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

The Great Flood Was an Actual Historical Event

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/12/2012 Category: Science
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,655 times Debate No: 27156
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (26)
Votes (3)




Do you mind if we do this resolution instead?

Full Resolution:

The great flood was an actual historical event.

BoP is shared.


The Great Flood: "Noah's flood - (Biblical) the great deluge that is said in the Book of Genesis to have occurred in the time of Noah; it was brought by God upon the earth because of the wickedness of human beings."[1]

Historical Event: "Based on or concerned with events in history."[2]


1. The first round is for acceptance.
2. A forfeit or concession is not allowed.
3. No semantics, trolling, or lawyering.
4. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed from all moments after the debate has been formalized.

Voters, in the case of the breaking of any of these rules by either debater, all seven points in voting should be given to the other person.

Debate Structure:

Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Presenting all arguments (no rebuttals by pro)
Round 3: Refutation of opponent's arguments (A few new arguments may be brought up, but nothing out of the blue)
Round 4: Defending your original arguments and conclusion (no new arguments)


Debate Round No. 1


I would like to thank Muted for accepting this debate.


We will be using the Biblical text's stories, meaning we won't just assume that it was a small flood (i.e. like a hurricane or tsunami or something (no tsunami is 17000 feet high)).

I. Where Did All the Water Come From and Where Did It All Go?

Let's look at the math. As the story goes, God made it rain for 40 days and 40 nights and created a great flood that covered the entire earth. Our tallest mountains are 27,000 feet tall, so if you're going to flood everything, that's 27,000 feet of water. For round numbers, let's just say 24,000 is enough.

If you divide 24,000 feet by 40 days, that's 600 feet of rain a day, over the entire planet. There's 24 hours in a day so that would be 25 feet of rain per hour, or 300 inches per hour, 7200 inches per day, 5 inches of rain a minute. That's a lot of rain.

This is also hundreds of times as much water as what's in the oceans and the atmosphere. Where did all this water come from? Where did all this water go to? It can't evaporate because the air would be totally saturated once just a few feet evaporated. That much water isn't going to sink into the ground; there isn't that much ground. And there's no geological evidence that the entire planet was ever covered with water.[1]

I'm going to assume my opponent uses the Hydroplate Theory, crafted by Walt Brown, which states that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth's crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain. If my opponent would like to propose another theory, I will be glad to accomdate him. Here are some questions I would like for him to answer:
  • How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth's crust, doesn't float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah's time, or Adam's time for that matter.
  • Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
  • Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.[2]
II. The Implications of a Flood

This further dismantles the idea of a Biblical global flood. I will break it down into two subtopics for better organization.

II.i. Population

Even assuming that Noah's Ark was real (which if my opponent brings up, I will be happy to refute), there is still the question of how the population grew from 2 animals per species and 10 humans to its current size today. In addition to this, there is the question of how humans got to the racial diversity we experience today in 5000 years. Noah and his family were all Hebrew. Why are there Africans? Asians? Pacific Islanders? Arabs?

"How did the human population rebound so fast? Genealogies in Genesis put the Tower of Babel about 110 to 150 years after the Flood [Gen 10:25, 11:10-19]. How did the world population regrow so fast to make its construction (and the city around it) possible? Similarly, there would have been very few people around to build Stonehenge and the Pyramids, rebuild the Sumerian and Indus Valley civilizations, populate the Americas, etc."

How did people get to America? The land bridge was cut off. How about the islands?

"After the floodwaters subsided, the animals would have had severe trouble finding fresh water and would have died of dehydration. The flood would have salinated the soil, so all water runoff would have had high concentrations of salt. Most animals, unless they are specially adapted, cannot and will not drink salt water.[3]

The survivors of the ark would also have faced extreme difficulties breeding. The flood would have destroyed the structures necessary for reproduction. Avian species like the eagle require high trees to make their nests in. These would not exist for many years after the flood, by which time the reproductive fitness of the birds would have deteriorated, leading to the extinction of that kind.[4][5]

How did living things overcome all this?

II.ii. Geology

"How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]"[2]

In addition, "The global flood, had it occurred, would have destroyed many geological formations. If you look at pictures of the ocean floor, you will notice there are very few rocks piled up in columns. A study done by several creation "scientists" puts the ocean speed at varying between 40 and 80 meters a second. Rock pillars are unable to survive currents this fast. Even oceanic currents of normal speeds would have destroyed some of the more fragile specimens that are in existence today."[6][5]

There would be sizable evidence in the geologic record, but there isn't.

The global flood, as told in the Bible, never happened.


[4]: See the Wikipedia article on eagles



As per the rules, I will not first refute your arguments, instead I will focus on presenting my own arguments.

I. Paleontology
The world of paleontology is rife with vivid examples of the Biblical Flood (Hereafter, BF, not boyfriend, by the way)

A. The Opisthotonic pose
In [1], the authors conclude that this could not be the result of postmortem water transport because they did experiments on quail. "It is not postmortem contraction but perimortem muscle spasms resulting from various afflictions of the central nervous system that cause these extreme postures. That is, the opisthotonic posture is the result of "death throes," not postmortem processes, and individuals so afflicted assumed the posture before death, not afterward. The clinical literature has long recognized that such afflicted individuals perish from asphyxiation, lack of nourishment or essential nutrients, environmental toxins, or viral infections, among other causes."
This year, scientists did an experiment similar to the above by placing chicken in cool fresh water and the chickens exhibited the pose [2]. There is contradiction between the two studies, but salt may have played a role.

Furthermore, water sediment from flooding conditions is almost always found with the fossil [3]. The fossils also reveal violent transportation in the form of broken bones and torn ligaments [4]

B. Soft-Bodied fossils
Soft bodied fossils would indicate fast rapid burial, because otherwise the bodies would decay away. The appearance of jellyfish fossilization [5] was rather a surprise given that Darwin predicted that it would not have formed. Furthermore, the ripples beside the fossils (See pictures in article) show clearly that they jellyfish were covered with water at the time that sediments covered the bodies.

C. Marine fossils at high elevation and deserts
Whale fossils have been found [6] [7] in Chile"s "Atacama Desert, the driest in the world..."[6] "The team has found more than 20 complete whale skeletons, and about 80 individual specimens, as well as other types of marine mammals" [7] It is simply impossible to interpret this as other than through BF.
There is also the existence of marine fossils at high elevations such as on Mt. Everest. [8] The fossil bearing rocks stretch the entire mountain. There is the interpretation that the fossils were placed before the mountains start rising, and there is the interpretation that it was placed after the rise of Mt. Everest. Either way, it is proof of the Flood.

I believe I have made my point on paleontology. Now I will go to legends and myths.

II. Flood Legends
The puzzling existence of catastrophic flood legends around the world in diverse people groups provides proof of a world-wide flood. There is no logical way these legends can be interpreted as due to local catastrophes. They are all very similar to, but garbled as compared with, the deluge account as found in the Bible. Just for one example, see the Gilgamesh epic, from which Moses did not copy, by the way. [10]

All these is vast evidence for a Global Biblical Deluge.

Although I have space to refute your arguments, I will not do so here as per the rules. I will note, however, that your opening arguments is rife with errors from any perspective. Such as the error of 10 people. If you can"t be accurate in small things, how am I to know if you"re going to be accurate on the BIG arguments?

(3 and 4 from
Debate Round No. 2


I would like to thank Muted for presenting his arguments.

I. Paleontology

I.A. The Opisthotonic Pose

My opponent starts with two contradicting studies. He does not prove anything.

I ask him to clarify his argument here. He doesn't make much sense here. I will refute my opponent's new argument here in R4.

I.B. Soft-Bodied Fossils

My opponent makes another unconvincing argument. Aren't jellyfish supposed to be covered in water? And is there proof that it was the flood?

Even so:

Where were all the fossilized animals when they were alive? Schadewald [1982] writes:

"Scientific creationists interpret the fossils found in the earth's rocks as the remains of animals that perished in the Noachian Deluge. Ironically, they often cite the sheer number of fossils in 'fossil graveyards' as evidence for the Flood. In particular, creationists seem enamored by the Karroo Formation in Africa, which is estimated to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animals. As pseudoscientists, creationists dare not test this major hypothesis that all of the fossilized animals died in the Flood.

"Robert E. Sloan, a paleontologist at the University of Minnesota, has studied the Karroo Formation. He asserts that the animals fossilized there range from the size of a small lizard to the size of a cow, with the average animal perhaps the size of a fox. A minute's work with a calculator shows that, if the 800 billion animals in the Karoo formation could be resurrected, there would be twenty-one of them for every acre of land on earth. Suppose we assume (conservatively, I think) that the Karroo Formation contains 1 percent of the vertebrate [land] fossils on earth. Then when the Flood began, there must have been at least 2100 living animals per acre, ranging from tiny shrews to immense dinosaurs. To a noncreationist mind, that seems a bit crowded."

A thousand kilometers' length of arctic coastal plain, according to experts in Leningrad, contains about 500,000 tons of tusks. Even assuming that the entire population was preserved, you seem to be saying that Russia had wall-to-wall mammoths before this "event."

Even if there was room physically for all the large animals which now exist only as fossils, how could they have all coexisted in a stable ecology before the Flood? Montana alone would have had to support a diversity of herbivores orders of magnitude larger than anything now observed.

Where did all the organic material in the fossil record come from? There are 1.16 x 1013 metric tons of coal reserves, and at least 100 times that much unrecoverable organic matter in sediments. A typical forest, even if it covered the entire earth, would supply only 1.9 x 1013 metric tons.

How do you explain the relative commonness of aquatic fossils? A flood would have washed over everything equally, so terrestrial organisms should be roughly as abundant as aquatic ones (or more abundant, since Creationists hypothesize greater land area before the Flood) in the fossil record. Yet shallow marine environments account for by far the most fossils."[1][2][3]

Also, as a note to my opponent, please provide accessible stories (i.e. sources I don't have to buy and post direct quotes from them too).

I.C. Marine Fossils at High Elevations and Deserts

Regarding the Atacama fossils:

One, "Pyenson said the spot was once a "lagoon-like environment" and that the whales probably died between two million and seven million years ago.

Experts said it will be hard to distinguish dates precisely enough to determine whether the whales all died simultaneously.

He said it's possible "these fossilized remains may have accumulated over a relatively long period of time"."[4] This was before the flood.

Two, Hans Thewissen, an expert on early whales, said another scenario is that the whales might have gathered in a lagoon and then an earthquake or storm could have closed off the outlet to the ocean.
"Subsequently the lagoon dries up and the whales die," said Thewissen, a professor of anatomy at Northeast Ohio Medical University."[4] Not the result of a flood.

Finally, "'On the other hand, if a giant wave or storm flung the whales onto shore, it would also have pushed the ocean floor around, and you would see scour marks in the rocks.'"[4] No evidence here.

As for the Everest fossils:

"The top of Mount Everest is composed of fossil-bearing marine limestone (Mount Qomolangma Formation, the ancient seafloor of the Paleozoic Tethys Ocean) that is believed to be lower to middle Ordovician in age."[5]

"The Ordovician is a geologic period and system, the second of six of the Paleozoic Era, and covers the time between 485.4 " 1.9 to 443.4 " 1.5 million years ago."[6][8]

That was way before the flood. Why are marine fossils there then? Because Everest was once under the sea.

II. Flood Legends

"Was Noah's Flood just a re-telling of the Gilgamesh Epic? This Babylonian story contains many of the same elements of Noah's story (A giant flood, a single man singled out by the gods to saved from the flood, a giant boat, saving his family and animals by riding out the flood on the boat, boat resting on a mountain side, and releasing a dove. The Gilgamesh Epic dates to 2000 B.C., several hundred years before Noah's Flood supposedly took place according to the Bible."[7]

Also, "Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time? Biblical dates (I Kings 6:1, Gal 3:17, various generation lengths given in Genesis) place the Flood 1300 years before Solomon began the first temple. We can construct reliable chronologies for near Eastern history, particularly for Egypt, from many kinds of records from the literate cultures in the near East. These records are independent of, but supported by, dating methods such as dendrochronology and carbon-14. The building of the first temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +/- some small delta, placing the Flood around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid, for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this global flood around 2250 B.C."[1]

Speaking of the Egyptians, that raises a great point: The Great Pyramid of Cheops was built about 2589-2566 BC, about 230 years before the flood, yet it has no water marks on it. The Djoser Step Pyramid at Saqqara, Egypt, built about 2630 BC doesn't show any signs of having been under water. Likewise for many other ancient structures.[7] Why is that?


My opponent doesn't seem to realize that the flood, according to the Bible, was around 2250 BC, so fossils from millions of years ago are irrelevant. The flood was around 4360 years ago, meaning fossils can't be used from before that.[9]

I look forward to my opponent's expansion and argument A.I. and his refutations to my arguments.


[2]: Whitcomb, J.C. Jr. & H.M. Morris, 1961. The Genesis Flood. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia PA.
[3]: Ricklefs, Robert, 1993. The Economy of Nature, W. H. Freeman, New York.
[6]: Gradstein, Felix M.; Ogg, J. G.; Smith, A. G. (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press


I will not defend my arguments for now. I will note, however, that in this format it is hard to reply to everything. Nonetheless, I will try. I will refute the arguments given in the opening round and if I have no space to defend my arguments, I will do so in the next round.

I. Water
Firstly, this makes a very basic and very erroneous assumption that the highest point at the time is 24,000 feet. This fails in the face of even the simplest of plate tectonics argument. Just to give some simple idea of it, I will include a link:
There is vast evidence to suggest that the mountains in the past were not as high, and that the ocean valleys were not as low. There is also indication that it is not always a given that those dates given in the link are correct. Firstly, radiometric dating on many areas have not been performed, so there is only one form of dating which assumes a non-catastrophic past. This has been challenged many times by the data, and is acceptable to advocate catastrophe when the "normal dates" don"t fit. So it is clear from all of these that your objection needs to be rewritten. I don"t think I need 8k char. to refute all of the opening.
Let us suppose the unrealistic assumption that the earth"s surface was completely flat in the past (Do NOT confuse this with a flat earth). Considering the ~70% of water covering the earth"s surface now, the water would actually rise by ~3km above the surface.

II. Population
Con has made another basic error in that he assumes that Noah was a Hebrew. He also makes another error in regards to the number of animals and humans. How am I to know if he can properly present his case in the light of theses? But wait, there is another point to consider. Evolution has the same problem! Tu quoque! Thus, I can dismiss all of this portion of the argument since if you address it from that view, I can just as easily adapt it to fit my view. (And yes, this is a red herring of sorts because I"m forcing you to provide an explanation which will subsequently validate my position)
I will not address the "problem" regarding repopulation. This is in the face of current "overpopulation" argument. It is a well known fact that the world population in 17-18th hundreds were much, much, much.....smaller. (Do I have to cite this?!)

Saltwater! Now that is an argument for a young earth. [1]. The current statistics show that about 1% of the weight of seawater is dissolved Sodium ions (Na+). This is equivalent to 1.47 x 10^16 tonnes of Na. The current input/output of Na+ puts the upper limit of the age of the oceans at >62mya (with very generous assumptions of lowest possible input, highest possible output). (Note that radiometric dating is impossible)
Now, I happen to see that the matter of freshwater is also a problem for BF opponents! Why? Well, it is a simple problem of where did the freshwater come from? Did the simplest of life not require freshwater? Why did they evolve to drink less abundant fresh-water?

Breeding. I will specifically address the "problem" of avians. This problem assumes that animals cannot breed in unusual circumstances. What? What about all the eagles bred in captivity? [2] There were no "tall trees," so what happens to your objection now?

III. Geology
I will only reply to arguments that are expanded. Your argument relating to ice cores and BF expectations, Sea floors, and tree-ring dating, are all examples of what skeptics like to call "Gish gallops." I will reply if you expand on them. A series of questions are not arguments.
Your argument about erosion is should be part of the previous list, but I have decided to respond to it since it is tied to the last point, which is the ONLY point that is worth considering because it has more information. But first, I will respond a little about polar ice caps. Polar ice caps actually are more examples of Tu quoque. Can you please stop doing that? It is very irritating when objections apply to both sides but only one side is pinned.

You have quoted the word "scientist" after creation. This is a basic example of attack on credibility. Furthermore, it is a strawman, creationists do not say that these pillars were around BEFORE the flood, but that it was formed by erosion cause BY the flood. Note that radiometric dating cannot be used to test WHEN the pillars formed. It is a geologically accepted fact that these are caused by erosion. (Do I have to cite this either?!?!)

Now that I have responded to your first round, I will defend my arguments, although I have very little space. Note that you are not providing an argument in either round. You are simply asking leading questions and hoping that I fall on some. I can answer all these questions, but the whole purpose of a debate is not to ask questions. It is to present one"s own case. I therefore would like to request the voters to demerit a conduct point from you.

Ia. The Opisthotonic Pose
I do not know how my argument does not make sense. The whole point of the argument is fossilization in fast moving liquid. With that in mind, please re-read my arguments. I doubt the need of expansion on this. It is not the contradiction of the studies, which is only minor, but the main corroborations. These include watery deaths, fast transport, and flood-condition sediments.

Ib. Soft-bodied fossils
Con claims that this is "unconvincing..." He also claims "Aren"t jellyfish supposed to be covered in water?" I am seriously confused by this statement. Either he did not read my arguments, which I doubt, or he did not understand me. As I have not the space, I will not refute your quote. It is also not the point of my argument. Rather, it is a red herring and a straw man. So now, quoting myself, "Soft bodied fossils would indicate fast rapid burial, because otherwise the bodies would decay away..." I don"t know how this could not have been any clearer. This is also the main point of my argument and one which Con absolutely ignored. I will thus ignore his quote.

I will let go of the whale arguments and the legends because I have no space. I will note, however, that Con has totally misconstrued my statements (on both counts). Unfortunately so.
It is unfortunate as well that I have to drop it instead of pointing that out. Dropped because they wouldn"t prove my arguments,and would merely gain me votes.

Everest fossils: Con has provided the answer for me. Everest was once under the sea! This is absolutely tied to my refutation of him using plate tectonics. Like I said, radiometric dating cannot be used to date the rocks to the time under the sea, only to the time of formation. Furthermore, there is the ever problem of contamination [3]

Now that I"m almost out of space, I would like to comment on a few things.
1. Con consistently asks questions instead of making an expanded argument. Such behaviour would work well in the forums, but not in a formal debate. This is because, as is evident from this reply, the space required to answer the questions is much more than that to ask. Simply asking many questions and hoping I don"t answer some of them for space reasons is not a very good debating tactic. It might work against a noob, though.
2. Con sources AiG"s timeline of the flood, but states in that very sentence that "The flood was around 4360 years ago, meaning fossils can't be used from before that[9]" This is intellectually irresponsible.
3. My sources need to be open source. No they do not need to be. This is because I am merely using them for data. If you want to debate the data, it"s all on the table. Quoting from a study does not disprove me at all.

That being said, I eagerly await for Con to refute me. Conclusively. Only wanting him to note that he should expand on his questions, which I find most problematic. Please present arguments, not questionnaires.

3. debate with Roy...
Debate Round No. 3


I would like to thank Muted for this debate.

I will first attack my opponent's second comment near the end of his R3 argument, because that is going to be extremely relevant later in this debate.

I. When Was Noah's Flood in the Bible?

I will post a quick proof that the Bible says the flood occured at around 2250 BC.

Obviously, Jesus was born around 0 BC, meaning that there have been 2012 years since the birth of Christ.

Now on to the years before that. The time between Jesus and Abraham, as stated in Luke, is around 2000 years. The time between Abraham and the first year of Adam, is stated in Genesis 5, and is also around 2000 years.[1] But what about the six creation days? "Lexicographers consistently cite the enumerated days of Genesis 1:1-31 as examples of a solar day."[2][3]

So, adding those dates, the world is around 6000 years old, and adding the amount of time between Adam and Noah, we get the date of 2250 BC.[4]

Therefore, my opponent cannot use fossils from before that time.

Now on to his actual arguments.

II. Water

My opponent isn't making much sense with "plate tectonics" here.

The Bible says: And the waters prevailed so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered. - Genesis 7:19

The highest mountain on Earth is Mount Everest - and it is 29,035 feet tall. That is the minimum amount of water.

My opponent claims that the mountains were not as high back then, however, they grow at a very slow rate. However, "The Himalayan Mountains are still growing higher, at a rate of about 2.4 in/6.1cm per year."[5] That works out to be around 800 feet since the time of Noah's Flood, making the amount of the Earth covered by water still 28235 feet - a rather insignificant difference.

My opponent does not make a conclusive point here. Finally, "How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth's crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models."[6]

To close this point and to put it into perspective for readers:

How much water would it take?
The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometers

of a sphere
= 4/3 r3 where

Radius of Earth = 6,378.15 Kilometers

Height of Mt. Everest = 8.85 Kilometers

The volume of water needed to cover Earth to the height of Mt. Everest is
approximately the difference in volume of a sphere needed to encompass Mt.
Everest and the volume of a sphere the size of the Earth.

Volume of a sphere encompassing the Earth at sea level

= 4/3 (6,378.15 KM)3 =
1,086,825,918,019 KM3
Volume of a sphere encompassing Mt. Everest

= 4/3 (6,378.15 + 8.85 KM)3
= 1,091,388,460,971 KM3

The Difference = 4,530,488,766 KM3

Notice that this is more than 3 TIMES the amount of water presently on


Notice the number - 3 times the amount of water presently on Earth. For those keeping score, that around 8700 feet of water per hour. I suppose that all just came out of thin air?

III. Population

"Creationists would have us believe that eight white people that existed after the Flood, somehow changed into different racial types almost instantaneously. Why is it that this type of drastic evolutionary change has never occurred since? If we can believe that such a racial transformation occurred, then there should be no reason not to believe any manner of evolution occurring over tens of millions of years, for the latter is more believable than the former."[8]

How could the amount of racial diversity that we have today possibly happen?

Think about it. How do we have American Indians? Hispanics? Pacific Islanders? These places would have been inaccessible to the survivors, even if they were of those particular races.

The Bible says: the ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat. - Genesis 8:4. Therefore, there was no way they could have produced populations in those areas.

I shouldn't have to explain that eight Jews (my opponent fails to make a convincing argument here) could have created the racial diversity we eperience today. "It cannot be supported by any rational or biblical means that all races were formed thereafter."[8]

Also, my opponent has failed to respond to my population argument. I extend my previous quote on the subject.

As for water and fish: "In order not to kill the fish of the sea, one needs to preserve more-or-less the same level of water salinity. 4.5 billion cubic km of new water mean roughly 150 million of billions of tons of salt, which are more than 100 million cubic km of salt, in its common shape. This is enough to cover the whole area of the USA with 6.2 miles of salt.
Furthermore, salty sea water would kill all the fresh water fish, from lakes and rivers which would be covered by that flood."[9]

My opponent again makes a rather irrelevant and unconvincing argument here. Salt-water fish need salt-water, fresh-water fish need fresh-water, and the various kinds of brackish fish need varying kinds of brackish water. With the sea all swirled around, the level of salt would have been virtually the same at each point by the end of the flood, wiping out all but one type of fish.

My opponent tries to use evolution as an argument to prove his case, but the mechanisms of evolution are too slow to work over a period of hours or even a few millennia (meaning they could not exist today).

Finally, my opponent addresses my breeding argument by basically just dropping it.

IV. Geology

"Had the waters once risen, even for a day, so high as to reach the level of the base of one of these cones-had there been a single flood fifty or sixty feet in height since the last eruption occurred- a great part of the volcanoes must have inevitably been swept away."[10] <---- My opponent has not responded to geological formations surviving the flood.

"Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions."[11] <---- My opponent has not responded to ice core arguments.

"If all sediments were deposited by a single worldwide flood, there would be but one thick sedimentary layer, not dozens or hundreds as we find throughout the earth. Any flood examined today may lay down a sedimentary deposit, even one containing different debris, but never multiple layers unless another flood occurs afterwards."[8] <---- My opponent has not responded to sediment arguments.

V. Rebuttals

As for the opisthotonic pose: "Some animals found in this posture may have suffocated in ash during a volcanic eruption, consistent with the fact that many fossils are found in ash deposits, Faux and Padian said. But many other possibilities exist, including disease, brain trauma, severe bleeding, thiamine deficiency or poisoning. "[12] (Read source for more info)

As for the soft-bodied fossils: I invite readers to look at source 13 for more.

As for the Mt. Everest fossils: My opponent doesn't refute anything here. Mt. Everest has not gone from the bottom of the sea to where it is now in 4300 years. I won't counter the date problem due to space, but readers, read Roy's arguments...


[3]: ibid
[4]: AiG article mentioned earlier


I would like to thank Ron-Paul for this interesting debate. However, there are several flaws in his arguments that will collapse it. These flaws come from both logical and factual flaws.
I do not dispute Con’s points about the date of the Flood.

Amount of water:
I dispute, however, his calculations about the amount of water. This is simply because of the well known phenomena of catastrophic events increasing the rate of change (On which my sources touched upon. It seems that Con has ignored this). In this case, Con’s argument is factually flawed. This means that Con has not factored into account the catastrophic effects of a global flood before refuting it. This also means that Con’s argument is logically flawed.
In conclusion, Con’s argument is both factually and logically flawed. Thus I need not reply to his rhetorical question.

Human Race:
My opponent’s argument here hinges on the assumption that Noah was a Jew. I have shown this assumption false very clearly. He is merely repeating a defeated argument. Thus this argument is logically invalid. It is also factually flawed. Why? As my opponent has brought in some new information in the last round, I feel it morally justified to bring in information of my own.

The whole idea of human race is biologically unsound. To quote from [1],
“Any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants.”
“...the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese.”
“...Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans. The remaining variation, about 6% to 10% of the total human variation is between the classically defined geographical races that we think of in an everyday sense as identified by skin color, hair form, and nose shape. This imprecision in assigning the proportion of variation assigned to differences among population within ”races” as compared to variation among “races,” arises precisely because there is no objective way to assign the various human populations to clear-cut races...” (Emphasis all mine)
It can be clearly seen from these quotes alone, not even by reading the article, which all should do, that the idea of race is unsound.
Con considers that human of the past are incapable of travel. This is simply not true. All of Con’s argument relating to this crumbles in the face of the vast evidence I have presented.

Saltwater fish: Con’s arguments rely on the reader not being aware of outside facts. This argument basically ignores the fact that large aquariums have freshwater and saltwater fishes living in the same tank. It is one of their major attractions. Thus this argument is factually flawed.

I will not address the issue of evolution being too slow.

Why did I not reply to many of Con’s arguments? There is one simple answer to this. Con did not make an argument more than formulate a skeptical questionnaire. I do not respond to such types of non-arguments.

Geology: My opponent has committed the grave offence of ignoring the argument. Quite simply, I have already explained this phenomenon in detail. So much so that I ran out of space. It is bad debating to ignore an argument. After all, debating is all about responding to an argument.

Rebuttals that make no sense: Con’s rebuttals relies on quotations from wordpress blogs. This means that he is not quoting from the scientists themselves. Basically, he relies on a source which quotes Faux, not Faux’s own words. Furthermore, Con has once again ignored the evidence I presented, preferring that readers ignore it with him. I will not cite the vast evidence for my case again.

Con has basically used a source ([13]) as his argument. If he wants to make an argument, he’d better write it out.

Mt. Everest fossils: Like Con said, read my debate with Roy. Along with the comments.

In Conclusion: Con has made the following errors:
1. Con has ignored the argument.
2. Con has made both factual and logical errors.
3. Con has used a source as an argument.
4. Con uses blog news as sources. This means that his sources is unreliable and should be discarded despite being more numerous.

With all of these conduct violations, I would strongly urge the voters to be cautious in their voting. I will most certainly be heavily criticising any RFD that is insufficient.


Debate Round No. 4
26 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
Let us look at the percentage points for the ruled out sources. (22-7)/22*100 = 68 2/11% difference in the number of ruled out sources.
What about those kept? 7-6/7*100 = 14 2/7%
What about the last remainders? 7/0*100 = cannot compute.

(I did not include university pages in my 7. I included them into your 6. This already gives you an unfair advantage which I still overcame)
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
You advanced 13 as an argument. You did not make an argument from its contents. As StephanHawkins showed me, doing that is not debating. I recognize that you may have not have had much time, but considering you ran me out of space...
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
"Prove your sources are of the same or better quality as mine"
Very well.
Yours: A "Darwin Church" website, Talkorigins, Office Naval Research, WIKIPEDIA (?!?!), rationalwiki, ICR.
Mine: Paleobiology, Newscientist, Jstor, creation, Geo BUCHAREST UNIVERSITY, Geology, Nature (blog), Sciencemag news, Montana edu, creation, creation.

Yours: Talkorigins, internal talkorigins references, dailymail, montana edu, internal sources cited as own source, epicidiot, wikipedia, AiG
Mine: Berkeley, debate with Roy, Elibrary Wilson paper, tccsa,

Yours: apologeticspress, executableoutlines, AIG, extremescience, geocities, epicidiot, orange-street-church, thetruthiswrong, talkatheism, talkorigins, s8int, nsce
mine: Lewontin article in raceandgenomics

I will show that my sources are better quality here. You have 28 sources. I have 14 sources.

Out of your 28, at least 20 are either creationist, a non Journal blog, or by a non-scientist.

Out of my 14, 5 are creationist, or

This means that you have only 8 reliable sources, if you rule out creationist sources, compared to my 9.

Let us look at the quality of the remainder of sources. Your internal sources as well as my internal sources must be discarded. However, I mentioned in the debate that mine were internal sources, while you did not yours. So sources points should go to me already.
Removing those sources will give you 6 and me 7.

Out of these, yours are from non-peer reviewed sources, while mine are from reputable journals and highly esteemed scholars such as Lewontin, no creationist, he. This is not to include the shared University pages.

If we narrow down further to look at purely scientific sources, considering them to be science journal articles.

You have none! SHOCKER!!!

I win sources based purely on this. Mine is 100% more reliable than yours!
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
You attacked my source. It is only natural for me to try and counter your claim. Why should I withdraw my quotes? I advanced source 13 within the debate.
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
That's interesting. By saying it was not a scientific source, I was talking about your 13, which you delight in quoting. Before I pointed that out. That. Is. making arguments in the comments section. Should you withdraw your quotes, I might reconsider.
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
Ok. You know have the BoP. Prove your sources are of the same or better quality as mine.
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
That's fascinating. Especially when the people who write creationist journals are of the same or better quality as those you cite but are disallowed from being cited. Fascinating. Just. Fascinating!
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago
"@Ron-Paul, that is not a scientific source." There.
Posted by Muted 5 years ago
Exactly where?
Posted by Ron-Paul 5 years ago

You're the one bringing information from outside the debate into the comments section. You're the one who brought it up.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years 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: Con dropped many arguments. Con used calculations for the mountians but pro pointed out ""There is vast evidence to suggest that the mountains in the past were not as high, and that the ocean valleys were not as low." Con did not reply. Con ignored catastrophic and mostly ignored pros geologic rebuttal. Con attempted to reaffirm his calculations under the catastrophic tectonics but failed to reply to pros radiometric dating point there. Pro noted soft fossils like jellyfish do not fossilize. Con says they do as they are underwater. Pro showed they need to be covered in sediment--and fast. Most soft bodies creatures wouldn't do this. (Get buried in sediment fast). Con failed to respond to this. Although science is on cons side, the evidence presented in the debate goes towards pro.
Vote Placed by ObiWan 5 years 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: The main two issues that con raised concerning the existence of the flood, the vast amount of water that would be required and the fact that life on earth (especially humans) could not be as diverse as it is now had it been wiped out in the flood. While at times Pro was correct in criticising Cone debating tactics, he at times simply said that Con was wrong without illustrating why. Lastly there is the issue of BoP. Extraordinary Claims (such as the great flood) require extraordinary evidence and the evidence that Pro provided was to easily refuted by con to be considered extraordinary.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 5 years 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: There is a problem in arguing against claims like the Great Flood that reject virtually all of known science. Pro denies everything, making utterly preposterous claims like mountains rising and falling miles in a few weeks. Con wins the debate by virtue of making arguments that Pro could not answer: the population growth argument, racial diversity and distribution, fossils in limestone, ice cores, the distribution of sediments are a few. Every place has occasional "great floods" that are the likely origins of myths.