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

The story of Noah's Ark is false.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,056 times Debate No: 84400
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)




There is no way to get animals from around the world to all collect in 1 location at the same time, without force, AND in male/female pairs.

The Ark would not have been nearly large enough to house said animals.

You could not have prevented the animals from eating or fighting with each other.

There would have been no where to put food, water, or animal feces.

There is no sign that a flood of that scale ever took place.

How would certain animals (kangaroos, penguins) make the journey to the ark?

How did all the plant life on earth survive such a flood?

There is no sign of the Ark's remains anywhere.


To Address the Number of Animals:

The idea that Noah supposedly put a male and female of every SPECIES onto the ark is a misconception. Noah did not put two of each animal SPECIES; he had two of each KIND. 'Kind' in the Bible refers to a concept similar to the Family classification.

To Address the Size of the Ark and Control of Animals:

Since Noah did not have two of each species on the ark, the ark would not have to be as big. However, the ark was still an enormous boat. The ark was as long as four and a half football fields. It also had three decks inside. (Genesis 6:15-16)
Someone attempting to have this many animals on board would have planned for such things and created food storage and different areas. Also, consider the fact that this ark took years to build. In that time, Noah could have put in sufficient space and supplies.

To Address the Survival of Plants:

All living things outside of the earth died. Plants were included.

To Address the "Lack of Evidence" for a Global Flood:

How do you explain the fish fossils on the tops of mountains? How do you explain a layer of clay found by archaeologists that was miles thick? What about land forms such as the Grand Canyon? Certainly evolution could explain these things - until you delve deeper into what evolution actually is, and what it is claiming as fact.

To Address the Ark's Remains:

The ark was said to have landed on the top of a mountain. Anyone with any kind of science experience knows that the top of a mountain is constantly exposed to the elements. The ark could have been destroyed entirely by the wind and weather, or broken up and scattered.

To Address the Foreign Animals:

Are you familiar with Pangaea? The idea that the earth was once one piece of land in the center is true. It was such before the flood. With the combination of the floodwaters and plate tectonics, the earth was eventually split into the continents we are familiar with now. Because the earth was all one piece, getting the animals would not have been as difficult as it may seem.

To Address Skepticism:

You are coming from an atheist's point of view. I can understand that. You are saying that this is impossible, and you are right. It is impossible without God. By saying that there is no way to gather the animals in one place without force, by stating that there was no way to keep the animals from fighting or eating each other, you are addressing human limitation. Humans have limitations for a reason. Because of these limitations, we should look to God who does not have limitations.
One can also infer that God would help with the obtaining and management of the animals since he commanded Noah to do this.

In conclusion, the deluge known as the Flood may seem ridiculous to someone approaching the argument with no God in mind. The prospect of an old man building a boat to save the animals may seem like a risible fairy tale to some. However, if one examines the available evidence, he may that it is not as far-fetched as it may seem. Many events in the Bible can be explained by "natural causes", and if God created the earth, would it not make sense for him to use things that he created?

With that being said:
In order to properly debate this topic, one would have to determine without a doubt the existence of God.

*Side note: you would typically have to be a geologist or an archaeologist to find most of the evidence for the Global Flood*


The Bible

Answers in Genesis
Debate Round No. 1


So there would have been roughly 7,000 Kinds as you put it. Which means there still would have been a little over 14,000 passengers on boat.

Noah's Ark was more than 500ft. long and yes presumably would have had multiple levels to it. But the largest wooden ship in recorded history was the Wyoming that measured just over 400ft. long. That ship, which was built by skilled shipwrights, was twisted apart in heavy seas and didn't stand a chance at surviving in such conditions.

Somehow though you believe an unskilled family could have built a better and bigger boat that somehow managed to safely run aground on top of a mountain?

This doesn't make sense to me. Nor should it to you.

As to the plant life:

The Flood was said to take place in 2348 BC, or 4,362 years ago.

This however conflicts with many different findings including at least 3 specifically verified trees that are said to be older than that.

Example 1: Name: Prometheus
Location: Wheeler Peak, Nevada, United States
Age (when cutdown in 1964): 4,844 years old

Example 2: Name: Methuselah
Location: Inyo County, California, United States
Age: 4,847 years old

Example 3: Name: Not Named
Location: White Mountains, California, United States
Age: 5,065 years old

There are many more verified trees aging to 3,000 + years as well. Which would have been difficult for them to begin growing that early after the flood.

Also just a side note. Where did all the water go after the flood?

There are also many trees and colonies of trees with estimated ages ranging from 2,000 to 5,000+ years old as well.

Here's the really weird part. There are Clonal tree colonies (having no individual part being alive currently metabolically speaking) that have ages ranging from 3,000 years old to 1,000,000 years old.

That sounds ridiculous i know. But individual trees are not surviving for that long, but the colonies they are a part of are. Meaning these things have been around consistently for a VERY long time, and either somehow were unaffected by the flood that lasted a year, OR didn't see a flood take place anywhere near them.

If you need reassurance just google clonal trees or look up a list of the oldest known trees.

As for your claim of fish fossils on mountain tops:

Have you ever stopped and thought, or researched how mountains form in the first place?

Mountains were not always mountains.

They are "the result of plate tectonics, where compressional forces, isostatic uplift and intrusion of igneous matter forces surface rock upward, creating a landform higher than the surrounding features."

This means that many mountain tops used to be under water anyway, and in the process of being formed killed or stranded different species of aquatic life that then died and fossilized on top of said mountains.

There was no need for a great flood in order for fish fossils to be found on top of mountains.

Grand Canyon:

If the Grand Canyon was caused by the great flood then why aren't there great canyons all around the world just like the one in Arizona?

Also it takes a VERY long time for different sediments to turn to stone.

If you look at the Grand Canyon you can see layer upon layer of ancient rock. If there had been a flood there would have been churning and bubbling and great movements of such sediments which would have mixed them all up leading to them settling and turning to rock in a very random way.

You also will find a ton of fossils in a place like the Grand Canyon. Both at high levels and lower levels. But you never find a higher species mixed in with a lower species or vice versa.

The species that lived at the same time died and fossilized in the same general time, and in turn fossilized in the same "levels" of rock you find as mentioned above. If there had been a flood then many of those things would have been mixed in together, died together and found as fossils in the same level of the rock.

Again you will not find 1 instance in the world where this is false. If you do you will change the science community forever.


Pangaea existed 300 to 175 million years ago FAR before 2348 BC.

But even if there were some kind of a land bridge that somehow completely disappeared there are still more unanswered questions.

Beyond the question of how Kangaroos got to Australia and Penguins got to Antarctica, there are also the questions of why they didn't settle anywhere in between. Some of the animals would have naturally died making such a journey as well. Are we to believe that they somehow picked up all the remains of there fellow kind and brought them along for the trip.

There should be kangaroo remains of some sort anywhere between the middle east and Australia. The same argument can be used for mostly all the other species or kinds post flood.

Why did the Penguins never go to the Arctic? Why only the Antarctic? Why didn't they settle somewhere else? They obviously had no problem with the climate or weather conditions since they had been away from the cold for so long.

Again replace these animals with any other and repeat.

The Story just doesn't make sense from any way you approach it. The only possible "solution" is to say it was all the work of god and his magical powers.

I'm not here to debate the existence of God although i can say that i have before and said debates always come down to whether or not a person has "faith" or not.

I clearly do not.


There are really only two major factors that affect the credibility of this story.

1) Whether or not God is real
If God is real, then He could have easily helped Noah to do what He commanded. If God is real, He could have sent certain animals TO Noah directly.

2) How reliable are the methods for determining the age of the earth and objects on it?
Are radioisotope dating and carbon dating really as reliable as they are made out to be?

Then the third and less significant question:
How reliable is the information from the scientists? Is it automatically true because it is printed in textbooks?

This is truly an argument of great futility, given the fact that neither side can find significant evidence to appease the other. I will respectfully forfeit this debate, not only because I recognize the futility of this argument, but also because I don't have time to come back to this. Before I close, I would encourage you to read this article regarding Noah's Ark and the Global Flood:

And I close:
This has gone to many different places other than the original argument, and I am noticing that it has gone across the many subjects related to debates of biblical credibility and the existence of God, thus becoming little more than multiple people pitted against each other - and what for? If you're only doing this to get the voting privilege, then you can have this one. You may think what you wish. I am not quitting; I merely forfeit. I'd love to continue this argument, but I honestly do not have time. It seems that there's more of a debate going on in the comments. This has aroused quite a bit of contempt and misunderstanding, as is common in any argument on these subjects.

Congratulations, and enjoy your victory... although it probably is not worth much seeing that I'm only 13.

Thank you for the opportunity to try at least.
Debate Round No. 2


1. I don't thin god being real actually needs to affect this debate. You can believe in a god and not the stories of the bible. Simple as that.

IF god is real and did flood the entire earth i would deem that an unforgivable genocide, and wouldn't worship said god anyway.

That's not to mention all of the other atrocities he would have either committed or done nothing to prevent.

But again that's another months worth of typing i as well don't have time to do.

2. The methods for determining age of the earth and even for the age of the universe are very reliable yes. It amazies me that people can believe some there is no evidence for at all but refuse to believe something that does in deed have a vast amount of evidence to back it.

The only reason people don't believe these facts are because they conflict with a belief they already hold, which (no offense) is the definition of idiocy.

No scientists don't have all the answers but they have FAR more answers than any religion has ever put forward.

Have you ever stopped and thought about the fact most of these religions never change what their positions on various topics are? If they do it's because there is so much evidence that goes against what they had thought they eventually change their position because none of the followers thought the same way as them anymore.

There's a reason we don't believe in sun gods and rain gods like the native americans. There's a reason we don't believe in Zeus and Thor, and Jupitor and all of the other thousands of gods that man have made up over our lifetime.

You are an atheist in respect to every god ever with the exception of one. As Richard Dawkins said "We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."

Scientists are always challenging what we believe and what we believe to know. Science is always evolving and uncovering more and more and more.

So yes Scientists are very reliable. It's literally there job to reliable. They are the people who spend their lives triying to understand things some of us might never be able to. The important thing is that they don't just say "we figured this out so that's how it is". They provide us with evidence and walk us through the hypotheses and try and make it so we can understand, all we have to do is make the effort to do so.

And of course something isn't automatically true if it is printed in a book. That is literally the argument against the bible and the other holy books.

In fact it has nothing to do with truth. The truth could be painted on a wall in a cave for all we know.

My goal as an atheist and "intellectual" as it i supposes explains it best, is to educate people and get rid of ignorance wherever possible.

I refuted every claim you made about Noah's Ark and hopefully brought some new information to you. You therefore can now choose to be ignorant of said information, OR you can look into it. Study it. Research it. Try and understand it.

That's up to you, i can't make you or anyone else do that. All i can do is bring the information to you and hope you and others utilize it.

You said neither side can find significant evidence to appease the other. But that's the thing. You didn't provide any evidence, no one has. It is simply accepted that god did it, and that's that.

I brought a ton of information and could grab EVEN more if need be. It is very unfortunate that so many people can see a fact and choose the invisible delusion of their religion over said fact.

The Article you posted can be refuted here

If your interested.

I want to point out that many people believe in a god and do not believe any of the ridiculous stories of the bible. Nor should they. You can believe in god without believing ridiculous or ill informed things as well.

I obviously recommend atheism to anyone who hasn't thought about it previously, but i would also suggest looking into Deism as well. There is still a believe in god there so maybe that would be more beneficial to you and your life.

I'm glad to here that a 13 year old is on a site like this. Keep at it and if you want to become better at debating i also suggest reddit and any of the religion/atheism/politics sub reedits on there.

If you wish to continue in any respect be my guess otherwise i can only wish you well.


lee-tori-hurricane forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by electrivire 2 years ago

I would love to debate god's existence with you.
Posted by Passionate_Fighter 2 years ago
Little Children,

How did God create the world?
Was it not only with a command.

So if God could create the world by just commanding; "Let there be light!" - then what could be hard for God to take care of Noah in the ark?

[God also said:

Let the boat not flow out of land but towards land.
Let the flood waters recede. (though he did send the wind (as in spirit, - holy spirit) if you read the scriptures).
etc. etc. etc.]

Posted by allansthunder 2 years ago
"If it really came down to it, I'd rather believe in God and be wrong about that than not believe in God and be wrong."

This is basically exactly what i was trying to say i do not understand why you would disagree
Posted by allansthunder 2 years ago
I do not understand how you got that from my comments. Where did I say i do not believe in god and that the biblical stories never happened? I never said that! And i in fact am religious if you must know.

Yes, it is more important for someone to be happy than be in the know. Surely you believe in the story of the garden of eden, correct? Well, in the story of the garden of eden, adam eats from the tree of knowledge and gains knowledge. This gaining of knowledge is looked at as a punishment. See, man didnt gain knowledge and then get a separate punishment for it. The knowledge WAS the punishment. All suffering comes from knowing that one is suffering. If one does not know they do not suffer.
Posted by electrivire 2 years ago
Lee i'm debating the noah's ark issue because i need 3 debates for voting privilege and it seemed like a good one to pick.

Also i've been told by many believers that everyone gets a chance to come to god before they die, so if that's the case and i see god i will of course join him in heaven.

But that's not likely and i fully assume there is nothing after you die.

Again i'm not here to debate these issues, if you want we can start another debate pertaining to whatever it you like.

For now lets continue this one.
Posted by Trarc 2 years ago
This faithful man easily disproves your claims
Posted by lee-tori-hurricane 2 years ago
That's all interesting, but you still have not explained HOW the layout and complex systems could have come about.

And, another thing:

If God is not real, why do you bother debating the issue? Why is it so important to convince and maintain that He is not real? Finally, if it came down to a choice, which would you rather be wrong about? Would you rather die believing in God, finding out that he isn't real, and have nothing happen? Would you rather die not believing in God, finding out he is real, and burning forever?

If it really came down to it, I'd rather believe in God and be wrong about that than not believe in God and be wrong.
Posted by electrivire 2 years ago

Skip to 3:00 if you don't want to see the dissection.
Posted by lee-tori-hurricane 2 years ago
An example of an unintelligent choice made would help that argument.
Posted by electrivire 2 years ago
allansthunder: Yes unfortunately some people are content with living in ignorance.

lee-tori-hurricane: Everything could and very possibly has happened without the involvement of any god or deity.

Life on this planet was certainly not designed or at least not without MANY unintelligent choices made by the designer. The same can be said for planets and solar systems and the universe.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by TheKryken 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit
Vote Placed by moneystacker 2 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: God works in irrational ways therefore I feel like con should have used an irrational argument. You don't need statistics to defend God. But because you tried to defend the argument that Noah's ark is real with science kind yeah couldn't give you all the votes.
Vote Placed by RarityIsReady 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's FF, and Pro's argument was more convincing.