regardless.

"How would they manage to invent the same types of stories on their own despite the isolation?"

That's not for me to prove, it's for Pro to disprove given he has the BoP. Given there are stories written virtually everywhere, including in indigenous tribes, it strikes me as absolutely no surprise that all tribes which can record information would have stories of one form or another.[5]

V. Conclusion

A few points for Pro.

1. His 'mathematical proof' is complete bunk.
2. His arguments for rapid sedimentation are based on a straw man and a poor case of affirming the consequent
3. He has yet to actually present his 'historical proofs' for critique and analysis, and just assumes what they say. Moreover it affirms the consequent and also clearly somewhere we would expect of civilisation to talk about anyway.
4. Lastly me not being allowed to make contentions absolutely sucks.

VI. References:
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 3
GOP

Pro

Thank you, Con.

Affirming the Consequent

Con still argues that my proofs fall under this fallacy. Once again, I will show you that the Biblical flood can be the only explanation for them by refuting Con's refutations.

A. Mathematical Proof

To nullify Con's argument here, all I have to do is prove that my equations are NOT circular.

In an attempt to show that my equations were circular, he used the Speed = distance/time (S=d/t) equation. That is nothing more than a mere straw-man argument, because he uses the SAME INFORMATION in the SAME FORMULA ITSELF. This is not what I did.

I did NOT use the P = Pe^rt formula ITSELF to prove that six people can reach all the way up to 7 billion people in the future. I didNOTuse the equation to find the rate of "0.4639425893" and then do "7,000,000,000 = 6e^0.4639425893x4500" in my calculator. If that were the case, then I would agree that it's circular.

Again, I did not do this. What I did was just use the P = Pe^rt formula for the SOLE PURPOSE of finding the RATE, so I could use it for the compound formula (the same formula you use to see money increase in the bank) to see where the initial Noachian population would end up TODAY. Just as money increases in the bank, the same concept applies to people: by growth rates. But again, you need to find the rate for money, so you would have to do a separate equation for that. Again, same concept.

In order to find the rate, you would need to use a mathematical formula to do so. That's what I did to satisfy that mathematical necessity. All Pro did was just solidify the usage of the formulas by finding the RIGHT rates for certain initial populations to reach certain final populations. I proved that it's mathematically solid for the three children of Noah to reach the current population by finding the correct rate.

Thus, Envisage's claim of circular reasoning is null.

B. Sea Creatures in High Altitudes

So, if I show that ONLY the Biblical flood can result in rapid fossilization (and no other explanations can suffice), then Con's arguments here shall be dismissed too.

So, it seems like we both agree that in order for something to become a fossil, it must be out of reach for scavengers, oxygen, bacteria, etc. lest it decays. It must be rapid to prevent those things from happening, too.

Even though localised rapid sedimentation occurs everywhere, the thing is that it does NOT meet the requirements for fossilization. The speed of the sedimentation/burial process ITSELF can be fast, but that does NOT mean that they exclude bacteria and oxygen. In fact, you can find a lot of bacterial activity in sediments (25-28). So, con's argument contradicts the very conditions of fossilization that we agreed upon.

The point is that not only the results of the Biblical flood were rapid, but the waters would have gotten rid of any bacteria that would have gotten mixed with the sediments. Remember, the violent flood did wipe out most of the living organisms (most, if not all) that was not included in the ark.

Why did I not present any dating evidence? The reason is that dating methods can be unreliable. Carbon dating is a fine example of that. The amount of carbon-14 varies in the atmosphere (29), so determining the age of fossils can be tricky. And no, I wasn't arguing for the redistribution of existing fossils.

Moreover, I only said that it SEEMS like one of your arguments was based off of Yahoo! Answers, because of the similarities between your argument and one of the answers there. That's why I am leaving it up to the voters to judge. Moreover, I have also cited secular sources too. When I cited creationist sources, I was mostly giving them credit for the PICTURES, not mostly for SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION. On the other hand, you seem have referred to a Yahoo answer that claims to have its information from Stephen Gould.

Readers, just look at this picture. I underlined the similarities.



My interpretation of Genesis 7:11 cannot mean anything because the whole context involved the flood, and various translation refer to what's beneath the oceans. The words, "springs", "fountains" etc. all point to the same thing (30).

Plus, the ocean floor ITSELF may be made of things like sedimentary rock, but when I referred to the molten rock I meant the thing that originates from all the way from the INNER STRUCTURE of the Earth. See this picture (31):




So, when the fountains of the deep were exposed, it would release the molten rock from the said inner structure to push the waters upward. Again, we can logically determine this truly happened because the marine organisms would need to be elevated all the way to the mountain tops, and that would require the "push" due to exposure of the great deep.


Con: "If you shake a bottle of sand, the sand pools towards the bottom of the heterogeneous mixture. Sediments are never evenly distributed, and denser-than-water stuff such as most minerals, sediments, rocks, sand will concentrate at the bottom, and hence will fill up the valleys on the mountains with sediment."

I will draw and post a few pictures to invalidate this.

1: We have a few mountains here.



2. Now they're flooded.



3. The waters are receding now.




On picture 2, you see that all the minerals, sand (sediment in general) were all over the place. Now, you see that as the waters recede on picture 3, the MAJORITY of the sediment get taken BACK as the waters go back to the oceans. The sediment go along with the motion of the receding waters. Hence, you DON'T SEE MUCH sediment in the valleys, but instead you see its effects CONCENTRATED AMONG THE MARINES ON MOUNTAINTOPS, as they would definitely need the huge amounts of sediments to BECOME fossilized.

C. Historical Proofs

President of the Institute for Creation Research John D. Morris, Ph.D collected over 200 flood stories (24). Here is the data, since you asked for the evidence. So, go and see the key commonalities for yourself.

  1. Is there a favored family? 88%
  2. Were they forewarned? 66%
  3. Is flood due to wickedness of man? 66%
  4. Is catastrophe only a flood? 95%
  5. Was flood global? 95%
  6. Is survival due to a boat? 70%
  7. Were animals also saved? 67%
  8. Did animals play any part? 73%
  9. Did survivors land on a mountain? 57%
  10. Was the geography local? 82%
  11. Were birds sent out? 35%
  12. Was the rainbow mentioned? 7%
  13. Did survivors offer a sacrifice? 13%
  14. Were specifically eight persons saved? 9%


The same source goes on to say:

"Putting them all back together, the story would read something like this:Once there was a worldwide flood, sent by God to judge the wickedness of man. But there was one righteous family which was forewarned of the coming flood. They built a boat on which they survived the flood along with the animals. As the flood ended, their boat landed on a high mountain from which they descended and repopulated the whole earth."

So, my questions still apply. If the flood did not occur, then why do so many isolated cultures have their own versions of the flood that STILL CONVEY ABOUT THE SAME INFORMATION as above? How would they include the SAME THEMES despite the geographical isolation? I say that they all must have faced a common ancestor that experienced the same event in order for them to record their respective flood stories (slightly varied from culture to culture).

Conclusion

25. http://www.annualreviews.org...
26. http://aem.asm.org...
27. http://www.sciencedirect.com...
28. https://smartech.gatech.edu...
29. http://www.radiocarbon.com...
30. http://creationwiki.org...
31. http://education.nationalgeographic.com...
Envisage

Con

Thanks Pro.

I. Mathematical Proof

I don"t feel I need to address this further. I have shown that Pro"s argument proves absolutely nothing (Pro has ignored my other input start population examples), which is more than enough to debunk it. Pro is essentially throwing a dart at the wall, drawing a circle around it and claiming he scored a bullseye.

II. Sea Creatures in High Altitudes

"So, if I show that ONLY the Biblical flood can result in rapid fossilization (and no other explanations can suffice), then Con's arguments here shall be dismissed too."

Fossilization doesn"t necessarily need to be rapid, only the burial (which preserves the organism). Note that flooding isn"t the only mechanism by which rapid sedimentation occurs. There are many such mechanisms, such as those present in river bends, sea-floor earthquakes, landslides, etc. etc.

Moreover excluding scavengers and decomposing bacteria/organisms isn"t necessary as excluding oxygen indirectly inhibits both of these from acting (you can"t burn flesh without oxygen, which is essentially what decomposers do).[1] One of the principle preservation techniques in the food industry is by storing vegetables under N2/CO2 gas (which contains no oxygen). Apples for example, can be stored edible for over 12 months under nitrogen storage and oxygen exclusion. [2]

"Even though localised rapid sedimentation occurs everywhere, the thing is that it does NOT meet the requirements for fossilization. The speed of the sedimentation/burial process ITSELF can be fast, but that does NOT mean that they exclude bacteria and oxygen."

Pro affirms that rapid sedimentation occurs on a global scale anyway, he only objects that this is not enough for fossilization to occur. However this seems strange, since the only thing special about the Noachian flood is that it"s worldwide. Its true that not all buried corpses would fossilize, but it is a long stretch of imagination that none of the buried corpses under regular flooding would fossilize.

There would clearly be a fraction that would be under the anerobic conditions required for fossilization to occur. The fact that we seldom ever have complete fossils, and almost all fossils are incomplete are pretty strong indications that the conditions are capricious, and are not conditions that Pro seems to affirm with the Noachian flood.[3]

"The point is that not only the results of the Biblical flood were rapid, but the waters would have gotten rid of any bacteria that would have gotten mixed with the sediments."

I find this an astonishing claim (one made without a shred of evidence), the flood would have killed all bacteria?! I am sure Pro is aware that there are over 5x times as many bacteria WITHIN our bodies as we have cells, so unless the flood is some magical cleaning fluid, then this claim doesn"t hold. [4]

If this is literally the only reason Pro gives to privilege the Noachian hypothesis, then this entire argument appears to be bunk, since removing bacteria is 1. False and 2. Unnecessary (since anerobic conditions inhibit them anyway).

1. If non-Noachian sedimentation can produce fossils then the Noachian Flood is without support
2. If they cannot then neither can the Noachian Flood

If Pro contests 2 as false, and asserts only the Noachian Flood can provide the conditions for fossilization, then we end up with a striking conclusion" That ALL Fossils are as a result of the Noachian Flood. But this is patently absurd, since many fossils all over the world date long before 2500 BC.[5] I see this as an astonishing failing in Pro"s argument. If the flood did occur then all fossils would be 4,500 years old, which is a fantastical claim and demonstrating this would be iron-clad confirmation of Pro"s case.

I read all three of Pro"s references alluding to the bacterial "activity" within sediment layers. Two papers only give techniques that "count" the number of bacteria there, and none give indication of how fast stuff decomposes under those conditions. We have bacteria for example that exist frozen in Greenland permafrost which exist, but have hardly any activity, and entire mammoths preserved despite trillions of bacteria present.[6] Skeletons from the Vesuvius eruption 2000 years ago are also extant along with thousands of normally-buried skeletons buried from roman times that are still extant, which refutes Pro"s argument that non-Noachian flood conditions allow for the preservation of skeletons (which allegedly occurred 4500 years ago, so this is a significant fraction of that age).[7]

Uplift Hypothesis

It seems Pro is arguing that molten rock caused the existing water on the earth to displace (which pushes tides and the fish upwards) by either filling up the ocean floor (which is physically possible, but contradicts the evidence), or by pushing against the crust itself which would require an increase in the total volume in the Earth, which is a absurd. For material to travel from the insides of the Earth it would leave a vacuum in its wake.. which would be rapidly filled by liquid/rock, ergo Pro"s scenario is impossible no matter which way you cut it.

Also, pretty as Pro"s pictures are he has provided zero evidential support for them. The fact that mountains erode and valleys fill is basically a truism with plenty of examples in the literature.[8,9] In fact for it NOT to do this in flood conditions would be essentially violating the second law of thermodynamics. There is a reason why sandcastles built next to a hole (a "valley") which when hit with a wave will end up with a shorter, flatter sandcastle and a more filled hole.

III. Historical Proofs

The article Pro cites is a junk article from a junk journal. Nowhere is there a list of what stories were collected (I encourage you to open his reference, it is literally something I could have written, with absolutely no expertise in scholarship). There is no way to determine what the selection criteria for these 200 stories (200 of what? Tens of thousands of stories?), and no detailed analysis of the narratives themselves. Modern scholarship looks for similarities and differences within the narrative text themselves and goes a lot farther than just picking similarities.

Many of the similarities that Pro have provided are unsurprising, such as a favoured family, survival on a boat, animals etc. Since many stories flood or otherwise share similar similarities. One striking point is Pro affirms that 91% of all these stories disagree on the number of survivors (which seems absurd given they have a common ancestor) and Pro has given no figures of agreement on:

1.The names of the survivors (!!!)
2.Where the survivors were from/lived (!!)
3.The date/times in which the floods occurred (!!)

The astonishing omission of these (which definitely should corroborate if they describe the same flood story) is a black and white indication that the main points are not agreed on. Imagine the Canonical New testament books given different names for Jesus and his disciples, and each story describing a different time and location, we would have good grounds to believe they are talking about completely different things if they disagreed on those details and only shared superficial similarities (such as Pro has given).

In any case, this is nothing like the sort of scholarship evidence that even new testament scholarship would find convincing on any level. I recommend you open the page for "The Journal for the Study of The New Testament", which is a peer reviewed scholarship journal and just compare the type of research to what Pro"s article gives, it is incomparable.

IV. Conclusion

Summary next round.

V. References
1. http://tinyurl.com...
2. http://tinyurl.com...
3. http://tinyurl.com...
4. http://tinyurl.com...
5. http://tinyurl.com...
6. http://tinyurl.com...
7. http://tinyurl.com...
8. http://tinyurl.com...
9. http://tinyurl.com...
10. http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 4
GOP

Pro

Thanks.

A. Mathematical Proof

I guess that's a concession from con here.

Again, I already proved that it's not circular because I just use the population formula FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF FINDING THE RATE (the rate can't just come out of nowhere, so I have to find it by doing the math). I didn't put the rate and then plug it IN THE SAME FORMULA.

Again, if I did, then it would look like this:

rate = 0.4639425893

"7,000,000,000 = 6e^0.4639425893x4500"

Also, your input start populations don't prove that my equations are circular, because you (like me) just did the population formula JUST to find the rate for it to be plugged in to the compound formula.

B. Sea Creatures in High Altitudes

OK, I mean that the burial needs to be rapid, and that only the Biblical flood can accurately fit the explanations behind the quick burial of the marine creatures. Again, those earthquakes, landslides, etc. don't happen to magically get rid of oxygen, bacteria, and other things that prevent fossilization.

Excluding oxygen does not inhibit ALL bacteria. Some bacteria don't need oxygen to live (32). There are anaerobic bacteria in sediments as well (33).

Con: "Its true that not all buried corpses would fossilize, but it is a long stretch of imagination that none of the buried corpses under regular flooding would fossilize."

It's unlikely, since there are a lot of bacteria in this world. So, which one is reasonable to say that it occurred? Localised rapid sedimentation that leads to fossilization (which doesn't kill the bacteria) or the violent waters of the Biblical flood, which kills off the bacteria so that there would virtually be no chance for creatures to decay?

Con: "There would clearly be a fraction that would be under the anerobic conditions required for fossilization to occur"
This is true if the flood does not occur. It would indeed be very unlikely for fossilization to occur if this is the case all along.

"The fact that we seldom ever have complete fossils, and almost all fossils are incomplete are pretty strong indications that the conditions are capricious, and are not conditions that Pro seems to affirm with the Noachian flood."

What do incomplete fossils have to do with the results of the Biblical flood? This is just non-sequitur.

Con: "the flood would have killed all bacteria?!"

Con, not only were the waters violent, but the flood also lasted for 40 days. It's already proven that bacteria don't live long, and they reproduce quickly. However, do you think that the conditions of the violent flood would allow them to live and reproduce normally? No!! That interferes with their reproduction, and thus ends the lives of most (if not all) bacteria.

Con: "If this is literally the only reason Pro gives to privilege the Noachian hypothesis, then this entire argument appears to be bunk, since removing bacteria is 1. False and 2. Unnecessary (since anerobic conditions inhibit them anyway)."

I proved that removing bacteria is true and necessary since there are bacteria that live without oxygen, and they can invade dead sea creatures while they are in the sediment.

THEORETICALLY, non-Noachian sedimentation can produce fossils, but is that REALISTIC? Again, I proved that rapid sediments can still have bacteria that live WITHOUT oxygen. Therefore, I say that MOST (IF NOT ALL) FOSSILS are here due to the global flood.

The dating argument doesn't work since I have already shown that atmospheric variability of isotopes (like carbon 14) play a role in INACCURATELY determining the ages of fossils.

Con: "I read all three of Pro"s references alluding to the bacterial "activity" within sediment layers. Two papers only give techniques that "count" the number of bacteria there"

Those two papers IMPLY that there are bacteria IN the sediments, that's all I needed to prove.

Con: ". . .none give indication of how fast stuff decomposes under those conditions."

Irrelevant. We already established that in order for something to be a fossil, it must be OUT OF REACH for scavengers, bacteria, oxygen, etc.

For the permafrost argument, con made a straw-man. You're talking about things that are frozen, not regular sedimentation. We all know that reaction rates are slower when the temperature is cold (34), which in turns slows down bacterial invasion.

Nowhere does Con's 7th source say that skeletons from Vesuvius are there along with THOUSANDS of normally buried skeletons. The source says 40 skeletons found in the cemetery, and those bodies were buried MANUALLY by OTHER PEOPLE, and they were not resulted by sedimentation, which is natural. This is another straw man.

Con: "For material to travel from the insides of the Earth it would leave a vacuum in its wake.. which would be rapidly filled by liquid/rock, ergo Pro"s scenario is impossible no matter which way you cut it" (emphasis added).

It wouldn't be rapidly filled by liquid/rock, because the temperature of lava is 1,292 to 2,192F (35), which is so hot that it would melt things that get in its way. So, the great deep would still remain open overall, only to to fill up the ocean floors and lift the marine creatures up.

"The fact that mountains erode and valleys fill is basically a truism with plenty of examples in the literature"

This is a comparison of apples to oranges. How can you compare a normal flood or wave (which does fill in the valleys) with a global flood, which is much more powerful?

Here's an analogy of the flood. If you push the flush knob on a toilet bowl, then most of the fecal matter would be taken away by the forceful movement of the receding waters (and not much of the fecal matter would remain. maybe a lot would remain if the waters don't recede with so much force). In the same sense, we can take a look at Psalm 104:6-9 (36). This passage says that the waters fled, the mountains rose, and the valleys sank. If the valleys (valleys also include ocean valleys, which are deep down below) sink, then this would then lead to the waters to go downward, similar to that of the motion when you flush the toilet. On verse 9, it says that God then set a boundary for the seas permanently (permanent because the same verse says the waters would never cover the earth again).

C. Historical Proofs

It seems like Con isn't satisfied with that article. OK, here's another source which AFFIRMS THE SAME NUMBERS as John D. Morris, whose author has expertise in scholarship (37-38).

Also, it is ridiculous for Con to expect there to be a detailed analysis of every single flood story. There are way too many of them. However, here are examples of some prominent stories (38). Again, key similarities (listed below next paragraph) matter ultimately here. They prove that all of the stories came from a common source.

Those three points that Con made (such as the names of survivors) are irrelevant, since the resolution is that the flood occurred. Since the occurrence of the event would require floods, favored family, wickedness, etc. then we can safely say that other info like the date and time are irrelevant when the debate is about what made it happen.

Con's New Testament analogy doesn't work because it's too specific. The Bible says that there is only one Jesus, (which is a specific Person), whereas the global flood is something that happened all around the world. In order for the historicity of Jesus to be accurate, the details cannot differ here and there (because it is ONE SPECIFIC PERSON), but it's okay if some details differ among the flood stories as long as they contain the key aspects of it. So, this is a straw man too.

So, for a global flood, the fact that many others have those same key things that make up the deluge is enough proof that it occurred.

Conclusion:

Con made a lot of straw-men here, and he conceded on the math part.

Sources:

32. tinyurl.com/klb5wmr
33. tinyurl.com/o3merrl
34. tinyurl.com/y6lr7z
35. tinyurl.com/6nq98
36. tinyurl.com/neo9ubr
37. Perloff, James (1999), Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism (Arlington, MA: Refuge Books).
38. tinyurl.com/oeem5p2

Envisage

Con

Time to wrap up! I greatly appreciate Pro for this unusual debate, best of luck in voting!

I. Mathematical ‘Proof’

I never conceded this, I showed that Pro’s ‘proof’ proves a starting population of 6, 7000, 7000000 and 1000000000. Pro has spectacularly failed to respond to those facts. If Pro’s methods ‘proves’ contradictory populations, then it obviously fails.

Upon further research, both equations are equivalent, one is a continuous compound interest equation, and the other is a discreet compound interest equation, for a derivation of the former from the latter then I recommend checking out the attached video.

Both of Pro’s equations are depictions of the same thing.

P= P0e^rt = P0(1+r)^t

https://www.youtube.com...


II. Rapid Burial

Let’s summarize my opponent’s position:

  1. 1. There are fossils on mountain tops
  2. 2. These fossils could only have gotten there by the Noachian Flood
  3. 3. No fossil can be explained naturalistically because no naturalistic process provides the conditions for fossilization to occur

I provided the mountain thrust hypothesis, which is the leading geological hypothesis for #1, which Pro has failed to address directly. If the mountain thrust hypothesis is likely, then Pro’s entire case regarding the Noachian flood falls apart.

Pro’s only defence against the mountain thrust hypothesis is that fossilization cannot occur at all naturalistically because it doesn’t provide all the required conditions for fossilization. Pro asserts the following conditions are required:

  1. 1. Rapid Burial
  2. 2. No bacteria
  3. 3. No oxygen
  4. 4. No scavengers

Pro needed to show that:

  1. 1. Natural processes cannot provide these conditions
  2. 2. The Noachian flood can provide these conditions

I argue that not only has Pro not demonstrated either of these, but he also falsely attributes condition #2, which is unnecessary (summarized later).

Naturalistic processes can easily account for 3 of these on a large scale, Pro disputes that rapid burial does not exclude oxygen but has given no evidence to this effect, moreover it (I argued) would also undermine his own position, because if natural burial doesn’t exclude oxygen, then neither does the Noachian Flood!

Note that of course there will be some oxygen buried with the animals, which will quickly be consumed by the decomposers (similarly to how a burning candle goes out if put underneath a glass by consuming all the oxygen – see video).

https://www.youtube.com...

If a simple glass like this can effectively exclude oxygen, then obviously many natural environments can, also.

Pro contends that the presence of anerobic bacteria are a major problem but has failed to show:

  1. 1. How anerobic bacteria can digest bone fast enough to be significant
  2. 2. How the Noachian flood possibly removes all bacteria whereas no naturalistic explanation does

I hold #2 to be a fantastical claim, and Pro has provided absolutely no reason to believe the Noachian flood would kill off all anaerobic bacteria but non-Noachian processes wouldn’t. Considering various bacteria survive in space, and some of the most inhospitable environments imaginable, it seems incredibly farfetched that anerobic bacteria are going to care about a load of water.[1]

I also hold #1 to be flat out false, and Pro has failed to respond to my trivially found examples of 2,000 year old historical skeletons (a large fraction of the Noachian age) all in good condition and obviously not buried under the Noachian flood conditions. It doesn’t take much effort to find many more older examples of skeletons.[2] If bacteria rapidly digest anything that would fossilize under non-Noachian conditions, then we should see no skeletons of a large fraction of the Noachian age (4,500) years, yet we have abundant examples.

Given these examples there is no reason to think the Noachian flood provided special conditions even if it did happen, hence this contention fails.


“Con, not only were the waters violent, but the flood also lasted for 40 days. It's already proven that bacteria don't live long, and they reproduce quickly“

Pro has given absolutely no evidence that these conditions would sterilize the sediments of bacteria, so I will use Hitchen’s Razor.[3]

“What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”

For organisms on the size of micrometers, turbulent waters seems a laughable set of conditions for bacteria to die in, especially if they are buried within the animals anyway. Pro has ignored that most animal bodies will have these bacteria inside of them anyway.

Dating:

Pro ignores that there are a plethora of methods that can date fossils, and has provided precisely zero of them that could determine the age of the fossils (a spectacular failing to meet his BoP), and all evidence so far suggests fossils that are many orders of magnitude older than the flood would suggest.

These methods are widely used in geology today and are well-standardized and the differences are far outside what the error-bars would cover. The dating of these fossils flat out falsifies this contention, especially considering Pro asserts that ALL fossils are Noachian (which is an astonishing claim) hence any fossil can be used to falsify it.

Erosion:

“This is a comparison of apples to oranges. How can you compare a normal flood or wave (which does fill in the valleys) with a global flood, which is much more powerful?

I would imagine a sandcastle and a valley would be a little more eroded and the valleys a little more filled if a tsunami hit it instead of a regular wave. Entropy works.


III. Historical Proofs

I only have access to source #38, which is an apologist source and not a scholar source, and again is something even I could have written with little expertise in the area (I recommend you open the source).

Again there are absolutely no details on the ‘selection criteria’ involved, apparently 95% of these stories describe a worldwide flood, which is meaningless if stories were selected on the basis of whether or not the floods are worldwide!

Note Pro forwarded the common ancestor hypothesis, with only six people surviving it. So we have excellent reason to think all the stories will be roughly the same as what we see in the New Testament as the witnesses would have seen roughly the same thing (if it happened).


“Also, it is ridiculous for Con to expect there to be a detailed analysis of every single flood story.”

That’s not my problem, the BoP is on Con. Considering New Testament scholarship covers over 50 different books, and hundreds of stories within those books, it’s clear these should have a similar level of analysis done on flood stories if it was clear they were describing the same event.

The reason why Pro has to show these describe the same event is simply because they do not form corroborating evidence if they don’t.

I can provide hundreds and thousands of eyewitness testimonies of murders, but that obviously doesn’t provide additional support to the fact that any specific murder happened. You can cite that a large % of these murders were by family members, by men, with a knife and performed at nightime with the body hidden. You can always get high percentages to match up with your story narrative in a murder story, it does in no way support the fact that any random murder happened unless you can show these stories all describe the same thing!

The facts that would convincingly show these floods were the same event:

  1. 1. The place
  2. 2. The date
  3. 3. The names of the people involved

Astonishingly Pro has not attempted to meet this trivial burden. If I am given murder stories that describe 1 murder in 1700 and another in 2014, or a murder story which describes a person names John, and another Steven, then I have good reason to doubt these stories have

anything to do with each other!

IV. Conclusions

I have refuted all three of Pro’s arguments, as per request. Because of this, I encourage voters to vote Con.


V. References
1. http://tinyurl.com...

2. http://tinyurl.com...

3. http://tinyurl.com...

Debate Round No. 5
75 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
gg
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Pro's point about jellyfish being fossilized survived Con's refutation regarding the cemetery. Pro's argument violent waters kill bacteria was hilarious. Next time he should say the sedimentation from the waters kills bacteria instead. Con's claim the math was circular was technically false. Con beat up some strawmen; Pro neither said the discrepancies among myths were large, nor did Pro's source seek out only global flood myths. In fact, it found that 95% of flood myths were global. Con's extremely subtle(!) insinuation that creationist sites are inherently not credible is not appreciated. Con's claim about vacuums inside earth would be plausible if it weren't for the fact eruptions are observed today that don't suffer Con's vacuum problem.
All 3 of Pro's Round 2 arguments survived, although some of the supporting arguments (like violent water killing bacteria) may not have.
Posted by Enji 3 years ago
Enji
The point of Pro's mathematical proof argument was that "If the biblical flood did not occur, then [more people should exist today]." This is probably why Envisage focused on the circularity of the argument rather than any of its other problems -- its circularity is how it relates back to the resolution: if we assume the biblical flood is true the rate of growth must be X, if the rate of growth is X then the biblical flood must be true or there would be more people today.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
RFD:

So this debate is all about three contentions from Pro and only those three, so that's what I'll be spending this time covering.

A. Mathematical Proof

There's a lot I'm confused with here. While I think there might have been some circular reasoning in Pro's analysis, I don't think that's the biggest problem, and I think Con should have spent some time talking about the biggest issues with this argument.

Big Problems:

1. Even if it's true, it doesn't prove the resolution true. Seriously, I can't figure out a way in which this shows that the Biblical flood occurred. All I get from this position, if it's right, is that 6 people could have repopulated the Earth in 4500 years, up to its current population. All that does is provide a response to a possible concern with the story of the flood and its aftermath.
2. Anyone care to tell me what a rate of growth of 0.4639425893 actually means? How many kids would each of those couples need to have in order to reach that growth rate? We would also have to assume that their decedents would meet that growth rate into perpetuity, but we can assume that that's a lot of kids in each family, but I honestly don't know what that rate of growth means in the slightest.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
2.
3. This equation assumes no deaths. This is just baffling to me, since the growth rate would also have to substantially exceed the death rate in order to go from 6 people to 7,000,000,000, and yet it's never discussed.
4. Incest, anyone? Pro's argument is that each of these couples had kids. Each of those kids had sex with either their siblings or cousins in order to have more kids. Can we honestly and reasonably say that there is any way in which this doesn't result in horrible genetic deformities? This is a bottleneck effect, and populations that bottleneck look far worse as their populations expand.

Those are just 4 of the issues that popped into my head, but reasonably, I only need to pick the first and say that this contention alone does nothing to affirm the resolution. Hence, I leave it behind.

B. Sea creatures at high altitudes

Some parts of this were painful to read, especially as a microbiologist. I try to be unbiased by my own knowledge, but this made me cringe.

We have a number of major points here, so I'll try to get to each one.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
1. The sea floor rose as a result of volcanic activity

Pro simply never proves this, and I think his knowledge of how volcanic eruptions and lava work are seriously lacking. Lava melting things doesn't erase them from existence, and if it did melt everything, there would be obvious signs of volcanic rock on the sea floor, something Pro agrees doesn't exist. I buy Con's vacuum argument when it comes to lifting up the sea floor and the vacuums it creates. Pro's response just seems to dismiss basic physics.

2. Requirements for fossilization

If Pro is right on the 4 things required for fossilization, then we should have no fossils. Period. Pro never shows how bacteria are eliminated by torrents of water. Con is right that many bacteria can survive those conditions and often do. A lot of bacteria may die as a result, but many more won't. Pro might have made a point about which bacteria, in particular, are harmful to the process of fossilization, but since he just refers to a wildly complex domain of life as one solid group, I can't give him that point.

There were a number of other weird points under bacteria that aren't at all thought through. Con's right that anaerobic bacteria are going to destroy fossilizable materials more slowly, but the bigger problem is just that there's no way in which anaerobic bacteria are suddenly killed off by a flood, since that just cuts them off from gaseous oxygen, something that anaerobic bacteria, by definition, don't need. The idea that 40 days is long enough to even kill all aerobic bacteria is utterly wrong, since many can process the oxygen in water, and even if they couldn't, there are a large portion of bacteria that have senescent states that allow them to survive long periods of time in inhospitable environments.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Pro shows no reason why oxygen wouldn't exist in a flood. Water is composed of two hydrogens and an oxygen. Water is composed of oxygen. Ergo, adding water to an environment, by definition, adds oxygen to that environment. If Pro's argument is that gaseous oxygen is the problem, then he should have made that argument. I didn't see it.

I just see no reason to buy Pro's arguments here. If he's right, then no fossils exist and his argument is false from the outset. If he's wrong, then Con's right and this point goes to him.

3. Where things are deposited

Despite all the pictures and attempts at explanation, I can't figure out Pro's argument. From what I can tell, he's arguing that all of the various marine life and sediments wouldn't distribute evenly in the waters, would somehow prefer mountaintops as their place to settle out, and would wash out of the valleys in every instance. All of this just confuses the hell out of me. Basic physics would have it that there should be at least an even number of fish corpses on mountains and in valleys, though since the water would be evaporating, it should actually be more concentrated in the valleys since it would become more concentrated as the floods receded. Sure, they'd drag most of the stuff with them out of the valleys, but deposition levels would still be higher in the valleys than on mountaintops. I just can't make heads or tails of this point, and thus Con is more reasonable here.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
4. Dating

I don't think Con spends enough time here to really make this point powerful, though it could easily have been (carbon-14 dating is actually very good within a 10,000 year timespan). Nonetheless, it only serves to protect Pro's arguments from harm, not advance them.

C. Historical proofs

Pro establishes that there are similarities between a lot of stories about world-ending floods across multiple cultures. That is insufficient to prove that this particular flood actually occurred. I think Con's responses that too many of the details differ, that Pro's sources are insufficient to even prove his basic point, and that even it's all similar there's no reason to buy that they provide unequivocal proof of this flood all stand pretty strongly by the end of the debate. The possibility that everyone's telling the same story about perceiving the same thing is not proof of anything, as far as I can tell.

Conclusion

I'm just not getting enough from Pro to believe his arguments constitute reasonable proof. Without a single solid argument to pull through that establishes it, especially on the scientific side, I can only award the debate to Con.
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
That I don't like every source someone uses, does not invalidate the rest. Also I consider pictures to fall into the source category (pretty much as if combined they were a single source, and a single source is never enough to win the point by itself), which were used very effectively.

Granted both S&G and conduct were fine, leaving arguments the only determinant on Choose Winner Voting... Therefore I did not have to look at sources very closely (wasn't doubly checking the biblegateway ones for the right content for example).

Also of small note, I randomly did a few plagiarism checks on both sides in this debate, I identified no copy/paste jobs.
Posted by Envisage 3 years ago
Envisage
I don't disregard creationist websites because they are biased, I disregard them because they don't go through the same quality control as scientific journals go through. Virtually anything written by anyone can end up on there as long as it fits the theme.

That article I called you out on for example, was an absolute joke in terms of the quality/sophistication of research and presentation. This debate itself was orders of magnitude better than that article.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
GOPEnvisage
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by daley 3 years ago
daley
GOPEnvisage
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: It doesn't seem to me that Pro was able to provide enough meaningful similarities between the flood stories to show they described the same event, and he also ignored their differences. Pro also had no way to showing all fossils were from the date of the flood, and denied that fossils form naturally, which they do. While I believe the flood happened, I don't think Pro fulfilled his burden of proof, and am curious why he set up this debate in a way that denied Con the opportunity to add negative evidence against the flood. Valiant effort from Pro tho.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
GOPEnvisage
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Very good setup. Decent job on the math, but it proves nothing (consider how many branches have died off), ended up being poorly defended given that it was not a precise number (the population today, vs the exact number of years since the flood). Sea creatures was a poorly conceived point, even if well executed (con pretty easily refuted it by offering any other answer, and then affirmed why it was more likely). Historical proofs failed to rise to the level of proof; it's like saying "God created man, as evidenced by man being man." However Spiderman may indeed be real by the standard of evidence pro uses (calling it a straw man does not actually make the original evidence rise to the level of proof)... I do prefer the numbering system pro uses for sources, were this not Choose Winner voting I would likely give that to pro given the massive amount of work he put into his case.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
GOPEnvisage
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: *Facepalm* comments