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

The Literal Flood Never Happened

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/27/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 851 times Debate No: 44706
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




I propose that the literal world covering flood as described in the bible never happened. I shall provide geological and mathematical evidence showing that not only did it not happen, but that it could not have happened.
Both Pro and Con have BOP, my bop is to show that the Flood did not / could not happen. Con will have to show that it did / could have happened.

!st round: Acceptance and basic review of stance.
2nd round: Arguments (no rebuttals please.)
3rd round: Rebuttals (no arguments please.)


I accept the debate. I will be arguing in favor of the Genesis account of the Noachide flood that destroyed the entire earth over 4000 years ago. I will be arguing that, not only is it possible, but it is probable.

I look forward to an engaging and thought-provoking debate.
Debate Round No. 1


TheSquirrel forfeited this round.



I thank my opponent for this debate, and am sorry about his missed opportunity for round two. I do wish him the best of luck for the final round, though.

I will be using Answers in Genesis for my sources, because I am arguing for Creationism. I argue that these are valid sources, as they provide honest empirical evidence, or source the empirical evidence, and make interpretations based upon the empirical evidence. This is what separates creationists and evolutionists: the interpretation of empirical evidence.


Noah's Ark Was Mathematically Possible:

Creationists claim that only 16,000 animals were on board the ark, and , giving the size of the ark, this is a mathematical possibility (1).

Geological Evidence of the Flood:

When clams die, their muscles relax, and they open up. During catastrophes, clams do not have time to open up, and so they are destroyed quickly, and remain closed. We find millions of clams all over the world that are still closed shut, showing either many rapid water catastrophes, or one major water catastrophe. (2)

Polystrate fossils are fossils that go through nutlike geological layers. This shows how these layers were formed rapidly, not over large periods of time (3).

Sediments were moved over vast lengths (4). Sediments in Utah were moved from either Pennyslvania or New York. This vast length of sediment travel can easily be explained by a catastrophic flood moving these sediments around. However, other possible explanations are lacking.

We find rapid burials of sea creatures in almost all of the rock layers, specifically layers that are high above sea level (5). This can be explained by a worldwide flood. How could rapid burials be produced non catastrophically on high mountains?


I've provided a few examples as to why the flood is not only possible, but likely. I look forward toy opponent's rebuttals.

(3) ibid
Debate Round No. 2


With due respect, my opponent claims the difference between creationism and evolutionism is the interpretation of evidence, but this is not wholly correct. The difference is science starts with the evidence and forms a hypothesis based on all the available evidence. Creationism starts with the hypothesis (Biblical Creationism) and cherry picks data to back up their hypothesis.
During my arguments, I would have shown how ridiculous the biblical flood narrative is, whatever singular evidence one might suppose supported it. As is, I have only my opponent's arguments to work off of, so here goes.

Mathematical Possibility
In this my opponent claims that only 16,00 animals survived the flood aboard the ark, and that they could easily have fit on that boat. There are problems with this. The boat's measurements put it at a bit over 400 ft long. A well known phenomena of wooden boats is the 300 ft limit. Boats of this length, even with modern boat building techniques and iron banding (something the ark surely wouldn't have) even with these, the boats would leak and pitch and roll like crazy. They were not made in large numbers, and were never taken out very far or for very long. They also had to be equipped with water pumps in order to keep afloat. Simply put, a boat the size of the ark could not have stayed afloat in calm waters, let alone the turbulence of a flood large enough to cover the whole earth.
Then there is the problem with the supposed 16,000 animals, two of each. Two animals is not even remotely enough to repopulate a species. There just is not enough genetic diversity to ensure the animals could reproduce without horrible genetic defects wiping them out. Even more, 16,000 animals is far too few to provide the diversity of species we see today. Evolution just does not work that fast (evolution is an observable, proven fact and any alternatives that I know of at this time are unsupported speculations).(1)(2)

(I should note at this time that Con goofed his linking of sources, as source 2 is the main page of answers and source 3 is... not a link. Still, not hard to follow.)

Con provides a perfectly reasonable answer for his dead clams problem. Many small floods is not inconceivable, and without more supporting evidence, supposing a global flood as the solution is as I pointed out, the problem with Creationism "proving" their theory with singular evidence.

Polystrate fossils. Had a hard time with this one until I learned that this is a phrase made up by Creationists. I am not a geologist, but from what I've seen, it looks like this "problem" was outdated as far back as the 19th century. I shall (for the sake of time, and because this is not my area of expertize) quote directly from one of my sources:

"As for Malone's "problem" with the "thousands of years" for the tree to remain upright for "slow accumulation" to occur, it is a non-problem - he is simply interpolating the average depositional rates for an entire formation down to the scale of metres. This is not the correct way to do it, because individual beds can be deposited rapidly (say, sands and mud during a levee breach), and then little deposition can occur for a long time (e.g., a soil horizon), as is observed in modern river floodplain environments where trees commonly occur. In short, he is assuming conventional geologists would interpret the occurrence the simple way he has interpolated - they do not. "(3)

Due to time constraints and MORE technical issues, I haven't been able to research this sediment issue. Actually never heard of this one, so I give Con props for that one. It is an interesting puzzle that I know nothing about. However, this is again another instance where the Creationist starts with the hypothesis of a global flood, and then without further justification, uses this singular evidence as proof of a global flood. We may not know how it happened (as I've said, not had time to research it), but with all the points above about the mathematical unlikeliness of it, as well as answering Con's other points, this singular instance of "I don't know" hardly grants licence to assume a global flood without other evidence.

The problem of sea fossils on mountain tops is really easy enough. Geologists have long understood the process of mountain creation, and the tops of any mountain was once underwater, long enough to accrue fossils before being forced up by tectonic forces.

Without arguments to rebute, I invite my opponent to examine and question my rebutles. The other choice would be for Con not to post to keep the number of posts even, but why should Con have to suffer for my problems? I look forward to hearing from Con again in round 3.



Pro: The difference is science starts with the evidence and forms a hypothesis based on all the available evidence. Creationism starts with the hypothesis (Biblical Creationism) and cherry picks data to back up their hypothesis.

This is a combination of straw-man and ad hominem. When a person results to this type of statement, it is clear that, not only are they giving an emotional response, but they have no real arguments as they resort to childish conduct.

Evolutionary scientists begin with the presupposition of naturalism and materialism, while Creationism starts with the presupposition of a supernatural God. They both have presuppositions, and to say one does while the other doesn't is either out of ignorance or for a purposely misleading argument.

Mathematical Possibility

Noah's boat was most likely designed with a three-layer barrel style, which would not have succumbed to the leaks and rolls as claimed by my opponent, which can be validated by the model sourced in my opening arguments.

16,000 animals is enough to provide the diversity of species we see today. Remember, the 16000 were land animals only, so they could provide for the diversity of speciation we see in today's land animals. The argument my opponent is using is including all sea animals as well, which is straw-manning my argument. Evolution does work fast, as seen with Darwin's Finches, as it produces new speciation very quickly. The post-flood climate would also be different than it was today, making it more likely that new speciation would happen quite often.

Clams and Polystrate Fossils

(I do apologize for the incorrect page for the link, and the "ibid" is a term meaning "the same as above". Here is the correct link:

My opponent argues that many small floods over periods of time could also explain the dead clams problem. But we're finding these clams everywhere, and as the source claimed, by the billions. Is it more reasonable to make arbitrary assumptions of thousands of flash floods, or of one universal flood that has universally been recorded?

I'm going to have to argue that my opponent's polystrate argument is ridiculous. He first asserts that Creationists made up the term polystrate fossils, which in fact it is actually the Evolutionary geologists that dismiss this obvious argument against them by providing an alternative explanation that is nonsensical. The evolutionists agree that the fossils were formed rapidly, but that many cyces of deposistions with water levels rising above and below the fossilized trees would eventually create more layers over long periods of time. But, why would the fossilized tree remain upright after all of that water pressure? It is nonsensical to assume that it could remain upright, yet the geologists do not wish to concede the obvious answer that the layers of the earth were formed rapidly, because that would prove a worldwide flood.

Sediment Issue

My opponent concedes that he cannot explain this problem, but then asks that this singular issue be dismissed because of his previous arguments. I think my opponent realizes that small local floods could not account for the pressure and distance used to transport these sediments, as only a worldwide flood could explain.


It is likely to believe that the worldwide flood as described by the many cultures around the world did actually happen in the past. It is an arbitrary assumption to argue that there were many small local floods instead.

Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
Not my favorite round ever. Clearly I need to find a way to not do this at work :P
Posted by TheSquirrel 3 years ago
I had some technical problems on my end and was unable to post. Oops.
I apologize to my opponent for this breach of conduct and will graciously accept the loss of conduct during voting. I shall (hopefully) meet my opponent in the final round where I will make my rebuttal without the aid of my arguments :(
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets nod on arguments because 1. Pro did not make an agument in round 2.Polystrate fossils were a good argument for a flood.3. Clams evidence was good. I had not heard that before.