The Instigator
jmlandf
Pro (for)
Losing
62 Points
The Contender
TheSkeptic
Con (against)
Winning
82 Points

The literal interpretation of the flood,as reported in the Christian NIV bible, could have happened.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+9
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2008 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,049 times Debate No: 5156
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (24)

 

jmlandf

Pro

Being Pro, I believe that Noah's Ark did happen as biblical literalists claim to be.

My only requests for this debate is that my opponent prove to me the following:

(A) A worldwide flood did Not ever happened.
(B) Noah and his family did NOT create an Ark filled with animals and survive such a massive disaster.

Remember, everything must be proven scientifically without having at any time resorting to the tired "God did it".

Please make your arguments clear and orderly, and let's have fun debating :D
TheSkeptic

Con

First off, I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me to this debate. I tried to start one off before, but as anyone who saw knows, it wasn't a debate at all. Hopefully with this new one, we will have ourselves an exciting debate ;D.

Being Con, I contend that a worldwide flood did NOT happen, and no such thing as the Ark (as is noted in the Bible) ever was built and had survived the ocean's waves as biblical literalists claim to be. This account in Genesis may have very well been an allegorical version of a much smaller flood, but that is not the debate at hand.

I won't put too much, since there's just TONS of evidence to the contrary. I will just list the most significant ones in my opinion.

(A) In the bible, it says God flooded the earth to the highest of the mountains. Scientifically speaking, such a flood would be impossible. It would take more than five times the amount of water in the oceans and atmosphere to submerge the earth up to its mountaintops. And if that amount of water entered the atmosphere, the resulting pressure would crush people's lungs.

http://www.howstuffworks.com...

(B) Genesis says that God instructed Noah to build an ark 300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide and 30 cubits tall. That translates to just under an acre in square footage (4046 square meters), as described in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Noah would have constructed the ark from wood, but the specific type is debatable since different translations specify different types. Whatever the case, it would have been huge. Because of the size and the technology -- or lack thereof -- at the time, wood experts don't think the literal ark could have withstood sailing

http://history.howstuffworks.com...

Also, even if the Ark was made, how could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?

After a flood, how could many species survive with precious habitat destroyed?

What about short living animals, like the adult mayflies. They would've died on the Ark in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.

These are only but a few of the many contrary evidence against flood geology.
Debate Round No. 1
jmlandf

Pro

Opening Argument
Imagine its the year 400 A.D. and I tell you in the future one day, I will be able to get from Jerusalem to Athens in only a few hours with a special vehicle that flys. I will be able to talk to you while I'm on the opposite end of the Earth. Imagine I will be able to use a machine to record all sight and sound which I will then play back anytime I like! I doubt your mind would accept such a notion in 400 A.D. Now of course the opposite is true; I am asking you to fathom an awesome past event. My debate is simply to say that it COULD have happened, though I believe it did happen. I won't ask you to stretch your understanding that far but rather just that it MIGHT have. There is evidence to suggest that it did happen and there is such that suggest it did not. My debate is to lend credit that it could have happened.
CONS

(A) Con says it was flooded to the highest mountain and we need 5 times as much water.

I Negate/Pros Rebuttal. Scientifically speaking the Earth can not have a global flood now. Scientifically speaking the current condition and that of the Earth 6500 years ago could have been entirely different. You can't use the current condition of the Earth to argue against a past happening. If the world was smoother back then and there was more underground water table then you would only need the amount we have now, not 5 times, to flood the Earth. The Bible suggest the water came from under the ground (Genesis 7:11 on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth) It would not be unlikely that there was much more water under the ground than currently. The receding water would create enormous pressure (not atmospheric) which would in fact raise the mountains that we know today. Further your argument simply lends credit to a biblical literalist in that it fails to address the condition of the Earth prior to the flood and you have done nothing except support a world wide flood would be impossible now. This lends credit because a Bible literalist believes that God promised to never flood the Earth and that he has set boundaries the water can not pass. Psalms104:6-9 Thus evidence that a world wide flood can not happen now is simply a testament to the bible literalist. Scientifically speaking no one knows what the geography of the Earth was like prior to 4500 BC, its just speculation.

CONS (B) Con says the boat could not sail and technology may have not been available

I Negate/Pros Rebuttal. There is no indication in the account that the boat sailed, most Biblical Literalist believe it was anchored and likely built high up on a mountain. Much technology has been lost from past civilizations, it would not be difficult to imagine some sophisticated technology we don't know about. Technology has repeatedly been lost through wars, disease, natural events and time when studying past cultures. From a bible literalist view people lived 500 plus years and would certainly create technology faster than now in addition to likely being more intelligent as poor genetic mutations have not began to harm our species to the extent they have today. Of course that can all be argued separately. In summary this argument is pure speculation, not scientific. No one knows for certain the amount of technology available to an individual 6500 years ago. If we look at the Maya civilization they had extensive knowledge of architecture, mathematics, astronomy. They could calculate the solar year with much greater accuracy than the Georgian Calendar used in Europe thousands of years later. The maya civilization was mostly lost prior to the Spanish coming. This lends credit that Noah may have had extensive knowledge not known to us and if he had certainly a large flood would destroy any evidence of that technology.

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

PROS circumstantial evidence supporting a flood; I won't put too much, since there's just TONS of evidence to support it. I will just list the most significant ones in my opinion.

A)World -Wide flood accounts
There are numerous stories (over 200) of a worldwide flood found in many different cultures and countries. The account of the flood is told by the Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, Mexicans, Hawaiians, and numerous other countries. Although these stories are not the exact same as found in the Bible, the basic story is the same. Although it is impossible that all the differing accounts are true, they all do have core events that point to a historical basis. Along with the numerous stories of a worldwide flood are the historical documents that have been discovered by archaeology. Ancient clay tablets speak about a flood so large that it covered the entire earth, with 28 talking about an ark; 30 that mention a Deity; 30 tablets that speak about a large ship that came to rest upon a mountain top; and other tablets that mention how birds were used to test if the waters were receding. If nothing else, all the different accounts of a worldwide flood shows that there was a common origin they came from.

B)Mass Extinction
Scientifically speaking we know that there have been mass extinctions of animals in the past. There are large amounts of fossilized animal bones found in sedimentary. Scientifically speaking no one knows how the mass extinctions were caused. The flood is certainly a legitimate explanation when we look at other explanations. The most plausible theories include a global catastrophe. There isn't a much better explanation for the mass death and fossilization of animals contained with in sedimentary rocks than a massive global flood.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu...

C)Huge Oil, Natural Gas, Coal deposits
If a global flood occurred we would expect to see massive amounts of oil, natural gas, and coal deposits formed with dead carbon based life forms (plant and animal) under enormous pressure.

D)Mid-Ocean Ridges
Enormous Ocean Ridges evidence massive earthquakes and tectonic movement which could have been an avenue for the "springs from the great deep" to flood the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
TheSkeptic

Con

Contention to Opening Argument:

All my opponent has said in his opening argument is that there could be a possibility. He says if he told me about cellphones or planes when i was in the 400 A.D., it would all sound bizarre and outlandish to me. Indeed it would. However, if he in detail describes how they would work, then it would be much more reasonable to think of such technologies when we were in the 400 A.D. (though you'd have to be way ahead of your time). For us now, it's easier since we can look back into history. The idea if a worldwide flood is ridiculous since if it did happened, then so many things we see today would not be as they are.

(A) My opponent argues that we do not know if Earth's condition 6500 years ago was much different, smoother, etc. He says it is then possible to think that a worldwide flood is possible. However, there are many things from now on which we can determine the Earth was pretty much the same. At least 6500 years ago.Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time.

"The Bible suggest the water came from under the ground (Genesis 7:11 on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth) It would not be unlikely that there was much more water under the ground than currently."

This is Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. Walt Brown's model proposes 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.

Let's say the water was only a mile deep. The earth is boiling hot and the water would've been poaching, especially when shot up and coming down with tons of energy. Noah would've been barbecued.

How would the water have been contained under the earth's crust? Rock that makes up the earth's crust doesn't float, so it would've come out long before Noah came skipping along.

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.

(B) First I want everyone to note that my opponent has failed to address the last 3 points I raise after talking about the Ark itself. He has only tackled the Ark.

"In summary this argument is pure speculation, not scientific."

All my opponent has said is that we don't know what Noah had back then. We can speculate that he had the technology. This is not evidence at all.

"There are numerous stories (over 200) of a worldwide flood found in many different cultures and countries. The account of the flood is told by the Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, Mexicans, Hawaiians, and numerous other countries..."

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.

Flood myths are fairly common worldwide, and if they came from a common source, we should expect similarities in most of them. Instead, the myths show great diversity. [Bailey, 1989, pp. 5-10; Isaak, 1997] For example, people survive on high land or trees in the myths about as often as on boats or rafts, and no other flood myth includes a covenant not to destroy all life again.

http://www.talkorigins.org...

But an explanation for most of the stories can be explained still. Here's where the Tigris and Euphrates rivers come into play. The two waterways that slice through modern day Iraq served as the main thoroughfares for trade at that time, and were the setting for the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh. Because both rivers flood each summer, scholars think that Noah's story may be based on that actual event -- a greater than usual flooding of the Tigris or Euphrates. In fact, archeologists have uncovered evidence of such a great flood in Mesopotamia, dating back to around 2900 B.C., that quickly wiped out a number of Sumerian cities [source: Saggs].

http://history.howstuffworks.com...

"Scientifically speaking we know that there have been mass extinctions of animals in the past..."

Exactly which deposit of extinct animals are you referring to? Animals dying and becoming fossilized isn't something peculiar in history.

"If a global flood occurred we would expect to see massive amounts of oil, natural gas..."

Again, what specific example are you referring to? Because these things are common.

"Enormous Ocean Ridges evidence massive earthquakes and tectonic movement..."

This divergent boundary first formed in the Triassic period when a series of three-armed grabens coalesced on the supercontinent Pangaea to form the ridge. Usually only two arms of any given three-armed graben become part of a divergent plate boundary. The failed arms are called aulacogens, and the aulacogens of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge eventually became many of the large river valleys seen along the Americas and Africa (including the Mississippi River, Amazon River and Niger River).

Nothing about bursting water from the underground. Oh and by the way, I used your own source.

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

Again, I want to bring to the attention to everyone that my opponent has failed to address 3 of my points, so until he resolves everything, you should vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
jmlandf

Pro

If you will notice my opponent started his evidence with this statement "I won't put too much, since there's just TONS of evidence to the contrary"
Quite a lofty claim of TONS, no doubt spelled in all caps. It appears my opponent has resorted to intimidating and dismissive ridicule to anyone who disagrees with him. Does he believe his views are validated by persuasive presentations invoking scientific terminology to a presumed monopoly of scientific knowledge on his part? You be the judge. The flood is a controversy. My only argument in the debate is that it COULD have happened. I understand the enormous social implications for each individual and society if it was proven to have occurred or not to occur. Let me say plain and simple as of right now there is no hard evidence that will prove either side. There is significant circumstantial evidence for every side, mostly speculation. I believe if the flood was proven correct it would be more difficult for those who oppose it to accept. Those who oppose it would have to consider their origins, a God, religion, their sin, etc if the flood was proven. This is obviously something most who oppose it do not wish to confront. Often bible literalist are accused of having bias when looking at the scientific data provided, however I would like to propose that those opposed to a bible literalist also have a bias for it not to be true.

My opponent suggests that I have not addressed 3 of his/her points. Only 2 of my opponents' points were labeled and I addressed them both. The 3rd? Its speculation; there is not enough information to know how the animals were handled or how much technology was available. I can conclude using modern technology we could certainly have tens of thousands of animals on a boat the size of an Ark for much longer than a year. Since we don't know the technology available we can only speculate.

Unfortunately my opponent has claimed false data with out adequate support. My opponent states, "Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time"
This is not true. The oldest living tree, in the 20th century, was 5000 years old. Any tree older than 5000 years old is destroyed, dead, or otherwise. I would ask him to clarify his position.

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

My opponent asked, "Why is there no mention of the Flood in the records of Egyptian or Mesopotamian civilizations which existed at the time?"

My rebuttal is there doesn't need to be evidence in those civilizations. It is simply extraordinary that there are so many flood stories all over the world from ancient people. My opponent asks of one and because that one doesn't have any evidence of a flood does that mean we should discredit the others? Of course not! Also just because we do not see evidence now in those cultures does not mean we will not find some later. This is a mute point. For the record there is substantial evidence reported Mesopotamian Civilizations of some floods. It is important to realize that recorded Egyptian history begins about 3000 BC. Egyptian prehistory was probably very short, with little time passing after the great Flood. Although SOME Egyptian historians consider the prehistorical period to be quite long, this is only supported with unreliable dating systems.

http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_Ark And http://instruct1.cit.cornell.edu...
And http://www.ancientdays.net...

My opponent also uses Mark Isaak as a reference. Mark Isaak has an extremely biased opinion; he has made it a life effort to attack Christianity with unsupported research. While no doubt Mr. Isaak has a large fan base his claims simply are not based on sound rational but rather debatable, theoretical, and speculative scientific opinion.
http://www.douknow.net... AND http://www.trueorigin.org...
Further I have significant questions of Mark Isaaks scientific credentials in chemistry, biology, and geology. He is not regarded by many of his peers or the scientific community to be a leader in any of the fields he speaks on behalf of. I used him as a reference in regard to his acceptance of other flood stories, not for his views in general. I try to use secular refrences.

My opponent has suggested I am referring to Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. I am not. I am simply suggesting that the geology of the Earth and where water was placed several thousand years ago could have been quite different than now. Further we know for a fact that massive amounts of water are under landmasses all over the world, some are theorized to be greater than the oceans masses. It doesn't mean rock "Floats" on water that is intellectually insulting. http://www.eoearth.org... and http://commons.wikimedia.org...
And http://www.highbeam.com...

My opponent has only been able to offer speculation against a global flood. The study of Earths history, scientifically speaking, is not very scientific. You have to make assumptions and then make assumptions about those.

We know what the flood claims to be and somewhat how it claims to have happened.
1.The flood claims to be a catastrophic event that nearly ended all animal, plant, and human life on Earth. The few species to survive did so very narrowly. Example only 8 people.
2. It was on a large ship built out of wood, and we have no idea how much technology was available at the time. We can only speculate. Not here to do that.

I think a worldwide flood offers answers to certain issues debated between geologist. Some have accepted a global flood as the plausible answer.

1.A worldwide flood would create large mountains, hills, and carbon-based products such as oil, natural gas, and coal from the large pressure associated with it. We have evidence of all of these things.

2.A worldwide flood would cause mass extinction of aquatic and land life. We have evidence that such mass extinctions have happened, and not killed everything.

3.A worldwide flood would create TONS of fossilized bones in massive amounts of sedimentary rock. We have evidence of fossils in sedimentary rock all over the world.

4.A worldwide flood would create enormous pressures, which would cause or be caused by massive tectonic movement (earthquakes and volcanic eruption). We have evidence of massive earthquakes and volcanic eruptions in Earths past.

5.If a worldwide flood occurred we would expect numerous past civilizations to make reference to this event in history. We have evidence that most known ancient civilizations, nearly all; have made reference to a worldwide flood of their origins.

6.If a worldwide flood occurred approximately 5000 years ago I would expect that no living tree would be older than 5000 years old, unless it survived under water for a long time. We have evidence that the oldest living tree is under 5000 years old.

I ask you. What would we expect our Earth to be like from a worldwide flood over 5000 years ago? Has it not happened?

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

http://creationwiki.org...

http://www.icr.org...

I would also like to add. There are many respected and degreed Scientist, Geologist, and Biologist that believe in a Global Flood or a Global Flood could have happened. They do so with out sacrificing their intellect. I understand the majority of scientist do not hold to this but there are enough that do. Besides at one time in history a majority of scientist believed the world was flat and some scientist believed in alchemy.
TheSkeptic

Con

I would like to apologize in advance that when I am quoting my opponent's arguments, I have to cut it short off many times due to character limit.

"Quite a lofty claim of TONS, no doubt spelled in all caps. It appears my opponent has resorted to intimidating..."

http://www.talkorigins.org...

"The flood is a controversy."

It has been dismissed by the vast majority of the scientific community. I also find it quite interesting how only Christian scientists support this position. While many people hold the belief there was a worldwide flood, flood geology itself has been unequivocally rejected by mainstream geologists, many of whom consider it a form of pseudoscience. Though at one time even prominent workers in Biblical archaeology were willing to argue support for flood geology, this view is no longer widely held.

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

"Those who oppose it would have to consider their origins, a God, religion, their sin, etc if the flood was proven."

Most atheist's would WANT to see evidence of a God, of a place of eternal happiness after death. But we don't. It's not because we hate god, we just don't believe he exists.

"My opponent suggests that I have not addressed 3 of his/her points. Only 2 of my opponents' points were labeled and I addressed them both. The 3rd? Its speculation..."

=> Also, even if the Ark was made, how could more than a handful of the predator species on the ark have survived, with only two individuals of their prey to eat? All of the predators at the top of the food pyramid require larger numbers of food animals beneath them on the pyramid, which in turn require large numbers of the animals they prey on, and so on, down to the primary producers (plants etc.) at the bottom. And if the predators survived, how did the other animals survive being preyed on?

=> After a flood, how could many species survive with precious habitat destroyed?

=> What about short living animals, like the adult mayflies. They would've died on the Ark in a few days, and the larvae of many mayflies require shallow fresh running water. Many other insects would face similar problems.

My opponent has failed to address these 3 questions I pose if the Flood were to happen. This is a strong reason to vote Con.

"Unfortunately my opponent has claimed false data with out adequate support...The oldest living tree, in the 20th century, was 5000 years old. Any tree older than 5000 years old is destroyed, dead, or otherwise..."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

"My rebuttal is there doesn't need to be evidence in those civilizations. It is simply extraordinary that there are so many flood stories all over the world from ancient people..."

My opponent has made two fatal flaws. First off, it seems that he has not even read my argument. I have shown why many civilizations have stories of flood myths. One, is that it is very common amongst early civilization. The thing is, that many times they are very different, accounts that are not similar. However, for the multiples that are similar, which is most important, this is because they were near the Tigris and Euphrates river. I have already posted this argument, and he has not refuted it. Another reason for voting Con.

In the case of Egypt, they show now inscriptions of the Biblical flood, even though they have writings around 300 years before it happened. I have already posted this argument, and my opponent's only rebuttal is that just because one doesn't show, doesn't mean it discounts all the other ones.

So now, I have shown evidence of Egypt never recording it (Egypt is an archaeology favorite) and of why the other civilizations have a flood in their history, vote Con.

"My opponent also uses Mark Isaak as a reference. Mark Isaak has an extremely biased opinion; he has made it a life effort to attack Christianity with unsupported research..."

My opponent uses obviously biased Christian sites most of the time. Mark Isaak has references in his page, so they are not unsupported.

"My opponent has suggested I am referring to Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory. I am not. I am simply suggesting that the geology of the Earth and where water was placed several thousand years ago could have been quite different than now..."

Perhaps my opponent isn't using Walt Brown's Hydroplate theory, but his own is close enough. True, there are underwater water reservoirs. However, enough to cover the entire world to the highest peak? For such an amount, tons of water would have to be underground. We would find tons of evidence for such bursts of water. He has failed to refute three of my counterarguments. If as my opponent suggests that a worldwide flood happened from underground water, we would have to see multiple poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits.

"My opponent has only been able to offer speculation against a global flood. The study of Earths history, scientifically speaking, is not very scientific. You have to make assumptions and then make assumptions about those."

I would like to point out to all readers that many times, my opponent has stated that we do not know what the condition of the Earth was like. He has stated that geology is not every scientific. Ouch, he's gonna need major ammo to back that statement up. Oh wait, he hasn't.

"A worldwide flood would create large mountains, hills, and carbon-based products such as oil, natural gas, and coal from the large pressure associated with it. We have evidence of all of these things."

The fossils and sedimentary rocks were formed quickly during the flood. Fossil-containing rocks which are closer to the surface will contain generally larger animals of all the species that have ever lived, while the deeper rocks will tend to contain more smaller species of animals. That is because the smaller animals would presumably drown first with the rising water level, while larger animals could survive longer before dying, and travel further from the rising flood waters. But there would be the occasional fossil from a large animal mixed in with the smaller animals deep in the fossil record. Remains of ground-hugging plants would tend to be in the deepest layers of rocks; larger trees would be in rocks closer to the surface. But there would be the occasional fossils of a fallen tree that would be trapped in a deep layer of sedimentary rock among "ground-huggers".

In addition, as you excavated through layers of rock, you would occasionally discover signs of human habitation at the bottom layer -- cities, towns,villages, cornerstones, etc. -- which were covered first by the flood. Scientists would find shaped rocks that were once part of buildings; remains of campfires; fabricated tools; fabricated timbers, graves, corner stones, etc. at the bottom of the fossil record.

http://www.religioustolerance.org...

"A worldwide flood would cause mass extinction of aquatic and land life...."

Refer to my previous argument. Things in the fossil record would be out of order if a massive flood happened. But we have seen it to be consistent.

"A worldwide flood would create TONS of fossilized bones in massive amounts of sedimentary rock...."

Again, refer to my previous argument.

"A worldwide flood would create enormous pressures, which would cause or be caused by massive tectonic movement..."

A flooding causing volcano eruptions and earthquakes?

"If a worldwide flood occurred we would expect numerous past civilizations to make reference to this event in history..."

Refer to my previous argument.

"If a worldwide flood occurred approximately 5000 years ago I would expect that no living tree would be older than 5000 years old..."

Refer to my previous argument.

My opponent has failed to refute three of my arguments. His major argument is that we don't know Earth's history, but only can speculate. Um, we have geology.
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by iamld 7 years ago
iamld
Also, while I am here, I have a question? If the adherence to the NIV Translation was so important, why were there no scripture references quoted directly within your arguments?
Posted by iamld 7 years ago
iamld
I would also be very cautious about your wording of the initial statement...

The literal translation, and the NIV version of the Bible do not coincide. The NIV is a dynamic translation, not a literal. It establishes the right meaning of the translation, but it is not worded literal. So be cautious when using that description.
Posted by Giraffe 8 years ago
Giraffe
CogitoErgoCogitoSum,
There is no such thing as creation science. If you do not understand that science deals only with the natural world and makes no claims whatsoever about the supernatural, i.e. a creator, then you should be very careful making such sweeping statements. It is not a matter of close mindedness, but of definition.
Posted by Giraffe 8 years ago
Giraffe
Ragnar-Rahl,
My mistake. I meant to say one cannot prove a negative. As an example, it is, to my knowledge impossible to prove the is NO teacup orbiting the sun. You are of course correct that proving a positive, disproves the negative. As to rules of debate, my debating team was required to follow strict rules, among them was to never demand your opponent "prove" that teacup doesn't exist.
Posted by CogitoErgoCogitoSum 8 years ago
CogitoErgoCogitoSum
I dont know how literally to take Genesis, but I do believe a world wide flood did occur. If you look at creation sciences, study culture and anthropology and myth, or linguistic etymology, all hint at a time of a great flood.

I need not cite evidence because anyone with an open-mind and a desire for unbiased knowledge can easily look up countless examples through google.com on a moments notice. So, happy learning, or happy close-mindedness... Good day
Posted by Ragnar_Rahl 8 years ago
Ragnar_Rahl
Why? He didn't say it was a zhevra, he said it was a unicorn, implying, assuming no further context, it is the stereotypical unicorn variety, which is not, to my knowledge, found in WoW.

"
I'm sorry sir, but the rules of debating and the rules of logic state that one can never disprove a negative"

Debating has no rules. And, logically, if you have proven a positive, you have disproven the corresponding negative. One of the most important rules of logic, the law of non-contradiction, brings this about. Therefore, wrong :D.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
I'd tell you to stop playing WoW.
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
What if I told you I saw a unicorn?
Posted by Giraffe 8 years ago
Giraffe
I'm sorry sir, but the rules of debating and the rules of logic state that one can never disprove a negative. You're debate is null and void.
Posted by jmlandf 8 years ago
jmlandf
Just so you know the Skeptic originally posted this debate and it was ruined by an 11 year old. I simply reposted for the Skeptic to have a better debate. The resolution and such was only slightly changed.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by chicarica89 6 years ago
chicarica89
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by iamld 7 years ago
iamld
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by EnLi 8 years ago
EnLi
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
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 
Vote Placed by Marader 8 years ago
Marader
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Paramountdesktop 8 years ago
Paramountdesktop
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Stereoprism 8 years ago
Stereoprism
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by DoctrinallyCorrect 8 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
jmlandfTheSkepticTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70