The Instigator
jhenley9111
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Christopher_MS
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

The story of Noah's Ark most likely never happend

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
jhenley9111
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 744 times Debate No: 45296
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (1)

 

jhenley9111

Pro

1. The ark was simply not large enough. The book of Genesis clearly states that Noah was commanded to built an ark of gopher wood, smeared inside and out with pitch, with three decks and internal compartments; it will be 300 cubits long (137.16 m, 450 ft), 50 wide (22.86 m, 75 ft), and 30 high (13.716 m, 45 ft); it will have a roof "finished to a cubit upward", and an entrance on the side. That is not enough room to fit every animal on this boat.

2. None of the sea life would have survived the great flood. There would be salt water mixing with fresh, Ph levels would be crazy, and sea pressure would kill most life in the ocean.

3.There scientifically had to be more than two of each species or else there would be server genetic defects. There has to be at least 50 of one species to hold a stable population.

4. There would be no food for the animals once they got off. The herbivores would have no vegetation to eat and the carnivores could not eat anything either. If they did, an entire species would go extinct.

references:

^ Hamilton 1990, p. 279.
Jump up ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 280-282.
^ Jump up to: a b Gooder 2005, p. 38.
^ Jump up to: a b Knight 1990, p. 175-176.
Jump up ^ Kessler & Deurloo 2004, p. 81.
Jump up ^ Bandstra 2009, p. 61, 62.
Jump up ^ Bottero (2001:21"22)
Jump up ^ Hamilton 1990, p. 282.
Jump up ^ McKeown 2008, p. 55.
Jump up ^ Avigdor Nebenzahl, Tiku Bachodesh Shofer: Thoughts for Rosh Hashanah, Feldheim Publishers, 1997, p.208

Noah's Ark found? Not so fast
Latest Ark finding is a fake
Flood of claims for 'Noah's Ark'
Dictionary of the Bible
Wright, George Henry Bateson. Was Israel ever in Egypt? London: Williams & Norgate, 1895.

A friend dared me to create this debate. I happily agreed. I look forward to my opponent's opening arguments. Best of luck.
Christopher_MS

Con

I believe that the first chapters of bible such as genesis and Exodus are chiefly metaphorical and that God does most things through a natural way not just plopping it into reality. So I think that his might be the answer to your theory about Noah arl, that it was all just a big metaphor or exaggerated. Remember before it was written the bible was passed down orally so many facts could be changed.
Debate Round No. 1
jhenley9111

Pro

"I believe that the first chapters of bible such as genesis and Exodus are chiefly metaphorical and that God does most things through a natural way not just plopping it into reality. So I think that his might be the answer to your theory about Noah arl, that it was all just a big metaphor or exaggerated. Remember before it was written the bible was passed down orally so many facts could be changed."

I already understand this. You should be arguing why you think the story is true. Or else why did you challenge me?
Christopher_MS

Con

Things are not always in black and white, I opposed you agreed woth your main point and wanted to give you an answer
Debate Round No. 2
jhenley9111

Pro

So you don't believe in the story, correct? And I would like to point out that your use of grammar could be peer reviewed.
Christopher_MS

Con

Christopher_MS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
jhenley9111

Pro

You don't want to debate?
Christopher_MS

Con

Christopher_MS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
jhenley9111

Pro

Why you no argue?
Christopher_MS

Con

Christopher_MS forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anonymiss 3 years ago
anonymiss
Great idea for a debate that could have many interesting points had your challenger understood the purpose.
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
Posted by ian30little 3 years ago
ian30little
swag guys its all about the swag
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by badbob 3 years ago
badbob
jhenley9111Christopher_MSTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Points to Pro for conduct because con did not debate the issue he was supposed to and he forfeited. Source are a tie because I did not see any actual sources mentioned. Arguments go to Pro because he was the only one who really made an argument. It could have been an interesting topic to debate. Oh well.